Pensions. Breaking News.....
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: @exRAF_Al
Posts: 3,297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry Vin, I deleted my post and added to it, hence your reply before my answer (above).
I can't imagine there would be a PVR 'right', and you're in the new scheme unless you have age/service related rights. I don't know anything about that, but I guess if they wanted more to leave, now would be a genius time to have an extra round of redundancies..?
I can't imagine there would be a PVR 'right', and you're in the new scheme unless you have age/service related rights. I don't know anything about that, but I guess if they wanted more to leave, now would be a genius time to have an extra round of redundancies..?
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Germany
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The re-written was how I understood it! Good job as the laptop was about to go through the window!
I think page 20 is the closest approximation to the situation I am in, replacing OR with Officer terms (38/16 vice 22/18).
All in all, not too bad if you have decent service under your belt and doesnt completely ruin the PA option, IF you plan to stay in till 55 on PA that is (am assuming the 75 pension is paid on final salary, not that at 2015?)
Its very confusing and I think the only way the military can deal with this is by providing a bespoke report of the scheme with realistic scenarios, for example PA for aircrew or promotion after 2015.
I am not going to hold my breath.
I think page 20 is the closest approximation to the situation I am in, replacing OR with Officer terms (38/16 vice 22/18).
All in all, not too bad if you have decent service under your belt and doesnt completely ruin the PA option, IF you plan to stay in till 55 on PA that is (am assuming the 75 pension is paid on final salary, not that at 2015?)
Its very confusing and I think the only way the military can deal with this is by providing a bespoke report of the scheme with realistic scenarios, for example PA for aircrew or promotion after 2015.
I am not going to hold my breath.
Hi CWD, I'm in a similar sitch. I have a letter from my last UK MP, who asked Danny Alexander, who said that no preserved pensions would be affected by upcoming pension changes. I'm due preserved AFPS75 and Teachers' Pensions.
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: London
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FJTME - answers on a postcard
If you opt to leave at your 16/38 point, you will receive an immediate pension and lump sum of everything you earned under AFPS75 prior to the point of transition (planned for 1 Apr 15). The remaining years will be under the FAFPS career average earning system and will be deferred until your normal pension age for this scheme as you won't have completed the required service for the 20/40 option point. However, if you choose to see out the qualifying period for the FAFPS Early Departure Payment (in effect, another immediate pension but it cannot be referred to as such) and serve until your 20/40 point, you will get this on top of your AFPS 75 'chunk'.
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Banging my head against a wall
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
well for those asking who the 17500 consultees were - I was one. The questionnaire I was asked to fill in was written specifically to force you to pick between 3 rubbish choices, so every time you ended up either choosing the worst of three bad options or refusing to fill it out. As an example, I think the EDD deferral options were 2, 3 or 4 years. I would imagine everyone, like me, ticked the 2 year box as the lesser of 3 evils. That way ministers can put their hands up and say 'look aren't we good? It could have been 4 years but we got it down to 2 through consultation' but of course it was always going to be 2 years anyway.
Anyone who thinks our lords and masters are doing anything to protect the troops over this needs to wake up. We have been abandoned to our fate...end of. Interesting to see how many put their money where their mouth is and leave over this. The system is about to be comprehensively broken, it will be interesting to see the retention schemes put in place in about 4 years time once the numbers leaving become unsustainable. Glad I'm out soon.
edited cos I was so angry I couldn't spell or do the grammar stuff! (twice!!!)
Rant over
Anyone who thinks our lords and masters are doing anything to protect the troops over this needs to wake up. We have been abandoned to our fate...end of. Interesting to see how many put their money where their mouth is and leave over this. The system is about to be comprehensively broken, it will be interesting to see the retention schemes put in place in about 4 years time once the numbers leaving become unsustainable. Glad I'm out soon.
edited cos I was so angry I couldn't spell or do the grammar stuff! (twice!!!)
Rant over
Last edited by fin1012; 2nd Aug 2012 at 13:35.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 96
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Al R,
forgive me for asking you a direct question! I printed the document and read it through on the train this morning and it is still a little unclear due to PAS terms being completely omitted. As such any guidance you can offer is therefore much appreciated!
Background: Flt Lt, started service '98, 38/16 point '14. Just accepted PAS, due to start in '14 with ROS terms to '19. Intend to leave in '19, total service of 21 years.
I deduce that I'll get a gratuity made up of the full AFPS75 allowance plus the allowance from FAFPS for service post 2015. I then get a monthly pension of full AFPS75 plus the FAFPS part, which is then index linked at age 60. The only thing I 'loose' is the ability to commute as much as I could have done if I was solely under AFPS75.
Does this sound about right as an interpretation?
forgive me for asking you a direct question! I printed the document and read it through on the train this morning and it is still a little unclear due to PAS terms being completely omitted. As such any guidance you can offer is therefore much appreciated!
Background: Flt Lt, started service '98, 38/16 point '14. Just accepted PAS, due to start in '14 with ROS terms to '19. Intend to leave in '19, total service of 21 years.
I deduce that I'll get a gratuity made up of the full AFPS75 allowance plus the allowance from FAFPS for service post 2015. I then get a monthly pension of full AFPS75 plus the FAFPS part, which is then index linked at age 60. The only thing I 'loose' is the ability to commute as much as I could have done if I was solely under AFPS75.
Does this sound about right as an interpretation?
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 152
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Skater
Rights accrued upto the changeover date are definitely protected, so you will have earned your IPP rights in '14 and if you retire anytime after that you would get your gratuity and IP, thus your deduction seems perfectly accurate to me. The further benefit post '15 will just not be as beneficial as it would have been if you hit that 21 years before '15.
I am in a similar position to you, with an IPP next summer and serving to 55 with a deferred option to leave in summer '15. I am still confident that the changes will only affect further pension increases post '15. This is going to sting those who earn their IPP rights after '15, but I think it should be minimal to our situation, unless of course you get promoted!!
Rights accrued upto the changeover date are definitely protected, so you will have earned your IPP rights in '14 and if you retire anytime after that you would get your gratuity and IP, thus your deduction seems perfectly accurate to me. The further benefit post '15 will just not be as beneficial as it would have been if you hit that 21 years before '15.
I am in a similar position to you, with an IPP next summer and serving to 55 with a deferred option to leave in summer '15. I am still confident that the changes will only affect further pension increases post '15. This is going to sting those who earn their IPP rights after '15, but I think it should be minimal to our situation, unless of course you get promoted!!
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: @exRAF_Al
Posts: 3,297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Skaterboi,
Have you hit a FAFPS sweet spot? PAS should do well out of FAFPS and you stand to get max benefit for your career profile.
You get an immediate tick for '75 and a tick for FAFPS. IP and income from '75 and tax free cash and EDP from FAFPS in 2019, and a further rise in '75 income at 55 (CPI). At your deferred pension age (68), you then get FAFPS income which you can commute to get more tax free cash.
Talk,
Sweeter?!
Have you hit a FAFPS sweet spot? PAS should do well out of FAFPS and you stand to get max benefit for your career profile.
You get an immediate tick for '75 and a tick for FAFPS. IP and income from '75 and tax free cash and EDP from FAFPS in 2019, and a further rise in '75 income at 55 (CPI). At your deferred pension age (68), you then get FAFPS income which you can commute to get more tax free cash.
Talk,
Sweeter?!
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Band Camp
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To provide another perspective on the Consultation Exercise, the FAFPS Team were bounded by the recommendations in Lord Hutton's report and actuarial discussions with Treasury, which left very little room for what could be consulted on. Provisions such as Career Average, Normal Pension Age for uniformed services moving to age 60 had to come in along with others that should be broadly welcomed (annual statements; establishment of a Pensions Board; removal of abatements; maximum accruals etc).
The clear political direction has been that as people are living longer so people would have to work longer to get their pension, including the Armed Forces. Therefore the trick that the Department somehow pulled under AFPS 05 for ORs to reduce the amount of time they had to work from 22 years under AFPS 75 to 18 years (plus reaching the age of 40) to receive an EDP was not going to run and we needed to show the Treasury 'some leg' by moving the EDP out a reasonable distance. Not to have done so could have undermined the financial value of the package as presented this week and drawn fire from other areas of the public sector who will have more significant changes introduced. Yes, we are very different from other areas of the public service and rightly deserve to have this reflected in our pay and pensions and broadly I think the pension settlement still reflects this.
The options presented in the Consultation Exercise (20/40 to 23/45) fitted with broad manning profiles being looked at by the NEM for an organisation that still needs to shed a significant proportion of its manpower at a relatively young age. There was vocal support from many for moving the EDP to 23/45, clearly as long as there was an appropriate financial reward at the end of it, but the final 20/40 point was clearly unsurprising. Moreover, from my understanding, the Consultation Exercise also clearly demonstrated the importance of the EDP income stream to SP and the 17,500 responses probably helped to see off any attempt by the Treasury to move from an income stream and lump sum to a one-off EDP lump sum payment on departure. If you consider the external workplace now with employment to 67 being seen as the norm, someone could still leave the Services at 40 under FAFPS and receive a resettlement payment (an EDP is not technically a pension) whilst employed in the civilian market for 27 years until State Pension Age. That's some resettlement period, but the Exercise demonstrated why the income stream was still valid.
So, yes the Consultation Exercise was limited, but it was never going to be a blank canvas from which a new pension scheme was going to be developed given Lord Hutton's recommendations. Also employing a forced questioning methodology in a survey to make people select from a defined series of options is an accepted practice in such surveys. If the option you wanted wasn't there it was probably because it wasn't on offer.
The clear political direction has been that as people are living longer so people would have to work longer to get their pension, including the Armed Forces. Therefore the trick that the Department somehow pulled under AFPS 05 for ORs to reduce the amount of time they had to work from 22 years under AFPS 75 to 18 years (plus reaching the age of 40) to receive an EDP was not going to run and we needed to show the Treasury 'some leg' by moving the EDP out a reasonable distance. Not to have done so could have undermined the financial value of the package as presented this week and drawn fire from other areas of the public sector who will have more significant changes introduced. Yes, we are very different from other areas of the public service and rightly deserve to have this reflected in our pay and pensions and broadly I think the pension settlement still reflects this.
The options presented in the Consultation Exercise (20/40 to 23/45) fitted with broad manning profiles being looked at by the NEM for an organisation that still needs to shed a significant proportion of its manpower at a relatively young age. There was vocal support from many for moving the EDP to 23/45, clearly as long as there was an appropriate financial reward at the end of it, but the final 20/40 point was clearly unsurprising. Moreover, from my understanding, the Consultation Exercise also clearly demonstrated the importance of the EDP income stream to SP and the 17,500 responses probably helped to see off any attempt by the Treasury to move from an income stream and lump sum to a one-off EDP lump sum payment on departure. If you consider the external workplace now with employment to 67 being seen as the norm, someone could still leave the Services at 40 under FAFPS and receive a resettlement payment (an EDP is not technically a pension) whilst employed in the civilian market for 27 years until State Pension Age. That's some resettlement period, but the Exercise demonstrated why the income stream was still valid.
So, yes the Consultation Exercise was limited, but it was never going to be a blank canvas from which a new pension scheme was going to be developed given Lord Hutton's recommendations. Also employing a forced questioning methodology in a survey to make people select from a defined series of options is an accepted practice in such surveys. If the option you wanted wasn't there it was probably because it wasn't on offer.
Last edited by Reverend 71; 3rd Aug 2012 at 09:02.
Last day in RAF uniform today and I wasn't the slightest bit sad. I'm very happy with my decision to leave. A few of us commented in the bar at HWY over lunch about how many people are almost counting down their days left, almost akin to a prisoner's chuff-chart. Not the happiest place to work in the current climate.
Had an OJAR today too -pretty pointless on the last day; I derived great satisfaction from completing the 'suicide box' for the first time, where I told my 2nd RO and I suppose manning, of all the RAF's faults. I will post my rant here apres my last paid day in Dec!!
Had an OJAR today too -pretty pointless on the last day; I derived great satisfaction from completing the 'suicide box' for the first time, where I told my 2nd RO and I suppose manning, of all the RAF's faults. I will post my rant here apres my last paid day in Dec!!
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: England
Posts: 339
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
After some consideration..........
Having taken a good while to assess the effect of the coming changes, I am left in no doubt as to where the axe will fall, compared with today's Schemes. The short career (20-22 years) profile, wholly within FAFPS, when compared with the same profile wholly within AFPS 05, results in a massive loss of accumulated value of benefits up to the future State Pension Age (SPA) (and that is after making some fairly conservative assumptions about the affect of compound inflation and Income tax over the relevant periods). To some extent this is inevitable, of course, and Reverend's long post above is full of the political realities. But the result is undeniably very bad for those in the future who will not complete a full career, with the possible exception the real thrusters.
Regards
Ginseng
Regards
Ginseng
