Armed Forces Pension Board
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: @exRAF_Al
Posts: 3,297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wanderoo.. gotcha now, not then. The shame! 
4AD,
There is no retirement strategy, that's half the problem. We'll be entering the third iteration shortly. If we think back, a little over one hundred years, retirement was there to remove 48 year olds from hard labour in the fields to give the twelve year olds something to do. We then moved to what we see it as now, a period to play gold and walk on sun kissed sands in linen shirts, and that was only about fifty years ago. Now, we're going to see it morph into something else. The justification; pseudo societal of course, based on the very real premise of dire financial expediency, increased longevity and complete mismanagement.
With AFPS already being as fragmented as it is, chaos, uncertainty and disillusionment will reign even more widely. A two track pension will create division, but let's be honest - does anyone in a position of authority really care? Initially, I'm sure that the new scheme, if it is contributory in the conventional sense, will be for new entrants only, but we all know how these things operate, especially if we look back. It's winning through the incessant dripping of fluid into a fissure on a rock face, and not a demolition charge.
The Cridland Report (publication bought forward to accommodate the Autumn statement?) may offer insight. I think I'm right in saying too, that AFPS15 allows for changes only via secondary legislation to amend certain aspects anyway. As an aside, check too, that you have your state pension squared away. Don't dilly dally.
http://www.royallondon.com/Global/do...SION-GUIDE.pdf
https://www.ftadviser.com/state-pens...state-pension/
Voluntary NICs could help top up state pensions for 500,000 - Royal London
4AD,
There is no retirement strategy, that's half the problem. We'll be entering the third iteration shortly. If we think back, a little over one hundred years, retirement was there to remove 48 year olds from hard labour in the fields to give the twelve year olds something to do. We then moved to what we see it as now, a period to play gold and walk on sun kissed sands in linen shirts, and that was only about fifty years ago. Now, we're going to see it morph into something else. The justification; pseudo societal of course, based on the very real premise of dire financial expediency, increased longevity and complete mismanagement.
With AFPS already being as fragmented as it is, chaos, uncertainty and disillusionment will reign even more widely. A two track pension will create division, but let's be honest - does anyone in a position of authority really care? Initially, I'm sure that the new scheme, if it is contributory in the conventional sense, will be for new entrants only, but we all know how these things operate, especially if we look back. It's winning through the incessant dripping of fluid into a fissure on a rock face, and not a demolition charge.
The Cridland Report (publication bought forward to accommodate the Autumn statement?) may offer insight. I think I'm right in saying too, that AFPS15 allows for changes only via secondary legislation to amend certain aspects anyway. As an aside, check too, that you have your state pension squared away. Don't dilly dally.
http://www.royallondon.com/Global/do...SION-GUIDE.pdf
https://www.ftadviser.com/state-pens...state-pension/
Voluntary NICs could help top up state pensions for 500,000 - Royal London
Last edited by Al R; 11th Oct 2016 at 11:01.
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: London
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pensions Board
I post the following on behalf of the General Secretary of the Forces Pension Society:
It is wrong to suggest that the Armed Forces Pension Board has no employees’ voice - The Forces Pension Society, along with the Royal British Legion and others, sits on that Board specifically to represent the interests of scheme members, i.e. those in receipt of pensions and those who will one day receive pensions. I attend meetings of the Board myself in this role. It is important work - the Board receives detailed reports from DBS about accuracy and speed of pensions payments and forecasts, the number of official complaints that have been received, and many other issues. I can assure you that in all this the FPS provides a voice which is expert and sometimes critical.
It is wrong to make a link between low running costs and effectiveness. There would be more cause for concern if the administrative costs were high! I myself charge nothing for attendance on the Board - I deliberately do not ask for subsidy from the MoD, and my costs are therefore met by Forces Pension Society members, which I think is right. Nor is the charge of amateurism appropriate - the Chairman of the Board Robert Branagh - who gives his time for very little - is a hugely experienced pensions professional (Google him!) and is absolutely not in the MoD's pocket.
Of course you have a point about whether there is a new pension scheme around the corner, and how the details of that scheme will fit into assurances given about 25 year stability. In the Forces Pension Society we have heard rumour and speculation about this (see our magazine Pennant). We have heard nothing specific but we are ready to respond vigorously and with forensic precision if and when the MoD shows its hand.
It is wrong to suggest that the Armed Forces Pension Board has no employees’ voice - The Forces Pension Society, along with the Royal British Legion and others, sits on that Board specifically to represent the interests of scheme members, i.e. those in receipt of pensions and those who will one day receive pensions. I attend meetings of the Board myself in this role. It is important work - the Board receives detailed reports from DBS about accuracy and speed of pensions payments and forecasts, the number of official complaints that have been received, and many other issues. I can assure you that in all this the FPS provides a voice which is expert and sometimes critical.
It is wrong to make a link between low running costs and effectiveness. There would be more cause for concern if the administrative costs were high! I myself charge nothing for attendance on the Board - I deliberately do not ask for subsidy from the MoD, and my costs are therefore met by Forces Pension Society members, which I think is right. Nor is the charge of amateurism appropriate - the Chairman of the Board Robert Branagh - who gives his time for very little - is a hugely experienced pensions professional (Google him!) and is absolutely not in the MoD's pocket.
Of course you have a point about whether there is a new pension scheme around the corner, and how the details of that scheme will fit into assurances given about 25 year stability. In the Forces Pension Society we have heard rumour and speculation about this (see our magazine Pennant). We have heard nothing specific but we are ready to respond vigorously and with forensic precision if and when the MoD shows its hand.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: UK
Age: 78
Posts: 389
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pensions anyone?
I will never come to terms with the way we paid NI conts for so many years not knowing we would lack a state pension in return because of the serps issue.
I only discovered this twenty years after leaving the RAF and requesting a pension forecast. Even then the pension office stated I would get a full state pension because I had worked for suficent years. By then it was too late to make up the extra and we both suffered because contributions can only be made from earned income
I think serving people both now and in future need to be told very loudly that they must note changes to the pension scheme in the knowledge that the purpose of those arranging it is to reduce the cost irrespective of the contractual nature of the precious deal
I only discovered this twenty years after leaving the RAF and requesting a pension forecast. Even then the pension office stated I would get a full state pension because I had worked for suficent years. By then it was too late to make up the extra and we both suffered because contributions can only be made from earned income
I think serving people both now and in future need to be told very loudly that they must note changes to the pension scheme in the knowledge that the purpose of those arranging it is to reduce the cost irrespective of the contractual nature of the precious deal
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: London
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
State pension
Your NICs have been going towards the Old Age Pension. What you have not been paying (until April 16) is the extra 1.4% of pay which would qualify you for the Second State Pension.
The system changed from April 16 there is only the Single Tier Pension for people under state pension age to contribute to. Service personnel (and, indeed, all other members of formerly 'contracted out' schemes) saw their NI contributions increase by 1.4% of pay from April and the qualifying period to achieve a full state pension increase from 30 to 35 yrs.
The system changed from April 16 there is only the Single Tier Pension for people under state pension age to contribute to. Service personnel (and, indeed, all other members of formerly 'contracted out' schemes) saw their NI contributions increase by 1.4% of pay from April and the qualifying period to achieve a full state pension increase from 30 to 35 yrs.
Curious, the gov.uk website says I have 34 years of full contributions and then says (on another page) that I must contribute for another 9 years to get the full pension (£155.65). That will make 43 years, not 35. Anyone any ideas why?
Last edited by Red Line Entry; 11th Oct 2016 at 17:24.
RLE,
The confusion you quote is simply HMG failing to run it's pensions information correctly. You, like most with a few years to run to the revised (x3, x4, x?...) state pension age(s), have been downgraded in your entitlement. This is a result of the revisions to pension entitlement not recognising the "earned" status of those who had previously qualified for the full pension but, not yet reached state pension age.
Worse things have happened to female pension rights!
Going by the way that the Government is now willing to play fast and loose with pension rights, I suspect that the state pension will be subject to means testing within 5 years!
Just my opinion.
OAP
The confusion you quote is simply HMG failing to run it's pensions information correctly. You, like most with a few years to run to the revised (x3, x4, x?...) state pension age(s), have been downgraded in your entitlement. This is a result of the revisions to pension entitlement not recognising the "earned" status of those who had previously qualified for the full pension but, not yet reached state pension age.
Worse things have happened to female pension rights!
Going by the way that the Government is now willing to play fast and loose with pension rights, I suspect that the state pension will be subject to means testing within 5 years!Just my opinion.
OAP
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: @exRAF_Al
Posts: 3,297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Voxpop, how are you? Well I hope. Let me address John's very valid points in reverse order.
Having just read today's Cridland Report, page 88 gives an indicator as to possible AFPS direction of travel. I can't post my screengrab, so a link to my tweet will have to do (sorry, it's banal in the extreme). If early access to the state pension may be bought forward for carers and others (including mil pers and trawlermen etc), but if increasing the default state pension age is accelerated, then the viability of allowing default 'burnout' (a retirement phrase which does not reflect medical condition, but simply 'early' access to an occupational pension) by nothing more than the existence of a default clause has to be reconsidered. Clearly, Cridland is suggesting that the means of supporting a Flight Sergeant who leaves at aged 45, other than paying out a pension should be questioned.
https://twitter.com/raf_ifa/status/786517167890165760
A contributory pension for new entrants is, I would hazard, a done deal. It will create division, but who in authority will care? It is the thin end of the wedge, there will come a time, in quite short order I imagine, when all will be contributing. This threat and the reaction to it can only be telegraphed if those on the hangar floor are aware of it, if they are allowed and encouraged to react accordingly and if those who make the decisions and who influence them, are aware. Currently, there is no scope to even gauge that, let alone transmit it. Twelve months in, and twelve months closer to more undoubted changes, there has been no movement on it. Cridland touches on the importance of good communications on page 11; referencing, of course, WASPI, but there are undeniably parallels with those made redundant just before their IPP. Let's learn from the WASPI lessons. Let's not make the same mistakes again.
I'm aware of the breadth and depth of Robert's work, I have contacted him three times thus far; I have heard nothing back (yet, admittedly).
My comment on the minimal spend was not automatically one of reflecting quality, rather, the means to do its work. I have not spoken to a single client in the past two/three years who has anything good to say about how pension 'policy' is being formulated. The fact that there is such ignorance and uncertainty is bad enough. But no one can plan in a vacuum, and I have to say, clients who I meet with in various messes and SFA and homes simply want the truth in order to be able to plan properly.. not the constant flow of soapy platitudes they seem to get. We all knew AFPS15 was a stop gap, so why was the dreary myth that it was good for 25 years rolled out and played out?
Cridland offers just two months to submit a return, page 88 in itself is probably worthy of it. If you wish, I would be delighted to assist and look forward to meeting with you to discuss that, and of course, the still unfolding business of the redundancy unfairness. Please don't hesitate to get in touch if I might be of help.
Edit: https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...rim-report.pdf
Having just read today's Cridland Report, page 88 gives an indicator as to possible AFPS direction of travel. I can't post my screengrab, so a link to my tweet will have to do (sorry, it's banal in the extreme). If early access to the state pension may be bought forward for carers and others (including mil pers and trawlermen etc), but if increasing the default state pension age is accelerated, then the viability of allowing default 'burnout' (a retirement phrase which does not reflect medical condition, but simply 'early' access to an occupational pension) by nothing more than the existence of a default clause has to be reconsidered. Clearly, Cridland is suggesting that the means of supporting a Flight Sergeant who leaves at aged 45, other than paying out a pension should be questioned.
https://twitter.com/raf_ifa/status/786517167890165760
A contributory pension for new entrants is, I would hazard, a done deal. It will create division, but who in authority will care? It is the thin end of the wedge, there will come a time, in quite short order I imagine, when all will be contributing. This threat and the reaction to it can only be telegraphed if those on the hangar floor are aware of it, if they are allowed and encouraged to react accordingly and if those who make the decisions and who influence them, are aware. Currently, there is no scope to even gauge that, let alone transmit it. Twelve months in, and twelve months closer to more undoubted changes, there has been no movement on it. Cridland touches on the importance of good communications on page 11; referencing, of course, WASPI, but there are undeniably parallels with those made redundant just before their IPP. Let's learn from the WASPI lessons. Let's not make the same mistakes again.
I'm aware of the breadth and depth of Robert's work, I have contacted him three times thus far; I have heard nothing back (yet, admittedly).
My comment on the minimal spend was not automatically one of reflecting quality, rather, the means to do its work. I have not spoken to a single client in the past two/three years who has anything good to say about how pension 'policy' is being formulated. The fact that there is such ignorance and uncertainty is bad enough. But no one can plan in a vacuum, and I have to say, clients who I meet with in various messes and SFA and homes simply want the truth in order to be able to plan properly.. not the constant flow of soapy platitudes they seem to get. We all knew AFPS15 was a stop gap, so why was the dreary myth that it was good for 25 years rolled out and played out?
Cridland offers just two months to submit a return, page 88 in itself is probably worthy of it. If you wish, I would be delighted to assist and look forward to meeting with you to discuss that, and of course, the still unfolding business of the redundancy unfairness. Please don't hesitate to get in touch if I might be of help.
Edit: https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...rim-report.pdf
Last edited by Al R; 13th Oct 2016 at 19:53.
Having just read today's Cridland Report, page 88 gives an indicator as to possible AFPS direction of travel
So far we are still waiting for the white smoke, but I have to say that no one is denying that work is going on to develop a new scheme, nor that the government will show its hand fairly soon.
To be honest, I don't trust them one little bit. I can tell when they are lying because I can see their lips moving. Hope I'm proved wrong, but my money is on yet another wholesale change that will do nothing to stop the panic about T&C free fall.
would any move to a contributory scheme be offset by an increase in pay to take into account the current salary abatement or would our salaries continue to be abated for a 'non-contributory' scheme we may no longer even get? (I know, I know ... consider it a rhetorical question!)
To be honest, I don't trust them one little bit. I can tell when they are lying because I can see their lips moving.
To be honest, I don't trust them one little bit. I can tell when they are lying because I can see their lips moving.
You are quite right. TBH, I think that HMGov are now trying to squeeze public services pensions as hard as they possibly can. They have done a hell of a lot of cutting back on the state pension, actions which would be admired by many a "wide-boy" asset stripper!
OAP
Last edited by Onceapilot; 7th Nov 2016 at 10:50.
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: London
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Melchett01 wrote: So given the other recent threads on PVR and retention rates, what's the thinking? Will it be another wholesale change for all concerned, in a clear reversal of the previous promise that AFPS 15 would be good for 25 years; or leave existing schemes as they are and introduce a scheme going forward for new joiners?
We at FPS suspect that the change will apply to new entrants but we have nothing official.
We at FPS suspect that the change will apply to new entrants but we have nothing official.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: @exRAF_Al
Posts: 3,297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When you see the direction of travel, and the intent with other public sector pensions, you know there's no escape. Even at the time, the 25 year announcement was absurd and preposterous, and nothing short of propaganda which should have been ridiculed with the contempt it deserved. One reason why servicemen and women, and their families, need proper representation. There's no point in having an X Factor if it's tied in to being unable to resist disadvantageous change of a much higher magnitude. I'm not sure if trustee legislation applies, but those on the new pension board have a duty to scheme members to tell them the truth so that they can start financial planning properly. Deceit and soft soap undermines and disadvantages scheme members as much as the constant erosion of scheme benefits does.
http://www.pprune.org/military-aviat...ml#post8768372
http://www.pprune.org/military-aviat...ml#post8577633
http://www.pprune.org/military-aviat...ml#post8768069
http://www.pprune.org/military-aviat...ml#post8768372
http://www.pprune.org/military-aviat...ml#post8577633
http://www.pprune.org/military-aviat...ml#post8768069
