Military Pension - Forced Redundancy Days Before Entitlement
Purveyor of Egg Liqueur to Lucifer
I find it amazing that over 103,035 people sign these petitions without knowing the full story.
Thousands urge Cameron to help veteran Sgt Michael Anderson get his pension
A simple case of an Army wife getting involved and going off half cocked!!!
Besides, if they really wanted to help, (knowing full well petitions don't really do much) they could have sent Sgt Anderson's wife £1 each and their mythical loss of pension monies would have been covered.
An MoD spokesman said: 'There have been a number of inaccuracies reported surrounding an individual soldier in an online petition.
'We can be clear that the individual in question has successfully applied for a transfer to another branch within the Army, and subject to successful completion of training will not be made redundant.
'The individual is fully aware of this and has been kept informed throughout the process. We will continue to work with him to secure his transfer within the Army.'
In a statement, Sgt Anderson added: 'There has been a considerable amount of misunderstanding surrounding an online petition with the aim of securing my pension.
'I was selected for redundancy but have applied for transfer to another service within the Army. I have been successful in the application process and am looking forward to beginning training for my new role.'
'We can be clear that the individual in question has successfully applied for a transfer to another branch within the Army, and subject to successful completion of training will not be made redundant.
'The individual is fully aware of this and has been kept informed throughout the process. We will continue to work with him to secure his transfer within the Army.'
In a statement, Sgt Anderson added: 'There has been a considerable amount of misunderstanding surrounding an online petition with the aim of securing my pension.
'I was selected for redundancy but have applied for transfer to another service within the Army. I have been successful in the application process and am looking forward to beginning training for my new role.'
A simple case of an Army wife getting involved and going off half cocked!!!
It comes after Mrs Anderson started an online petition on change.org asking the Prime Minister to give her husband his job back that by tonight had been signed by nearly 100,000 people.
Besides, if they really wanted to help, (knowing full well petitions don't really do much) they could have sent Sgt Anderson's wife £1 each and their mythical loss of pension monies would have been covered.
Purveyor of Egg Liqueur to Lucifer
Onceapilot;
Really !?!?!?
Pensions - British Army Website
"Pensions for Officers and Soldiers
Nobody joins the Army thinking about retirement. But when the time comes, the Army's pension scheme will be there to support you. Most civilians either have to pay into a private pension fund, or contribute from their salary into a company scheme to ensure they have something to live on when they retire. But in the Army you are entitled to monthly payments based on your final salary, without having to contribute to your pension at all.
After two years of Regular service you'll have earned an Army pension that will be paid when you get to the age of 65. And if you serve for 12 years you'll be entitled to a tax-free resettlement grant on retirement too. Anybody aged over 40 who has served for at least 18 years gets the right to claim an immediate pension and tax-free lump sum on leaving the Army, and a second lump sum when they turn 65."
Sorry, I keep banging this drum! Armed Forces pensions ARE as contributory as any other public service pension. Pay rates ARE abated. Just because no figures appear on the pay statement makes no difference apart from the political fudge factor of trying to fool Servicemen (particularly VSOs!).
Pensions - British Army Website
"Pensions for Officers and Soldiers
Nobody joins the Army thinking about retirement. But when the time comes, the Army's pension scheme will be there to support you. Most civilians either have to pay into a private pension fund, or contribute from their salary into a company scheme to ensure they have something to live on when they retire. But in the Army you are entitled to monthly payments based on your final salary, without having to contribute to your pension at all.
After two years of Regular service you'll have earned an Army pension that will be paid when you get to the age of 65. And if you serve for 12 years you'll be entitled to a tax-free resettlement grant on retirement too. Anybody aged over 40 who has served for at least 18 years gets the right to claim an immediate pension and tax-free lump sum on leaving the Army, and a second lump sum when they turn 65."
Purveyor of Egg Liqueur to Lucifer
Anyone notice Sgt Anderson's age?
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: The guest house
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It appears he has accepted an offer to retrain in another area of the Army so will be extended beyond pension point, even if unsuccessful in re-training.
Therefore, nothing to see here, please move on.
(PS. the line has to be drawn somewhere and some people will fall the right side and the wrong side of it by a matter of days, including the eligibility for redundancy let alone pension.)
Therefore, nothing to see here, please move on.
(PS. the line has to be drawn somewhere and some people will fall the right side and the wrong side of it by a matter of days, including the eligibility for redundancy let alone pension.)
I find it amazing that over 103,035 people sign these petitions without knowing the full story.
I would expect a similar level of support for anyone else in such a position - and am curious that the Sergeant's application has been successful. Perhaps the strength of public opinion might have had some bearing on the matter...??
Last edited by BEagle; 7th Nov 2013 at 18:45.
"People signed the petition on the facts as presented. If nothing else, this shows the strength of support the genpub has for people in the Amred Forces facing such mean-minded policies."
It would appear that there is currently a lot of sympathy in the U.K. for the Armed Forces, more than for many years .
Hopefully this fact is not lost on the current Military hierarchy in their dealings with the politicians.
Although the highest ranks are subject to political interference in their appointees, all of us are ( were) responsible directly to the Monarch-for very good reasons.
Time that this right was perhaps exercised, methinks.
It would appear that there is currently a lot of sympathy in the U.K. for the Armed Forces, more than for many years .
Hopefully this fact is not lost on the current Military hierarchy in their dealings with the politicians.
Although the highest ranks are subject to political interference in their appointees, all of us are ( were) responsible directly to the Monarch-for very good reasons.
Time that this right was perhaps exercised, methinks.
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: London
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My previous employer, London Underground have rather a beneficial policy on pensions. If there is a need for medical retirement then the person gets 10 years added on to the pension. Of course if that 10 years breaches the retirement age then a lower enhancement is paid. Seems successive authorities still stiff the serviceman/woman. And wasn't it only a few years ago that all parties were discussing the "Covenant".
Purveyor of Egg Liqueur to Lucifer
So, if the MoD website was talking yukspeak, you must also admit to other official sites to be doing the same;
Forces Pensions explained. Military pension advice from Forces Pension Society
Which way do you want this yukspeak to work for your side of the discussion OAP?
Besides, 4% ….. luxury!
Did you know, for instance, that although Armed Forces Pension Schemes are usually considered to be non-contributory, the salaries of all Service people are abated by an amount agreed by the Armed Forces Review Body to take into account the value of the pension? This is currently 4%, a not insignificant amount and is a contribution about which you, the contributor, have no say.
Which way do you want this yukspeak to work for your side of the discussion OAP?
Besides, 4% ….. luxury!
Purveyor of Egg Liqueur to Lucifer
Beagle;
"Anybody aged over 40 who has served for at least 18 years gets the right to claim an immediate pension …"
Of course, with Sgt Anderson being 35, he wouldn't be getting his immediate pension if he was given an extra 3 years service., let alone 3 days !!!!
Surely there's a difference between asking people to sign the petition on the facts presented, and actually presenting the facts!
People signed the petition on the facts as presented. If nothing else, this shows the strength of support the genpub has for people in the Amred Forces facing such mean-minded policies.
I would expect a similar level of support for anyone else in such a position - and am curious that the Sergeant's application has been successful. Perhaps the strength of public opinion might have had some bearing on the matter…??"
I would expect a similar level of support for anyone else in such a position - and am curious that the Sergeant's application has been successful. Perhaps the strength of public opinion might have had some bearing on the matter…??"
Of course, with Sgt Anderson being 35, he wouldn't be getting his immediate pension if he was given an extra 3 years service., let alone 3 days !!!!
Surely there's a difference between asking people to sign the petition on the facts presented, and actually presenting the facts!
"Anybody aged over 40 who has served for at least 18 years gets the right to claim an immediate pension …"
Of course, with Sgt Anderson being 35, he wouldn't be getting his immediate pension if he was given an extra 3 years service., let alone 3 days !!!!
Of course, with Sgt Anderson being 35, he wouldn't be getting his immediate pension if he was given an extra 3 years service., let alone 3 days !!!!
That statement about 40/18 is a red herring as it refers to AFPS05 and even then only to people who see out their engagements, not people terminated on redundancy. It's highly likely that the Sgt was on AFPS75, and under the redundancy terms for '75 if you did 18 years service you qualified for an IP. I know numerous people who were made redundant within 6 months of that 18 year point.
Purveyor of Egg Liqueur to Lucifer
That statement about 40/18 is a red herring as it refers to AFPS05 and even then only to people who see out their engagements, not people terminated on redundancy. It's highly likely that the Sgt was on AFPS75, and under the redundancy terms for '75 if you did 18 years service you qualified for an IP.
I bet he is pretty sure.
Prior to 2010 on AFPS75 you were awarded an immediate pension after 12 years service if made redundant. In the lead up to the SDSR redundancies the rules were quietly changed via a Statutory Instrument to 18 years service from age 18.
Prior to 2010 on AFPS75 you were awarded an immediate pension after 12 years service if made redundant. In the lead up to the SDSR redundancies the rules were quietly changed via a Statutory Instrument to 18 years service from age 18.
I seem to remember that when I first joined the pension abatement was 10% now it is a lot less. To my mind that is because the relative value of the pension has dropped. One might argue that the AFP 75 or 05 is non-contributory but that is a technicality too far for me.
Prior to 2010 on AFPS75 you were awarded an immediate pension after 12 years service if made redundant. In the lead up to the SDSR redundancies the rules were quietly changed via a Statutory Instrument to 18 years service from age 18.
It seems that things are a lot less generous now, and my son, a REME NCO counted himself lucky that he made it to his 22 year pension point last year before leaving, as some he knew were made redundant with the finishing line in sight.
Join Date: Sep 1998
Location: wherever
Age: 55
Posts: 1,616
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm a little confused by this.
He would have qualified for an IP after 22 years from his 18th.
Under the terms of the redundancy this was reduced by 4 years.
He missed the reduced period. Not the actual 22 point in his terms.
He would have qualified for an IP after 22 years from his 18th.
Under the terms of the redundancy this was reduced by 4 years.
He missed the reduced period. Not the actual 22 point in his terms.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Chilling out on the water if it's warm enough
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pension Abatement
SilsoeSid, if you have read the very small print on the Annual Pay Review report you will see it says the salary has been abated by x% to account for the fact that we receive a pension. Whilst is could be considered true that, strictly speaking, a military pension could be defined as having no contributions from an individual, the fact the our pay is abated because we receive a pension, indicates that in fact we do "contribute" a proportion of our salary.
Twas always thus and has moved up and down in %age over the years, certainly spending time in double figures.
Possibly a good job it was abated to provide a pension, as those in their late teens/early 20's probably wouldnt consider putting aside 10% of their pay for their retirement. I dare say mine would have gone on cars, women and wine and if there was any left after after that, I would probably have wasted it...
Oh and I agree about the petition. Plenty of people always ready to jump on the outrage bus
Twas always thus and has moved up and down in %age over the years, certainly spending time in double figures.
Possibly a good job it was abated to provide a pension, as those in their late teens/early 20's probably wouldnt consider putting aside 10% of their pay for their retirement. I dare say mine would have gone on cars, women and wine and if there was any left after after that, I would probably have wasted it...
Oh and I agree about the petition. Plenty of people always ready to jump on the outrage bus
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: East Anglia
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is always the Devil's Adocates view........
....assuming that the Army ran its redundancy boards in the same manner that the RAF did, then the Sgt's proximity to any pension point would not have been revealed so he would have been selected since the board would have deemed him not upto the required standard or not fit to continue in his current branch.........I had long discussions about this, just as I left on redundancy (with my pension I hasten to add) with the trades sponsor about a Cpl who was destined to miss their 22yr IP by 1 day - thankfully the 18 year rule mentioned above kicked in and they got something.
Aren't there normally loads of posts on here about getting rid of ineffective dead wood or does that only apply VSOs? All a bit of a moot point now, since he has remustered and therefore must have been worth keeping in some capacity!!
My point of view is that some compassion and discretion should be applied for those selected so close to a true IP, on a case by case basis ie Is X a good troop, but unlucky through circumstance (ie medical etc) or is X a scroat worth getting rid of? Unfortunately, as discussed with the trades sponsor et al 18 months ago, that approach was deemed discrimatory so we have the "safe" black line in the sand approach.
....assuming that the Army ran its redundancy boards in the same manner that the RAF did, then the Sgt's proximity to any pension point would not have been revealed so he would have been selected since the board would have deemed him not upto the required standard or not fit to continue in his current branch.........I had long discussions about this, just as I left on redundancy (with my pension I hasten to add) with the trades sponsor about a Cpl who was destined to miss their 22yr IP by 1 day - thankfully the 18 year rule mentioned above kicked in and they got something.
Aren't there normally loads of posts on here about getting rid of ineffective dead wood or does that only apply VSOs? All a bit of a moot point now, since he has remustered and therefore must have been worth keeping in some capacity!!
My point of view is that some compassion and discretion should be applied for those selected so close to a true IP, on a case by case basis ie Is X a good troop, but unlucky through circumstance (ie medical etc) or is X a scroat worth getting rid of? Unfortunately, as discussed with the trades sponsor et al 18 months ago, that approach was deemed discrimatory so we have the "safe" black line in the sand approach.