Pension Abatement in AFPS15
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Lincoln
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pension Abatement in AFPS15
Just reading the Consultation Docs for the new pension scheme (it's part of my job....honest) and can't help wondering what has changed in law that now prevents pension abatement in AFPS15 that wasn't present to prevent abatement in AFPS75 or 05? Anyone shed any light on the matter? Are those with abated pensions in line for a windfall when they threaten to take the MOD to court?
I cannot answer your question but your link makes for some interesting reading. The scheme has changed somewhat and I guess the ink has not dried on this version either. There are ominous gaps in the legislation when it comes to tricky issues such as the cost cap!
Anyway, my read of it so far suggests that age 55 retains some significance in the new scheme.
Anyway, my read of it so far suggests that age 55 retains some significance in the new scheme.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: @exRAF_Al
Posts: 3,297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Useful. The budget and subsequent announcements has made quite a bit of that obsolete already. So too, I suspect, has the intent behind last week's EU consultation on cross border 'harmony'. A right riveting read that is too. My days are spent wading through reams of guidance, proposals and regulations that are, in themselves, pretty insignificant, but collectively are painting a picture of great significance in how we as a society, achieve, grow, spend and pass on our wealth.
Lots to digest, but skimming through it, it seems that if you're on the cusp of getting out at aged 55 and on the highest pay band, and are sent to the Ukraine, then go down fighting rather than getting captured by the Russians - your 4 times death in service benefit is worth far more than your 30 years subsequently peeling spuds in a gulag. Just as measly and parsimonious is the part about children's benefits. Don't bother with sperm donation before you deploy - what on earth does the MoD expect - C Company the 14th Mess Tin and Bottle Washer Slight of Hand & Foot Regiment descending en masse on a sperm bank before deploying on Operation Certain Death?
Given the relative swathes allocated to payments and ill health determination, should you be worried or reassured? You decide. And don't dip your fingers into the tea swindle and expect a life of pensioned luxury, that one seems to have been squared off too. I didn't see anything about which 'national average earnings index' was intended for use (bit of a difference between that and the 'Average Earnings Index') when determining accrual - expect more CPI/RPI skullduggery.
I may have missed something about the accrual re-evaluation rate as well. That lack of hewn out of granite etched in stone, Mercedez Benz from the 1970s sense of certainty and build quality, as well as the references to the scheme only having validity as long as the cost cap was observed, have always made this (in my eyes) to be a bit of a stop gap measure.
http://www.pprune.org/military-aircr...ml#post7335640
Post budget, a lot of this debate is like being a bald man fighting over a comb. A pension is no longer a whole of life product. Looking at the fine detail is one thing, it's like bringing the washing in when you see a black cloud, but not seeing the local river is about to burst its banks. I am sure that the Forces Pensions Society will continue to fight the fight superbly, but putting this pension change into the context of a dramatically unfolding regulatory and legislative landscape is another. The overarching premise is simple, it really is - the state wants to control not only how much money you have, but how you access it and how you spend it.
It wants you to have access to your pension funds because it has annuity companies and life companies in its back pocket because they will have no money, no clout and no influence and because it wants to be autocratic in how it controls the money supply. The audacity and the scale of the budget is still reverberating. This tweak almost, is a footnote to the bigger picture, a sop to what has already happened and an almost insignificant prelude to what changes are yet to come. Fund picking is now sometimes an almost metaphorical afterthought in the advisory process. You need the vision, the plan, the exit strategy and the op order - not identifying who is responsible for ordering the compo.
George Osborne amplified the other day that the nuclear option; transferring out of a final salary scheme, was going to be abolished. It's obvious that you'll grow benefits within this scheme which will be worth less and less and less, and you will be tied in to the (declining) benchmark. A young aspiring officer has the prospect of a new lower lifetime allowance (expect sub £1,000,000 pretty soon, especially if the Lib Dems hold the keys) being locked away in a scheme that continues to reduce in real worth.
And I feel myself wondering, for the first time, why would anyone want, in principle, much more than a reasonably noticeable proportion of their pension lifetime allowance locked away in something as restrictive as this particular pension scheme will continue to become - especially if the member anticipates growing wealth as a civvy in the new languid waters of a legislative pension jacuzzi which allows/encourages/induces dangerously almost otherwise unfettered access?
I shall read it with interest properly later, thanks.
Lots to digest, but skimming through it, it seems that if you're on the cusp of getting out at aged 55 and on the highest pay band, and are sent to the Ukraine, then go down fighting rather than getting captured by the Russians - your 4 times death in service benefit is worth far more than your 30 years subsequently peeling spuds in a gulag. Just as measly and parsimonious is the part about children's benefits. Don't bother with sperm donation before you deploy - what on earth does the MoD expect - C Company the 14th Mess Tin and Bottle Washer Slight of Hand & Foot Regiment descending en masse on a sperm bank before deploying on Operation Certain Death?
Given the relative swathes allocated to payments and ill health determination, should you be worried or reassured? You decide. And don't dip your fingers into the tea swindle and expect a life of pensioned luxury, that one seems to have been squared off too. I didn't see anything about which 'national average earnings index' was intended for use (bit of a difference between that and the 'Average Earnings Index') when determining accrual - expect more CPI/RPI skullduggery.
I may have missed something about the accrual re-evaluation rate as well. That lack of hewn out of granite etched in stone, Mercedez Benz from the 1970s sense of certainty and build quality, as well as the references to the scheme only having validity as long as the cost cap was observed, have always made this (in my eyes) to be a bit of a stop gap measure.
http://www.pprune.org/military-aircr...ml#post7335640
Post budget, a lot of this debate is like being a bald man fighting over a comb. A pension is no longer a whole of life product. Looking at the fine detail is one thing, it's like bringing the washing in when you see a black cloud, but not seeing the local river is about to burst its banks. I am sure that the Forces Pensions Society will continue to fight the fight superbly, but putting this pension change into the context of a dramatically unfolding regulatory and legislative landscape is another. The overarching premise is simple, it really is - the state wants to control not only how much money you have, but how you access it and how you spend it.
It wants you to have access to your pension funds because it has annuity companies and life companies in its back pocket because they will have no money, no clout and no influence and because it wants to be autocratic in how it controls the money supply. The audacity and the scale of the budget is still reverberating. This tweak almost, is a footnote to the bigger picture, a sop to what has already happened and an almost insignificant prelude to what changes are yet to come. Fund picking is now sometimes an almost metaphorical afterthought in the advisory process. You need the vision, the plan, the exit strategy and the op order - not identifying who is responsible for ordering the compo.
George Osborne amplified the other day that the nuclear option; transferring out of a final salary scheme, was going to be abolished. It's obvious that you'll grow benefits within this scheme which will be worth less and less and less, and you will be tied in to the (declining) benchmark. A young aspiring officer has the prospect of a new lower lifetime allowance (expect sub £1,000,000 pretty soon, especially if the Lib Dems hold the keys) being locked away in a scheme that continues to reduce in real worth.
And I feel myself wondering, for the first time, why would anyone want, in principle, much more than a reasonably noticeable proportion of their pension lifetime allowance locked away in something as restrictive as this particular pension scheme will continue to become - especially if the member anticipates growing wealth as a civvy in the new languid waters of a legislative pension jacuzzi which allows/encourages/induces dangerously almost otherwise unfettered access?
I shall read it with interest properly later, thanks.
Al R,
Your posts, as always, make fascinating reading.
I noticed that APFS 15 allows individuals to opt out of the scheme and didn't really understand why anyone would want to. Am I reading it correctly?
Your posts, as always, make fascinating reading.
I noticed that APFS 15 allows individuals to opt out of the scheme and didn't really understand why anyone would want to. Am I reading it correctly?
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: @exRAF_Al
Posts: 3,297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You always have been able to opt out of AFPS but why would anyone? If you are someone who knows you are going to leave the military and have a successful most mil career, then lets assume you will want to be able to max out your lifetime pension allowance. You may of course, be in a rank that is going to cause you to breach the allowance anyway, or you may anticipate it.
But as an aside, in principle, you now have far greater choice in how you receive retirement income - would you want your pensionable allowance to be tied up in a public sector final salary scheme which might restrict delivery of income, and offer not so good dependents benefits or would you want your pension in a scheme which offers access in a different way and more diverse estate planning options.
There are lots of downsides of course, overwelmingly so; the funding would have to be contributory and you'd lose death in service benefits for instance, and for the vast majority of people you wouldn't even consider it. It might also be that a divorce affects your accrued benefits, with you as either a pension credit or debit member, and that is something else to be considered.
As a further aside, the Financial Ombudsman has also recently ruled on QROPS which seems to make them more core to more people's planning.
But as an aside, in principle, you now have far greater choice in how you receive retirement income - would you want your pensionable allowance to be tied up in a public sector final salary scheme which might restrict delivery of income, and offer not so good dependents benefits or would you want your pension in a scheme which offers access in a different way and more diverse estate planning options.
There are lots of downsides of course, overwelmingly so; the funding would have to be contributory and you'd lose death in service benefits for instance, and for the vast majority of people you wouldn't even consider it. It might also be that a divorce affects your accrued benefits, with you as either a pension credit or debit member, and that is something else to be considered.
As a further aside, the Financial Ombudsman has also recently ruled on QROPS which seems to make them more core to more people's planning.
NON SPECIFIC GENERAL POINTS TO YOU YOUNG CHAPS
I will be 65 next week and I have been retired for the last 5 years from the airline industry. I have a number of pension schemes that now give me a comfortable retirement. I started with the RAF scheme at age 21, and 4 pension schemes later I reckon to draw on them until (statistically) age 84. So a few uninformed saloon bar comments about pensions..
The amount of money I lost on commission and management fees, for the 2 ‘private’ schemes, bought between the RAF and joining a company scheme, has been a scandal.
The value of the houses I have bought, have increased much more than any of the pension schemes. I would, I suspect, have been better of paying mortgages (for a property empire) then paying into pensions. The investment would also still be part of my estate when I die
Why would anyone commit to a financial ‘contract’ that lasts 63 years (age 21 to age 84) given the amount of uncertainty that government legislation has the potential to cause. Having just bought a couple of annuities along comes George last week, and changes the law again. Never mind advance corporation tax, life time limits, and so on.
All my pension pots are held by 3rd parties, either the government, insurance companies, or my ex employer, (who incidentally continually tries to water down the benefits accrued.) If I die tomorrow a large amount of what is in effect my money disappears into the proverbial black hole. Add that to a financial services industry that has become a byword for scandal over the last 20 years and you do wonder?
And to add insult to injury, when I get my basic state pension next week, I have been told by the EQUINITY that the £400 per month military pension I have received since age 60 is now reduced to £200 to make up for the GMP bit of the state pension. You could not make it up.
I am reminded of a head line in Private Eye some years ago.
‘pensions worthless as stock market collapse heralds house price disaster – time to end it all now or drink more!’
I will be 65 next week and I have been retired for the last 5 years from the airline industry. I have a number of pension schemes that now give me a comfortable retirement. I started with the RAF scheme at age 21, and 4 pension schemes later I reckon to draw on them until (statistically) age 84. So a few uninformed saloon bar comments about pensions..
The amount of money I lost on commission and management fees, for the 2 ‘private’ schemes, bought between the RAF and joining a company scheme, has been a scandal.
The value of the houses I have bought, have increased much more than any of the pension schemes. I would, I suspect, have been better of paying mortgages (for a property empire) then paying into pensions. The investment would also still be part of my estate when I die
Why would anyone commit to a financial ‘contract’ that lasts 63 years (age 21 to age 84) given the amount of uncertainty that government legislation has the potential to cause. Having just bought a couple of annuities along comes George last week, and changes the law again. Never mind advance corporation tax, life time limits, and so on.
All my pension pots are held by 3rd parties, either the government, insurance companies, or my ex employer, (who incidentally continually tries to water down the benefits accrued.) If I die tomorrow a large amount of what is in effect my money disappears into the proverbial black hole. Add that to a financial services industry that has become a byword for scandal over the last 20 years and you do wonder?
And to add insult to injury, when I get my basic state pension next week, I have been told by the EQUINITY that the £400 per month military pension I have received since age 60 is now reduced to £200 to make up for the GMP bit of the state pension. You could not make it up.
I am reminded of a head line in Private Eye some years ago.
‘pensions worthless as stock market collapse heralds house price disaster – time to end it all now or drink more!’
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: @exRAF_Al
Posts: 3,297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Staircase,
I am not an apologist for the financial services sector. But, a few thoughts back?
In 1975, when you and your peer group started saving, the basic rate of tax was 35%. Someone making £10,000 pa would have been paying tax at a rate of 63%. Drawing that income these days notwithstanding your recent decision to annuitise, at a modern marginal rate of 20% (or even less with some deft planning) represents a pretty good deal for the saver. If you had a portfolio of houses developed over the decades, you would have incurred quite a CGT liability but I take completely, your thoughts about the financial services sector and the uncertainty of legislation.
You refer to having a comfortable retirement - a report from the Pru this morning highlights that twice as many women who didn't save into a pension now don't have one similar, and the rates of retirement financial impoverishment are almost twice as high in the NE and SW, as they are in parts of the country where engagement did take place. I don't wish to diminish the relevance of what you say, and couldn't, but those joining up now have a far more uncertain future than those who started saving 40 years before them.
Flipping through the regs for AFPS15, the issue of declining benefits is not just a scandal of the private sector. Some of the proposed death/ill health benefits are shocking. I had a mate who got married just before getting onto the bus and deploying on Granby. Post 2015, unless you are married for 6 months, your widow/widower/civil partner will get nothing in the event of your death. Finally, the new investigation by he FCA into insanely costed and unfairly restrictive pensions from 30 years or so ago might offer you hope for a fair resolution?
I am not an apologist for the financial services sector. But, a few thoughts back?
In 1975, when you and your peer group started saving, the basic rate of tax was 35%. Someone making £10,000 pa would have been paying tax at a rate of 63%. Drawing that income these days notwithstanding your recent decision to annuitise, at a modern marginal rate of 20% (or even less with some deft planning) represents a pretty good deal for the saver. If you had a portfolio of houses developed over the decades, you would have incurred quite a CGT liability but I take completely, your thoughts about the financial services sector and the uncertainty of legislation.
You refer to having a comfortable retirement - a report from the Pru this morning highlights that twice as many women who didn't save into a pension now don't have one similar, and the rates of retirement financial impoverishment are almost twice as high in the NE and SW, as they are in parts of the country where engagement did take place. I don't wish to diminish the relevance of what you say, and couldn't, but those joining up now have a far more uncertain future than those who started saving 40 years before them.
Flipping through the regs for AFPS15, the issue of declining benefits is not just a scandal of the private sector. Some of the proposed death/ill health benefits are shocking. I had a mate who got married just before getting onto the bus and deploying on Granby. Post 2015, unless you are married for 6 months, your widow/widower/civil partner will get nothing in the event of your death. Finally, the new investigation by he FCA into insanely costed and unfairly restrictive pensions from 30 years or so ago might offer you hope for a fair resolution?
Al, on the same sort of theme, could you please give a few words about how the service pension and state pension effect each other at the start of state pension, age 65+? Just interested how much difference it will make? Thanks
.
.
A reasoned reply and as I said about my comments they are no more than saloon bar reflections.
The comment about women not having pensions. I can very much see your point but I am not advocating not saving, just to think about if the best way of providing for retirement in an uncertain world, is a pension scheme. There was an Observer article a great number of years ago,that said given all the money our generation had in pension and endowment policies, then the 'financial system' would struggle to give it to us all back when we retired. So it would seem. Things changed with the last budget, but if your employer was not making a contribution, and you were on basic tax, and then had to buy an annuity at the end, I would suggest a pension in these circumstances was not as good as an ISA.
Tax was interesting. I remember those kind of rates, but it seemed fair when all paid it, when companies paid their share, when unemployment was 500,000, education was free, we got university grants, MP's haad done something other than being a 'special adviser', the roads were in good condition and so on. And I know, Mum's apple pie tasted so good!
As for housing. I also remember the interest rates on my mortgage in the mid eighties. I wonder how I could sleep at nights thinking of it! I took a £40,000 mortgage in 1986, got a captains job in 1989 and used the increased salary to over pay the mortgage. I had paid it off in 1992 and a simple count up showed that I had paid back over £73,000. However that house was sold last year for £300,000. That house was only in my wife's name, and the next one, a country cottage was only in mine. So playing the system we have now 'flipped' and pay no capital gains. (My cousin was an accountant!)
I would also like to see a reply to the above post, considering they have just sent me a letter to say my RAF pension is halving as a result of my state pension turning up.
The comment about women not having pensions. I can very much see your point but I am not advocating not saving, just to think about if the best way of providing for retirement in an uncertain world, is a pension scheme. There was an Observer article a great number of years ago,that said given all the money our generation had in pension and endowment policies, then the 'financial system' would struggle to give it to us all back when we retired. So it would seem. Things changed with the last budget, but if your employer was not making a contribution, and you were on basic tax, and then had to buy an annuity at the end, I would suggest a pension in these circumstances was not as good as an ISA.
Tax was interesting. I remember those kind of rates, but it seemed fair when all paid it, when companies paid their share, when unemployment was 500,000, education was free, we got university grants, MP's haad done something other than being a 'special adviser', the roads were in good condition and so on. And I know, Mum's apple pie tasted so good!
As for housing. I also remember the interest rates on my mortgage in the mid eighties. I wonder how I could sleep at nights thinking of it! I took a £40,000 mortgage in 1986, got a captains job in 1989 and used the increased salary to over pay the mortgage. I had paid it off in 1992 and a simple count up showed that I had paid back over £73,000. However that house was sold last year for £300,000. That house was only in my wife's name, and the next one, a country cottage was only in mine. So playing the system we have now 'flipped' and pay no capital gains. (My cousin was an accountant!)
I would also like to see a reply to the above post, considering they have just sent me a letter to say my RAF pension is halving as a result of my state pension turning up.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: @exRAF_Al
Posts: 3,297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Once a pilot.
AFPS has to pay a pension benefit (the Guaranteed Minimum Pension - the GMP) at least as good as that which was paid by ye olde SERPS.
When Staircase claims his basic state pension, DWP will advise how much of it is the GMP amount and then becomes responsible for that part of the ongoing increase which may be shown on an annual statement as a Contracted Out Deductions, or COD. Equinity must allow for this to avoid anyone receiving an increase on the same amount of GMP twice. But, it went a bit wrong and some people have been affected when state pension was drawn - I think up to a couple of thousand?
Equinity will increase the part of the GMP that was earned post 5 April 1988, and pay this with his mil pension up to a maximum of 3% but any increase above that and all increases on the GMP amount earned before 6 April 1988 is paid by the DWP with his basic state pension. It might be that he is one of those affected? I'm sure that Voxpop is far better placed to comment on this one and I stand by to be corrected on the fallout on pensionable military members.
Staircase,
I have just replied to OAP - I wonder if it affects you? I have to go out and will respond more fully when I get back.
AFPS has to pay a pension benefit (the Guaranteed Minimum Pension - the GMP) at least as good as that which was paid by ye olde SERPS.
When Staircase claims his basic state pension, DWP will advise how much of it is the GMP amount and then becomes responsible for that part of the ongoing increase which may be shown on an annual statement as a Contracted Out Deductions, or COD. Equinity must allow for this to avoid anyone receiving an increase on the same amount of GMP twice. But, it went a bit wrong and some people have been affected when state pension was drawn - I think up to a couple of thousand?
Equinity will increase the part of the GMP that was earned post 5 April 1988, and pay this with his mil pension up to a maximum of 3% but any increase above that and all increases on the GMP amount earned before 6 April 1988 is paid by the DWP with his basic state pension. It might be that he is one of those affected? I'm sure that Voxpop is far better placed to comment on this one and I stand by to be corrected on the fallout on pensionable military members.
Staircase,
I have just replied to OAP - I wonder if it affects you? I have to go out and will respond more fully when I get back.
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: London
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We (the Forces Pension Society Forces Pension Society - Fighting for the Forces and their Families ) produce a useful fact sheet for our members on this as there are a lot of rumours about the extent of the DWP reductions. In a nutshell, there are two separate adjustments: the GMP and the National Insurance reduction.
The GMP element (the non-increasing part of the Armed Forces Pension) is applied only when the State Pension is put into payment, not when one reaches the State Pension Age.
At State Pension Age (whether one draws their State Pension or defers it) there is a small NI reduction adjustment annually.
The GMP element (the non-increasing part of the Armed Forces Pension) is applied only when the State Pension is put into payment, not when one reaches the State Pension Age.
At State Pension Age (whether one draws their State Pension or defers it) there is a small NI reduction adjustment annually.
Thanks for the replies that you chaps have offered - very helpful.
In my case I had a letter yesterday saying that my RAF pension would half as a result of this adjustment!
Since I knew that there would be a reduction I was almost prepared to accept it, until you chaps on PPrune stimulated the little grey cells. After reading the above posts, this morning I phoned them up.
It seems that in some cases there is a 'glitch' in their system and I was one of these 'glitches'. They have promised that they will get it sorted out, and the reduction should amount to as little as £20 per year. At today's prices the loss of 5 pints p.a. is something I can live with.
In my case I had a letter yesterday saying that my RAF pension would half as a result of this adjustment!
Since I knew that there would be a reduction I was almost prepared to accept it, until you chaps on PPrune stimulated the little grey cells. After reading the above posts, this morning I phoned them up.
It seems that in some cases there is a 'glitch' in their system and I was one of these 'glitches'. They have promised that they will get it sorted out, and the reduction should amount to as little as £20 per year. At today's prices the loss of 5 pints p.a. is something I can live with.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: @exRAF_Al
Posts: 3,297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Staircase,
Glad you got a result. I was going to write something else but on another possibly more important note, you mentioned that you have 'just' annuitised. The FCA released guidance yesterday (link below) that offers the financial services industry a steer about how to deal with (possibly) you.
http://www.fca.org.uk/static/documen...ce/fg14-03.pdf
From yesterday's Telegraph.
Thousands allowed to escape annuities bought before Budget - Telegraph
In the first instance, might it be worth contacting the insurance company asking for clarification and/or putting them on notice that you are considering your options?
Glad you got a result. I was going to write something else but on another possibly more important note, you mentioned that you have 'just' annuitised. The FCA released guidance yesterday (link below) that offers the financial services industry a steer about how to deal with (possibly) you.
http://www.fca.org.uk/static/documen...ce/fg14-03.pdf
From yesterday's Telegraph.
Thousands allowed to escape annuities bought before Budget - Telegraph
In the first instance, might it be worth contacting the insurance company asking for clarification and/or putting them on notice that you are considering your options?
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: @exRAF_Al
Posts: 3,297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That's ok - I had a stud partition wall taken down earlier this week - the joints at the base had been packed with The Guardian from 1988. I'm not sure if I was miffed that it wasn't The Sun or relieved that the builder at least had a social conscience.
Thanks for the replies. So, am I right in thinking that a service person with a 35ish year service and retired at 55 would also expect to get almost all the state pension at state retirement age, just minus a few pounds, and subject to normal tax rules?
OAP
OAP
OAP
From my recent (last month) experience, you will get your State Pension from a grateful government, which will be paid direct to you tax-free.
It will consume a very large portion of your personal tax-free allowance - so your tax code will change (go down), and the tax on your Service pension will increase. In simple (my) terms, you will effectively lose whatever tax bracket % you are in off your State Pension when you get it! Hope I haven't confused you with my cynical view.
Whatever you get, despite paying into the system for 35 years, it will almost certainly be less than an out-of-work migrant receives in benefits/tax credits etc, etc, etc. But the good news is that from July, they will have to wait 3 months before they can claim it!
That makes the 35 years you have paid into the system plus taxes etc so much easier to tolerate!!
It will consume a very large portion of your personal tax-free allowance - so your tax code will change (go down), and the tax on your Service pension will increase. In simple (my) terms, you will effectively lose whatever tax bracket % you are in off your State Pension when you get it! Hope I haven't confused you with my cynical view.
Whatever you get, despite paying into the system for 35 years, it will almost certainly be less than an out-of-work migrant receives in benefits/tax credits etc, etc, etc. But the good news is that from July, they will have to wait 3 months before they can claim it!
That makes the 35 years you have paid into the system plus taxes etc so much easier to tolerate!!
Last edited by ex-fast-jets; 10th Apr 2014 at 21:59.
Something else to note about the GMP deduction is that it does not apply if you live in a Commonwealth country where the UK State Pension is frozen for life at the rate you access it.
I specifically asked that question and have obviously retained the letter I got back. Just in case
I specifically asked that question and have obviously retained the letter I got back. Just in case
Sorry, I'm trying my best to understand this, but.... Can someone explain in simple terms what this means...?? I always thought I'd get my full '75 and then later in life a full normal state pension. Does this mean I won't?
Edit: reading again, I think it means I should get almost all of it?
Edit: reading again, I think it means I should get almost all of it?