Military pension
Just to change the subject slightly, but as someone originally from overseas, Ive never understood why the UK provides free healthcare for it's citizens and anyone else within the Western world.
To achieve this, the UK pours hundreds of billions into employing over a million people, maintaining hospitals and buying cutting edge equipment.
The point is, the NHS isn't free. It sucks up most of the tax revenues of this country.
I see a need to provide a free service for the elderly and low income households, but that aside, private healthcare would be far better run and at much less cost to the taxpayer (a residual premium for those mentioned above). The choice of providers would ensure efficiency and premiums would probably be less than the proportion of your tax allocated presently.
The rest of the world manage it, why is the NHS a sacred cow here?
To achieve this, the UK pours hundreds of billions into employing over a million people, maintaining hospitals and buying cutting edge equipment.
The point is, the NHS isn't free. It sucks up most of the tax revenues of this country.
I see a need to provide a free service for the elderly and low income households, but that aside, private healthcare would be far better run and at much less cost to the taxpayer (a residual premium for those mentioned above). The choice of providers would ensure efficiency and premiums would probably be less than the proportion of your tax allocated presently.
The rest of the world manage it, why is the NHS a sacred cow here?
Good point. As a taxpayer who also pays from his military pension for BUPAcare, why the heck aren't BUPA fees allowable against tax? I'm taking the pressure off the National Patching Up Pissed Chavs Service, so why should I effectively pay twice?
While we're at it, let's have compulsory abortions for pregnant underage schoolkids.
While we're at it, let's have compulsory abortions for pregnant underage schoolkids.
your Service before age 21 would count if you were on AFPS 2005 rather than the old version.
. Still if that iniquitous system has changed, then at least that's something.
Interestingly the armed forces have a 'non-contributory' scheme.
I watched the Osbourn / Marr interview yesterday and he said that pensions would have 'accrued rights' -so what has gone before the arbitrary line in the sand (Budget onwards) would be extant. I think they have to go to the courts to change the scheme on those already signed up. I would bet that pensions to those joining now though will be nothing like AFPS75 or even 05.
PN said:
I assume you meant 60% for civil servants, PN? Mrs Golf is on an 80th scheme, so would need 40 years in to get 50%. Same with me, a teacher.
CG
One thing that should be brought out more is the pension proportions: civil servants 600 whereas Military is much less, can't remember the exact figure but nearer 50%.
CG
...a scam which severely disadvantages those who only serve a few years...
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Hook, Hants
Age: 68
Posts: 286
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Beags - sounds like your dander is well and truly up today. Would you like one of my T-shirts emblazoned with "Bring back evolution - Don't waste my taxes keeping fat smokers alive".......woops PC caption inbound
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: @exRAF_Al
Posts: 3,297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tankertrash,
The Commutation provisions allowed AFPS 75 scheme members who left at or after the Immediate Pension point, but before age 55, to have an additional tax-free lump sum equal to the Terminal Grant (TG) they received and the TG they could have received if they had served for a full career. The full career envisaged was 34 years for an officer and as much as 37 years for an OR - hence the 3 year differential you mention.
The size of the lump sum is/was limited so that the recovery does not take the pension below 50% of its original value (it cannot reduce anyway, once in payment) or breach the HMRC 25% pension commencement lump sum rules. Breaching those rules would have incurred a crippling tax charge, so, the Reg was a legislative one as much as anything, and one probably intended to save you money and a world of pain.
The Commutation provisions allowed AFPS 75 scheme members who left at or after the Immediate Pension point, but before age 55, to have an additional tax-free lump sum equal to the Terminal Grant (TG) they received and the TG they could have received if they had served for a full career. The full career envisaged was 34 years for an officer and as much as 37 years for an OR - hence the 3 year differential you mention.
The size of the lump sum is/was limited so that the recovery does not take the pension below 50% of its original value (it cannot reduce anyway, once in payment) or breach the HMRC 25% pension commencement lump sum rules. Breaching those rules would have incurred a crippling tax charge, so, the Reg was a legislative one as much as anything, and one probably intended to save you money and a world of pain.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Losing your pension input, invisible in the Forces, was not solely the province of the Forces. Mrs PN has lst her pension input more than once. In one NHS job they sent her a cheque for £21/- being her contribution at the time - no choice.
As far as nurses are concerned the NHS is anything but National.
As far as nurses are concerned the NHS is anything but National.
Did anyone see the bit in the Budget - public sector pensions to rise by CPI rather than RPI? That is a cut: still index-linked, but a different and almost always lower one 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Swamp
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My leaflet explaining the benefits of the 75 pension scheme specifically states that increases in pension are calculated by using the September RPI that is applied in the following April. Historically, RPI is well above CPI (roughly by 2%). I suppose we can expect an amendment to the leaflet soon changing the index from RPI to CPI.
If my dodgy maths is correct, at the end of a 20 year retirement timescale we will all become approximately 40% worse off because of this change in the small print!!!
I am afraid that we have just been mugged by those political bar-stewards.
Best wishes from grumpy FOD
If my dodgy maths is correct, at the end of a 20 year retirement timescale we will all become approximately 40% worse off because of this change in the small print!!!
I am afraid that we have just been mugged by those political bar-stewards.
Best wishes from grumpy FOD
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Swamp
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My copy of the AFPS 75 guide leaflet starts with a preamble stating that the document itself carries no legal basis to pension rights - the reference documents are the "prerogative instruments." (whatever they are!) If the prerogative instuments refer to RPI then so much the better. However, I suspect that they will carry a more general phrase referring to pensions being index linked or inflation proof, thereby allowing the govt to switch from RPI to CPI. I hope I am wrong, but am sure that the Forces Pension Society will be on the case ASAP.
F.O.D
F.O.D
Would you like one of my T-shirts emblazoned with "Bring back evolution - Don't waste my taxes keeping fat smokers alive".......
But if you've got a T-shirt emblazoned with "Boil all drug dealers to death in a vat of their own excrement", I might be interested!
Why on earth there are any 'child welfare' payments available to the Vicky Pollards of this world who can't keep their legs together after one wine gum and who, as a result, populate the nation with the spawn of their 90 seconds of passion with some spotty chav in a Burberry hat up against the gasworks wall, I do not know.
the reference documents are the "prerogative instruments." (whatever they are!)
Otherwise, PM Al R - Im sure he will explain.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: The World
Posts: 86
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Beags, and another thing from the budget....
Probably with a bunch of pregnant 14-year-olds under the expensive tax-payer funded roof
Today there are some families receiving £104,000 a year in housing benefit.