New Pension Calculator
Drop the RAF SO2 who is running with this a note via your OC PMS or equivalent. The speed at which they have rolled out suggested changes from a week or so a ago is pretty impressive - I am sure you will get a swift response!
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hants
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I know this is a forum and everyone is suppposed to be anti but as PAS (3 years so far and on the 75 scheme) the new scheme seems for me to be rather good. If I serve till 55 I will be over 10k a year better off at 67 ish (or whatever the retirement age is now), but surprisingly only slightly worse off at 55 too which I wasn't expecting. I would now invite everyone to shout me down for missing some major point etc!
Last edited by Field44; 2nd Jun 2013 at 09:04.
Field44!
No shouting from me- but of course you realise there will be another 10 pension scheme changes by the time you reach 55!
You'll probably qualify for a pension when you're 92.
Good luck mate!;-)
No shouting from me- but of course you realise there will be another 10 pension scheme changes by the time you reach 55!
You'll probably qualify for a pension when you're 92.
Good luck mate!;-)
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: @exRAF_Al
Posts: 3,297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OAP,
Therein lies a question!
It all depends on which service or branch/trade you're referring to. One problem is that the state these days, classifies a veteran as anyone who has served in the Armed Forces for at least one day. The results are skewed therefore, because you include recruits who throw the towel in after a day, in a truculent fit, in the same way as an RSM/Lt Col/WO or Wing Commander with 22/30 years under their belt.
Many 'genuine' vets, those who we think of as having served a while after finishing training, are affected adversely of their recent ground combat experiences (Iraq, Kosovo, Afghan, Bosnia etc) but are advantaged by better physical conditioning when set against the civvy population. The problem is made worse because many modern servicemen and veterans feel hamstrung and let down.
The traditional idea that a National Service/Cold War SNCO/WO was dined out and then bowlered off a unit, simply to keel over with a heart attack 6 months later doesn't really stand up to closer scrutiny these days. I know some young infantry vetarans who are highly eloquent; I'm not sure if they were 'different' before their service or if their subsequent experiences had an impact. This is a few years old but useful.
House of Commons - Defence - Written Evidence
Therein lies a question!
It all depends on which service or branch/trade you're referring to. One problem is that the state these days, classifies a veteran as anyone who has served in the Armed Forces for at least one day. The results are skewed therefore, because you include recruits who throw the towel in after a day, in a truculent fit, in the same way as an RSM/Lt Col/WO or Wing Commander with 22/30 years under their belt.
Many 'genuine' vets, those who we think of as having served a while after finishing training, are affected adversely of their recent ground combat experiences (Iraq, Kosovo, Afghan, Bosnia etc) but are advantaged by better physical conditioning when set against the civvy population. The problem is made worse because many modern servicemen and veterans feel hamstrung and let down.
The traditional idea that a National Service/Cold War SNCO/WO was dined out and then bowlered off a unit, simply to keel over with a heart attack 6 months later doesn't really stand up to closer scrutiny these days. I know some young infantry vetarans who are highly eloquent; I'm not sure if they were 'different' before their service or if their subsequent experiences had an impact. This is a few years old but useful.
House of Commons - Defence - Written Evidence
AL-R,
Thanks for posting that link. I recall similar material when I was in town fouryears ago - about the basic literacy of recruits into Scottish regiments (average, functional, reading age of 7).
Given the material that the Army works with, they do a pretty good job, especially if one was to consider the trajectory of these kids if they didn't join the forces. Nonetheless, we - the Country - place a huge responsibility on the shoulders of these individuals in these days of the Strategic Corporal; is it no wonder that things go wrong from time to time? These guys are not social anthropologists or linguist, yet in AFG we expect them to behave as such.
Thanks for posting that link. I recall similar material when I was in town fouryears ago - about the basic literacy of recruits into Scottish regiments (average, functional, reading age of 7).
Given the material that the Army works with, they do a pretty good job, especially if one was to consider the trajectory of these kids if they didn't join the forces. Nonetheless, we - the Country - place a huge responsibility on the shoulders of these individuals in these days of the Strategic Corporal; is it no wonder that things go wrong from time to time? These guys are not social anthropologists or linguist, yet in AFG we expect them to behave as such.
Thanks Al, the info MUST be out there for all the benefit calculations that the Treasury makes.
Seem to remember a figure of 7 years average life expectancy for true ex-service "lifers".
OAP
Seem to remember a figure of 7 years average life expectancy for true ex-service "lifers".
OAP
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: @exRAF_Al
Posts: 3,297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Its an interesting area - ONS doesn't compile that data (maybe it should; it'd be a wake up call if there was a big difference!). The Treasury and GAD makes general assumptions - more's the pity. It would make financial planning a little clearer if there were some slightly former assumptions to rely on.
In the UK potential recruits, tend to be attracted to specific services rather than the military as a whole ('Be the best', 'Rise above the rest' etc). The army has also relied heavily on the 'It takes a soldier to recruit a soldier' so if there was a problem with the collective mindset in the first place that resulted in problems with resettlement, then all that was happening was that it was simply being repeated over and over, instead of the army looking into social pastures new.
Even within the nilitary there are niche mindsets. RAF research found that barriers to joining it included misconceptions and concerns about qualifications, career options, training provided, discipline, disruption to family life and the belief that you are cut off from civilian life. However, the main reasons found for young people not wanting to join the Army were (unsurprisingly!) being killed and badly injured, being away from home at a young age, being bullied and having to follow orders.
A little knowledge is a dangerous thing but if we assume that emotional transition is hard and starts the chain of poor readjustment which leads to depression which can lead to premature death, these Q reports make for worrying reading. I remember reading that cancer through a higher incidence of smoking and heavier drinking was to blame. Op Grapple and Porton Down trials won't have helped mind and everytime we fired the main armament in the Scorpion battoned down and without air filtration running, it must have been like smoking 40 Super Strength.
Defence Analytical Services and Advice: UK Armed Forces Quarterly Mental Health Report
In the UK potential recruits, tend to be attracted to specific services rather than the military as a whole ('Be the best', 'Rise above the rest' etc). The army has also relied heavily on the 'It takes a soldier to recruit a soldier' so if there was a problem with the collective mindset in the first place that resulted in problems with resettlement, then all that was happening was that it was simply being repeated over and over, instead of the army looking into social pastures new.
Even within the nilitary there are niche mindsets. RAF research found that barriers to joining it included misconceptions and concerns about qualifications, career options, training provided, discipline, disruption to family life and the belief that you are cut off from civilian life. However, the main reasons found for young people not wanting to join the Army were (unsurprisingly!) being killed and badly injured, being away from home at a young age, being bullied and having to follow orders.
A little knowledge is a dangerous thing but if we assume that emotional transition is hard and starts the chain of poor readjustment which leads to depression which can lead to premature death, these Q reports make for worrying reading. I remember reading that cancer through a higher incidence of smoking and heavier drinking was to blame. Op Grapple and Porton Down trials won't have helped mind and everytime we fired the main armament in the Scorpion battoned down and without air filtration running, it must have been like smoking 40 Super Strength.
Defence Analytical Services and Advice: UK Armed Forces Quarterly Mental Health Report
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Odiham
Posts: 170
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
hmmmm....does this mean that one now has to serve to age 60, as normal retirement age, or can one still retire at 55 (not on PVR)?
Also, does anyone know when the State pension age rises above 67
Yours, Confused
Also, does anyone know when the State pension age rises above 67
Yours, Confused
It appears to have moved to the following web address:
Armed Forces Pension and Annual Allowance Calculator (AFPAAC)
Just as poor for working out FTRS stuff, which considering FAFPS15 is supposed to be for all personel (both regulars and reservists) is rubbish.
LJ
Armed Forces Pension and Annual Allowance Calculator (AFPAAC)
Just as poor for working out FTRS stuff, which considering FAFPS15 is supposed to be for all personel (both regulars and reservists) is rubbish.
LJ
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: @exRAF_Al
Posts: 3,297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wokka,
Full benefits accrued after '15 kicks in can become payable as late as aged 60. You can take them earlier, at 55, but there will be a reduction as you trade off taking more cash upfront for less ongoing income. If you don't serve to your ADP point you will have to wait until your normal pension age before you get anything. If you make the 20/40 point, you'll get immediate payments (tax free lump sum and taxable income).
The g'ment has already announced plans to bring forward the planned increase in Basic State Pension age to 67 (to begin in 2026 and finish in 2028) and it will introduce 5 yearly reviews to consider future changes in that age. The first (5-yearly) review will take place sometime in the next Parliament, which begins in 2015. Lets face it, it'll happen as soon as the new g'ment is elected (I can't see any g'ment waiting until 2019/2020).
Somehow I don't think they'll tell us they'll be putting it back to aged 65.
Full benefits accrued after '15 kicks in can become payable as late as aged 60. You can take them earlier, at 55, but there will be a reduction as you trade off taking more cash upfront for less ongoing income. If you don't serve to your ADP point you will have to wait until your normal pension age before you get anything. If you make the 20/40 point, you'll get immediate payments (tax free lump sum and taxable income).
The g'ment has already announced plans to bring forward the planned increase in Basic State Pension age to 67 (to begin in 2026 and finish in 2028) and it will introduce 5 yearly reviews to consider future changes in that age. The first (5-yearly) review will take place sometime in the next Parliament, which begins in 2015. Lets face it, it'll happen as soon as the new g'ment is elected (I can't see any g'ment waiting until 2019/2020).
Somehow I don't think they'll tell us they'll be putting it back to aged 65.
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Odiham
Posts: 170
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Al, thank you, but it used to be clear - you retired at 55. Now is the retirement age for aircrew going to be 60? I appreciate one can leave earlier (at 55) on reduced benefits, but what is the standard retirement age please mate?
The difference on the new pension calculator between retiring at age 55 or 60 is a pretty compelling reason to stay for 60!
The difference on the new pension calculator between retiring at age 55 or 60 is a pretty compelling reason to stay for 60!
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: @exRAF_Al
Posts: 3,297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wokka,
That's one of the NEM considerations isn't it? I couldn't agree more; for some folk, hanging on until 60 will be a financial no brainer.
It depends what group you’re in. The easiest group are those aged 45 or over on April 1, 2012 who will remain on their current pension scheme, and will be able to draw their full pension at age 55 so are protected from the impact of ’15.
It seems as if it won't apply to you, but the first people outside the protected group currently due to retire at age 55 still have more than nine years left to serve (it consists mainly of JOs on PCs but also medical and dental officers on Intermediate Commissions, and some JNCOs who were aged under 18 on joining).
edit: If you're on FB, I have just started a community - search for Armed Forces Pension Scheme Help and Information Exchange (snappy huh ?). Hope to see lots of folk there.
That's one of the NEM considerations isn't it? I couldn't agree more; for some folk, hanging on until 60 will be a financial no brainer.
It depends what group you’re in. The easiest group are those aged 45 or over on April 1, 2012 who will remain on their current pension scheme, and will be able to draw their full pension at age 55 so are protected from the impact of ’15.
It seems as if it won't apply to you, but the first people outside the protected group currently due to retire at age 55 still have more than nine years left to serve (it consists mainly of JOs on PCs but also medical and dental officers on Intermediate Commissions, and some JNCOs who were aged under 18 on joining).
edit: If you're on FB, I have just started a community - search for Armed Forces Pension Scheme Help and Information Exchange (snappy huh
?). Hope to see lots of folk there.
Last edited by Al R; 4th Jun 2013 at 09:39.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Belgium
Posts: 254
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The 55 / 60 question should come out when NEM is announced. Hopefully. I understand that some big chiefs are keen for it - it could save the military a fair bit of money and some are not so keen - you don't want a military full of old people. What will happen is pure conjecture - personally I believe that it will be introduced for some, perhaps defined by trade/branch but more likely by rank (SO1s and above? PAS??)
I'm not sure that they will bring it in as compulsory for those currently serving, but instead offer it as an option to those in the correct bracket.
Financially, it will be a good deal for many - retiring at 55 may be marginal but retiring at 60 with no reduction in the AFPS 15 pension plus an extra 5/47 of top end pay will be well worth it.
All pure guess work, we will find out eventually...........
EDIT: As Al said there are often options to extend beyond 55 already on a service need basis, although it is pretty mad to do so under AFPS 75, and I believe FTRS commitment is already past 55 (60?)
I'm not sure that they will bring it in as compulsory for those currently serving, but instead offer it as an option to those in the correct bracket.
Financially, it will be a good deal for many - retiring at 55 may be marginal but retiring at 60 with no reduction in the AFPS 15 pension plus an extra 5/47 of top end pay will be well worth it.
All pure guess work, we will find out eventually...........
EDIT: As Al said there are often options to extend beyond 55 already on a service need basis, although it is pretty mad to do so under AFPS 75, and I believe FTRS commitment is already past 55 (60?)
Last edited by Backwards PLT; 4th Jun 2013 at 10:02.