Pension 2020
JTO
Good points. I do believe that all Officer Aircrew promote to Flt Lt earlier than some of their ground branch colleagues, but that probably doesn’t offset for the earlier promotion to Sqn Ldr by some the ground branches. Also, promotion to Wg Cdr and above is way more open to Aircrew than to some ground branches. So it may just all ‘even out’ in the wash - but I suspect that is more by luck than by design!
Good points. I do believe that all Officer Aircrew promote to Flt Lt earlier than some of their ground branch colleagues, but that probably doesn’t offset for the earlier promotion to Sqn Ldr by some the ground branches. Also, promotion to Wg Cdr and above is way more open to Aircrew than to some ground branches. So it may just all ‘even out’ in the wash - but I suspect that is more by luck than by design!
Initial thoughts from the FPS on the fact that the Government has accepted its mistake in how it handled the transition to AFPS 15 are out. Suggestion is that the Government with its ongoing remit to ensure pension affordability may feel released from its promise that AFPS 15 is good for 25 years given that it now has a £4Bn hole to fill across the public sector.
Of course it could just move everyone regardless of age across to 15 scheme and be done with it. However, that would be too much like common sense and I can already sense the bat being inserted yet again with a new scheme, leaving the average serviceman paying the price for government incompetence. Again.
https://forcespensionsociety.org/new...-armed-forces/
Of course it could just move everyone regardless of age across to 15 scheme and be done with it. However, that would be too much like common sense and I can already sense the bat being inserted yet again with a new scheme, leaving the average serviceman paying the price for government incompetence. Again.
https://forcespensionsociety.org/new...-armed-forces/
Interesting..... I can't see them offering people to go back to full '75...
I lost all my old calculations between '75 and '75+'15 that I am on now. I'd love to have them to compare again.
I lost all my old calculations between '75 and '75+'15 that I am on now. I'd love to have them to compare again.
No I can’t see that either. I know it would crinkle with those given grandfather rights, but no more so than the crinkling for those who didn’t get them in the first place, but simply moving everyone to 15 has to be the sensible option. There’s no age discrimination, it sidesteps the worst of the £4Bn hole, means they should be able to honour their 25 year pledge and doesn’t undermine public sector pensions by seemingly sticking 2 fingers up at the private sector as they will perceive their taxes paying for a pension rise (not the story but that’s how it will be spun) whilst they suffer.
This is a mess for sure!
Protected rights
I assume that, once you have left and are drawing your pension, it can no longer be tinkered with.
If I am correct then surely it could trigger a rush to the door for anyone who is getting close to a pension point.
As someone on AFPS 75/15 I have a vested interest in this decision.
BV
If I am correct then surely it could trigger a rush to the door for anyone who is getting close to a pension point.
As someone on AFPS 75/15 I have a vested interest in this decision.
BV
Downsizer - I'm in the same boat. But what I mean is not scrapping 75 element of the pension for those that have earned it, but the grandfather rights that were the crux of the case in the first place. Just move everyone across to the 15 scheme, preserving what they have already built up.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: An Ivory Tower
Posts: 124
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I assume that, once you have left and are drawing your pension, it can no longer be tinkered with.
If I am correct then surely it could trigger a rush to the door for anyone who is getting close to a pension point.
As someone on AFPS 75/15 I have a vested interest in this decision.
BV
If I am correct then surely it could trigger a rush to the door for anyone who is getting close to a pension point.
As someone on AFPS 75/15 I have a vested interest in this decision.
BV
https://forcespensionsociety.org/ass...of-Defence.pdf
4. Service Personnel will not see any reduction to the pensions they have
earned/built up to date, irrespective of the pension scheme they are in.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Germany
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That’s the apparent cost of this balls-up. That means that the Treasury will have to claw back the money from somewhere. It also means that the AFPS 15 promise not to mess with the pension for 25 years is no longer a thing.
The hidden cost of this action by the unions is going to screw all of us.
The hidden cost of this action by the unions is going to screw all of us.
Personally, would like to have the pension I was promised originally, the one I was thinking about when I was getting repeatedly shelled at the Basra COB. You know, the one The top brass gave themselves with the grandfather rights clause when AFPS 15 was introduced.
If they need the money, I suggest they look at shelving the @rse that is Brexit. currently costing ukplc 600 million a week.
Last edited by VinRouge; 17th Jul 2019 at 15:24.
Downsizer - I'm in the same boat. But what I mean is not scrapping 75 element of the pension for those that have earned it, but the grandfather rights that were the crux of the case in the first place. Just move everyone across to the 15 scheme, preserving what they have already built up.
Join Date: Jul 2019
Location: UK
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SNP policy is that following independence they wish to take responsibility for the payment of UK government pensions to pensioners resident in Scotland. It is also SNP policy to introduce a Scottish currency (which might or might not retain parity with the rUK £) which is likely to be the currency used for all Scottish pensions.
While UK government pension payments would obviously be (a small??) part of the hugely complex negotiations in the event of Scottish Independence, it is quite possible to envisage the purchasing power of existing pensions paid to those in Scotland and rUK diverging. For example, even ignoring any purchasing power differences between currencies what, if any, inflation rates would be used for uplifts if there were different governments responsible for payments?
At a brief today....if I understand correctly 3 options have been put to the treasury....
1. Transfer everyone back fully to their old schemes, 75 or 05.
2. Transfer everyone to 15.
3. Offer people the choice to stay fully on their old scheme or transfer to the new one.
1. Transfer everyone back fully to their old schemes, 75 or 05.
2. Transfer everyone to 15.
3. Offer people the choice to stay fully on their old scheme or transfer to the new one.
At a brief today....if I understand correctly 3 options have been put to the treasury....
1. Transfer everyone back fully to their old schemes, 75 or 05.
2. Transfer everyone to 15.
3. Offer people the choice to stay fully on their old scheme or transfer to the new one.
1. Transfer everyone back fully to their old schemes, 75 or 05.
2. Transfer everyone to 15.
3. Offer people the choice to stay fully on their old scheme or transfer to the new one.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Germany
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Plus option 2 completely goes goes against every promise that the pension you earned on 75 is banked. Many will take HMG to court as this was what was agreed and planned upon. (Cue Lima Juliet for additional)....
The cynic in me alludes to what I’ve said before though....
There will be others who gained from the AFPS15 move from AFPS75 - particularly those joining the PA Spine around that time. This brings in career choices, ToS and RoS issues. It would be overly harsh to prevent someone from immediately pulling stumps on learning that their pension plan is not what they bargained for. So Option 1 would also be up for a direct challenge.
Option 2 would be rather extreme and legally dubious, especially for those who made career and financial plans on a pension that suffers a back-dated cut. I don't see how Option 2 could even be suggested as it throws-out any legislative precedent 'of sufficient time to prepare for a significant financial change' and would probably see a trip back to the courts. My guess is that Option 2 would just be a 'future plan' to move all remaining personnel (including those snapped-back to 75/05 terms again from the last fcuk-up) to AFPS15 terms at a future date.
Only Option 3 provides any legal certainty that the measure will survive scrutiny, as well as avoiding another own-goal when it comes to retention of more experienced personnel. Of course, the same clowns that pushed-through the last change and the stupid pension-tax burden are probably still around, ready to do their next self-dismantling pantomime car trick.
Option 2 would be rather extreme and legally dubious, especially for those who made career and financial plans on a pension that suffers a back-dated cut. I don't see how Option 2 could even be suggested as it throws-out any legislative precedent 'of sufficient time to prepare for a significant financial change' and would probably see a trip back to the courts. My guess is that Option 2 would just be a 'future plan' to move all remaining personnel (including those snapped-back to 75/05 terms again from the last fcuk-up) to AFPS15 terms at a future date.
Only Option 3 provides any legal certainty that the measure will survive scrutiny, as well as avoiding another own-goal when it comes to retention of more experienced personnel. Of course, the same clowns that pushed-through the last change and the stupid pension-tax burden are probably still around, ready to do their next self-dismantling pantomime car trick.
To be clear, option 2 didn't mean the loss of banked 75/05 pensions, just that all personnel would be moved from 2015 into the '15 scheme. I guess those who stayed on '75 would get the hit.
The strong implication was that option 2 was likely as it removed the reasons for the challenge in the first place, which was illegality down to age.
Edit: They did say they recognised that some gained by going to '15. So it wasn't straightforward, but the decision is up to the treasury.
The strong implication was that option 2 was likely as it removed the reasons for the challenge in the first place, which was illegality down to age.
Edit: They did say they recognised that some gained by going to '15. So it wasn't straightforward, but the decision is up to the treasury.