Armed Forces Pension Increase April 2012
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: @exRAF_Al
Posts: 3,297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IDS's plans in the Queen's Speech to allow 6 months paid paternity leave might set the cat amongst the pigeons, as will the £155 a week flat rate (from 2020) which will help those who have stayed at home to raise children. But if I was currently in my late 50's or already retired, I might be a bit annoyed at all those additional S2P contributions counting for nothing. AFPS is by default, a contracted out scheme and the member and the employer pay a lower rate of National Insurance contributions - wot, no refund? 
For general info, the Queen also confirmed the intention to raise the state pension age from 66 to 67 between 2026 and 2028. Bugger.
For general info, the Queen also confirmed the intention to raise the state pension age from 66 to 67 between 2026 and 2028. Bugger.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: England
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Count yourselves lucky you're not a police officer. Annual inflation pay freeze until Sep 13; previous annnual incremental pay rise (retention) frozen until Apr 14 - and then awarded only every 2 years; pension contributions increasing to 10.5%; and moving to career average from final salary - for all officers including those on the previous schemes. This makes the police pension sheme the most costly to contributors throughout the public sector. More than teachers, NHS staff, forces personnel firefighters etc...
Most police officers will have had no increase in annual pay for 4 years. This, when the private sector are seeing an average 3% rise this year. Cheers to Dave 'we're all in this together' Cameron.
My worry is, once Afghan is wound down and BFG is slimmed up, we're in for more savage cuts and breaches of the 'convenant'...stand by...
Most police officers will have had no increase in annual pay for 4 years. This, when the private sector are seeing an average 3% rise this year. Cheers to Dave 'we're all in this together' Cameron.
My worry is, once Afghan is wound down and BFG is slimmed up, we're in for more savage cuts and breaches of the 'convenant'...stand by...
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: uk
Posts: 419
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Police pension,
For the sake of balance and to put a myth to bed, police employers contribute 23% to that pension, and for the last 10 of the 30 years service, the employer doubles the contribution, effectively giving an officer 40 years worth of pension and gratuity for 30 years served.
I work amongst them and those in their last 10 years are pretty much only doing it for the pension at 50. Police staff pay 10.2 % contribution, the employer pays 13% and no gratuity and a retirement age of 65.
For the sake of balance and to put a myth to bed, police employers contribute 23% to that pension, and for the last 10 of the 30 years service, the employer doubles the contribution, effectively giving an officer 40 years worth of pension and gratuity for 30 years served.
I work amongst them and those in their last 10 years are pretty much only doing it for the pension at 50. Police staff pay 10.2 % contribution, the employer pays 13% and no gratuity and a retirement age of 65.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: England
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Art, what myth are you putting to bed? I'm simply stating that police pay the highest contributions to their pension of all public sector employees; on a thread about RAF pensions, to which forces personnel do not contribute...a comparison, if you will, of how green some grass can be...
El Presidente
After 33 years, I think I get less than 50% of salary having also had my pay awards abated each year as my contribution. What level of pension do Police Officers receive? I thought I had read somewhere it is 66%+
After 33 years, I think I get less than 50% of salary having also had my pay awards abated each year as my contribution. What level of pension do Police Officers receive? I thought I had read somewhere it is 66%+
Last edited by rarelyathome; 14th May 2012 at 10:29.
As usual, Al R, well said Sir. 
In fact the Armed Forces Benefits Calculator is quick to crow about our pensions...
LJ
In fact the Armed Forces Benefits Calculator is quick to crow about our pensions...
The Armed Forces Pension Scheme is a non-contributory pension scheme; this figure, therefore, provides you with an indication of the amount of money the MoD contributes annually on your behalf towards your pension. The value quoted is based on SCAPE rates, which are routinely valued by the Government Actuary’s Department. However, this figure is illustrative only, and does not represent the value accruing to your pension. SCAPE rates represent the amount the MOD contributes per person for the total cost of Armed Forces pensions, not the amount payable to individuals.
If you wish to calculate how much your annual pension might be worth in terms of income, you may wish to visit the Armed Forces Pension Calculator, or if you would like to gain an idea of what a pension might cost in the private sector, you may wish to visit the Consumer Financial Education Body (CFEB) Pension Calculator.
If you wish to calculate how much your annual pension might be worth in terms of income, you may wish to visit the Armed Forces Pension Calculator, or if you would like to gain an idea of what a pension might cost in the private sector, you may wish to visit the Consumer Financial Education Body (CFEB) Pension Calculator.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: England
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Al-R, I know, I have one...and still felt well renumerated after I had a couple of years service under my belt.
Don't get me wrong here, I'm not knocking anyone...I'm just saying understand what you're getting and do the maths before you start hopping over the fence.
The old police pension is based on 1⁄60th of your average pensionable pay for each year of pensionable service up to 20 years, and 2⁄60ths of your average pensionable pay for each year over 20 years, up to a maximum of 40⁄60ths. Officers will pay 12.75% for this now.
The newer scheme, NPPS, is based on 1/70th of your final pensionable pay for each year of pensionable service up to a maximum of 35/70ths. Contributions of 10.5% by employee.
Don't get me wrong here, I'm not knocking anyone...I'm just saying understand what you're getting and do the maths before you start hopping over the fence.
The old police pension is based on 1⁄60th of your average pensionable pay for each year of pensionable service up to 20 years, and 2⁄60ths of your average pensionable pay for each year over 20 years, up to a maximum of 40⁄60ths. Officers will pay 12.75% for this now.
The newer scheme, NPPS, is based on 1/70th of your final pensionable pay for each year of pensionable service up to a maximum of 35/70ths. Contributions of 10.5% by employee.
- I got what you were saying.Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Midlands
Age: 55
Posts: 181
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just for accuracy. Police pension will be rising to 14.2% of gross wage. Officers will now have to work till 60 (which will be fun fighting with 18 year old feral chavs). From 2015 the old pension scheme is being closed and a vastly inferior one put in it's place. Significantly more years,paying significantly more money for far, far less.
Surprisingly and despite what Cameron and the Daily Mail state, they do not retire at 23years old with a £500'000 payout.
I wish I'd stayed in the mob. I'd have completed my 22 years and be living very nicely thank you. As it is, my pay, terms of service, length of service have all been decimated by a Prime Minister who has every intention of privatising every aspect of the Police he can. That nice man Tom Winsor, who has recommended this privatisiation, just happens to be a partner in a law firm that advises G4S on bidding for.....privatised Police work.
Cameron wants to reduce Police numbers from 135'000 to 80'000. He treats his protection officers with complete contempt. I have voted Conservative at every election since I was 18. Never, ever again. In fact, I can't see anybody that doesn't have the aim of ensuring Politicians trough remains full at the expense of everyone else.
Surprisingly and despite what Cameron and the Daily Mail state, they do not retire at 23years old with a £500'000 payout.
I wish I'd stayed in the mob. I'd have completed my 22 years and be living very nicely thank you. As it is, my pay, terms of service, length of service have all been decimated by a Prime Minister who has every intention of privatising every aspect of the Police he can. That nice man Tom Winsor, who has recommended this privatisiation, just happens to be a partner in a law firm that advises G4S on bidding for.....privatised Police work.
Cameron wants to reduce Police numbers from 135'000 to 80'000. He treats his protection officers with complete contempt. I have voted Conservative at every election since I was 18. Never, ever again. In fact, I can't see anybody that doesn't have the aim of ensuring Politicians trough remains full at the expense of everyone else.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Several miles SSW of Watford Gap
Posts: 596
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AFPS Pension Valuation
The AFPRB's last review of the pension valuation was covered in their 36th Report 2007
This was a reduction from the previous (2001) valuation of 7%.
Final salary recomendations are: 'civilian pay comparator value' - 'pension value' (4%) + 'X-Factor' (14%)
We conclude that:
• With revisions to reflect changing circumstances, our methodology to determine the relative pension value and how we apply that value to civilian
comparator pay remain appropriate given that the Armed Forces have non-contributory pension schemes;
• The value should be 4 per cent; and
• The value will be deducted from the civilian pay comparisons from 1 April
2007, which will be part of the evidence for our 2008 Report.
• With revisions to reflect changing circumstances, our methodology to determine the relative pension value and how we apply that value to civilian
comparator pay remain appropriate given that the Armed Forces have non-contributory pension schemes;
• The value should be 4 per cent; and
• The value will be deducted from the civilian pay comparisons from 1 April
2007, which will be part of the evidence for our 2008 Report.
Final salary recomendations are: 'civilian pay comparator value' - 'pension value' (4%) + 'X-Factor' (14%)
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: England
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MLC, I hear you...
Cameron has similar intent with the armed forces also...hence why I cautioned about what the future holds post Afghanistan. I doubt Labour would cut so deep either the police or the armed forces; I'm no red banner man myself, but these ConDems are a right bunch of choppers...
As for the Daily Mail, if you read that .... erm .... publication .... the police are all baby killers too...
Cameron has similar intent with the armed forces also...hence why I cautioned about what the future holds post Afghanistan. I doubt Labour would cut so deep either the police or the armed forces; I'm no red banner man myself, but these ConDems are a right bunch of choppers...
As for the Daily Mail, if you read that .... erm .... publication .... the police are all baby killers too...
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: @exRAF_Al
Posts: 3,297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2 options. You count your blessings or you don't count your chickens.
DC and NEST raised as future for public sector pensions | News | Engaged Investor
What has struck me recently, is Danny Alexander's daft statement that these reforms will last for 25 years.
DC and NEST raised as future for public sector pensions | News | Engaged Investor
What has struck me recently, is Danny Alexander's daft statement that these reforms will last for 25 years.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: @exRAF_Al
Posts: 3,297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
mlc
You probably won't have enjoyed listening to this one then..?
BBC News - 'Take share' of cuts, Theresa May tells police
More balls than most of the Cabinet though!
You probably won't have enjoyed listening to this one then..?
BBC News - 'Take share' of cuts, Theresa May tells police
Theresa May's address to the Police Federation conference comes as forces in England and Wales face budget cuts of 20% and are in line for some of the most radical reforms for 30 years. Officers need to "stop pretending" they were being "picked on", she added.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Midlands
Age: 55
Posts: 181
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
May spoke utter garbage.
West Mids Police have currently put out an invitation to tender, inviting companies to bid for the following work.
— Assure service – manage performance, maintain professional standards, assure compliance, manage risk, provide legal services,
— Bring offenders to justice – investigate crimes, detain suspects, non-judicial disposal, develop cases, support prosecution,
— Deal with incidents – respond to incidents, manage scenes of incidents, investigate incidents, manage major incidents, support victims and witnesses,
— Lead service – supports the Leadership of the organisation to develop strategy, policy and plans, manage change, and manage partnerships,
— Manage public engagement – patrol neighbourhoods, manage public relations, manage customer relationships, report on performance, manage contact,
— Manage resources – manage suppliers, manage finance, manage people, manage ICT, manage fleet and livestock, manage equipment, manage facilities,
— Protect the public – manage high risk individuals, improve communities, protect vulnerable people, disrupt criminal networks, manage planned operations, protect vulnerable places, manage licensing, manage road safety,
— Support operational services – manage duty and tasking, manage forensics, provide specialist services, gather police information, manage property and evidence, manage intelligence.
If that's not privatisation, I don't know what is.
West Mids Police have currently put out an invitation to tender, inviting companies to bid for the following work.
— Assure service – manage performance, maintain professional standards, assure compliance, manage risk, provide legal services,
— Bring offenders to justice – investigate crimes, detain suspects, non-judicial disposal, develop cases, support prosecution,
— Deal with incidents – respond to incidents, manage scenes of incidents, investigate incidents, manage major incidents, support victims and witnesses,
— Lead service – supports the Leadership of the organisation to develop strategy, policy and plans, manage change, and manage partnerships,
— Manage public engagement – patrol neighbourhoods, manage public relations, manage customer relationships, report on performance, manage contact,
— Manage resources – manage suppliers, manage finance, manage people, manage ICT, manage fleet and livestock, manage equipment, manage facilities,
— Protect the public – manage high risk individuals, improve communities, protect vulnerable people, disrupt criminal networks, manage planned operations, protect vulnerable places, manage licensing, manage road safety,
— Support operational services – manage duty and tasking, manage forensics, provide specialist services, gather police information, manage property and evidence, manage intelligence.
If that's not privatisation, I don't know what is.
— Assure service – manage performance, maintain professional standards, assure compliance, manage risk, provide legal services,
— Bring offenders to justice – investigate crimes, detain suspects, non-judicial disposal, develop cases, support prosecution,
— Deal with incidents – respond to incidents, manage scenes of incidents, investigate incidents, manage major incidents, support victims and witnesses,
— Lead service – supports the Leadership of the organisation to develop strategy, policy and plans, manage change, and manage partnerships,
— Manage public engagement – patrol neighbourhoods, manage public relations, manage customer relationships, report on performance, manage contact,
— Manage resources – manage suppliers, manage finance, manage people, manage ICT, manage fleet and livestock, manage equipment, manage facilities,
— Protect the public – manage high risk individuals, improve communities, protect vulnerable people, disrupt criminal networks, manage planned operations, protect vulnerable places, manage licensing, manage road safety,
— Support operational services – manage duty and tasking, manage forensics, provide specialist services, gather police information, manage property and evidence, manage intelligence.
— Bring offenders to justice – investigate crimes, detain suspects, non-judicial disposal, develop cases, support prosecution,
— Deal with incidents – respond to incidents, manage scenes of incidents, investigate incidents, manage major incidents, support victims and witnesses,
— Lead service – supports the Leadership of the organisation to develop strategy, policy and plans, manage change, and manage partnerships,
— Manage public engagement – patrol neighbourhoods, manage public relations, manage customer relationships, report on performance, manage contact,
— Manage resources – manage suppliers, manage finance, manage people, manage ICT, manage fleet and livestock, manage equipment, manage facilities,
— Protect the public – manage high risk individuals, improve communities, protect vulnerable people, disrupt criminal networks, manage planned operations, protect vulnerable places, manage licensing, manage road safety,
— Support operational services – manage duty and tasking, manage forensics, provide specialist services, gather police information, manage property and evidence, manage intelligence.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Midlands
Age: 55
Posts: 181
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The only thing not mentioned is actually making the arrest, for which a small core of warranted officers will be needed. But who will they get to do it, when pay and pensions are being slashed and whole units disbanded.
The point to remember is that all of the above will need to be done for PROFIT. the unprofitable stuff will just be ignored.
So when Cameron and May say they are not intent on privatising the Police, THEY ARE LYING.
I wonder if the FAA need any more 40+ years old Lts. My uniform still fits!!
The point to remember is that all of the above will need to be done for PROFIT. the unprofitable stuff will just be ignored.
So when Cameron and May say they are not intent on privatising the Police, THEY ARE LYING.
I wonder if the FAA need any more 40+ years old Lts. My uniform still fits!!
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: England
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's frustrating at how the ConDems have stitched everything up ...
The first thing on their agenda was 5 Yr fixed term parliaments - so joe soap can't kick them out early. Then they pillage the Public Sector.
The irony is I genuinely believe their real mission (hidden) is to break the police service in order to make privitisation a given. They will hack away at terms and conditions, and pay and pensions, so many late service officers will take early retirement. Thats the old and bold gone. Then the middle men will get squeezed and will jump ship as soon as they can secure other employment. So the experinced boys and girls will be gone; the forces will suffer from a chronic lack of experience and resourcing levels will drop through the floor...
Sound familiar so far...?
Then anything not requiring a sworn constable will be privitised, leaving you with a hoarde of specials and PCSO's, and a small core of essential but highly in-experienced and autocratic police officers - perhaps as much as half the number we have now.
Hang on, carbon copy of what's happened to the Armed Forces...
The first thing on their agenda was 5 Yr fixed term parliaments - so joe soap can't kick them out early. Then they pillage the Public Sector.
The irony is I genuinely believe their real mission (hidden) is to break the police service in order to make privitisation a given. They will hack away at terms and conditions, and pay and pensions, so many late service officers will take early retirement. Thats the old and bold gone. Then the middle men will get squeezed and will jump ship as soon as they can secure other employment. So the experinced boys and girls will be gone; the forces will suffer from a chronic lack of experience and resourcing levels will drop through the floor...
Sound familiar so far...?
Then anything not requiring a sworn constable will be privitised, leaving you with a hoarde of specials and PCSO's, and a small core of essential but highly in-experienced and autocratic police officers - perhaps as much as half the number we have now.
Hang on, carbon copy of what's happened to the Armed Forces...
El_P,
Before pointing out any other holes in your argument (of which there are many - but I probably won't be bothered to address them as a bottle of red is calling...) I would ask on what basis "joe soap could kick them out early"?
To the best of my knowledge, prior to this change there were only two routes to a general election, neither of which was under the control of "joe soap".
1) The government loses a vote of no confidence, which subsequently results in a general election. This is likely to occur with minority governments, those with small majorities, or occasions when MPs within the government consider an issue so important that they rebel to bring the government down. In no way is this instigated by Joe Soap.
2) The government of the day elects to call a general election, anywhen within its 5 year term of office.
Point 2 allowed the government of the day to call an election at a time when their standing with the public was high, thus giving them the advantage in terms of being re-elected. Indeed, Gordon Brown was urged to call a general election not long after his term as PM had started, when his ratings, and his party, were high. However, as a non "risk taker" he elected to wait, with the subsequent result that saw his party lose..
While I'm not a strong advocate of the coalition government, I hardly see fixed terms for governments as a major issue. Every party now knows exactly when the next election will be, and can plan their strategy, funding, etc, accordingly. Going from a system slanted in favor of the sitting government to one fairer for all is hardly the mark of a devious administration.
As for cuts to the public sector, wake up and smell the roses, watch the headlines in the next few weeks as the situation in Greece unfolds, the Euro potentially collapses, unemployment in Spain reaches 25%, banks go under etc....
These are not normal times, or headlines we can ignore just because we aren't in the Euro. We are potentially in for 10 years of recession, perhaps even depression, and you want our government to continue spending as though nothing were happening....
Labour were planning on making cuts too, and were starting to admit it just before the election. Some people do realize the size of the issues involved, but then NIMBYish creeps in. "Yes, we need to make cuts, but not in police/military/NHS/Civil Service...(delete as required)" is their sort of approach!
Before pointing out any other holes in your argument (of which there are many - but I probably won't be bothered to address them as a bottle of red is calling...) I would ask on what basis "joe soap could kick them out early"?
To the best of my knowledge, prior to this change there were only two routes to a general election, neither of which was under the control of "joe soap".
1) The government loses a vote of no confidence, which subsequently results in a general election. This is likely to occur with minority governments, those with small majorities, or occasions when MPs within the government consider an issue so important that they rebel to bring the government down. In no way is this instigated by Joe Soap.
2) The government of the day elects to call a general election, anywhen within its 5 year term of office.
Point 2 allowed the government of the day to call an election at a time when their standing with the public was high, thus giving them the advantage in terms of being re-elected. Indeed, Gordon Brown was urged to call a general election not long after his term as PM had started, when his ratings, and his party, were high. However, as a non "risk taker" he elected to wait, with the subsequent result that saw his party lose..
While I'm not a strong advocate of the coalition government, I hardly see fixed terms for governments as a major issue. Every party now knows exactly when the next election will be, and can plan their strategy, funding, etc, accordingly. Going from a system slanted in favor of the sitting government to one fairer for all is hardly the mark of a devious administration.
As for cuts to the public sector, wake up and smell the roses, watch the headlines in the next few weeks as the situation in Greece unfolds, the Euro potentially collapses, unemployment in Spain reaches 25%, banks go under etc....
These are not normal times, or headlines we can ignore just because we aren't in the Euro. We are potentially in for 10 years of recession, perhaps even depression, and you want our government to continue spending as though nothing were happening....
Labour were planning on making cuts too, and were starting to admit it just before the election. Some people do realize the size of the issues involved, but then NIMBYish creeps in. "Yes, we need to make cuts, but not in police/military/NHS/Civil Service...(delete as required)" is their sort of approach!