Pension 2020
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.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Germany
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
they said there was no interest in going after anyone drawing the pension, it only applied to those still in.
The 'protection' was for those within 10 years of their NRD and 45% of that time window has already passed. I fell just short of the 10 year protection and some of those who were slightly older remained on '75 protected terms but have subsequently left or plan to do so shortly. Will we see others hitting the PVR button ahead of the next potential announcement?
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Coventry
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It was along time ago, but I remember reading in the Armed Forces Pay Review that our "non-contributory" pension was assessed as being worth 8% of salary and so the recommended award was reduced by that amount. Non-contributory indeed!
Does this mean that those new entrants will be paid 8% more than those already serving to cover the contributions?
Does this mean that those new entrants will be paid 8% more than those already serving to cover the contributions?
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Germany
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It was along time ago, but I remember reading in the Armed Forces Pay Review that our "non-contributory" pension was assessed as being worth 8% of salary and so the recommended award was reduced by that amount. Non-contributory indeed!
Does this mean that those new entrants will be paid 8% more than those already serving to cover the contributions?
Does this mean that those new entrants will be paid 8% more than those already serving to cover the contributions?
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Germany
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How on earth can it bollocks VinRouge - it will pay you a tidy amount in retirement and so it must be worth something! Go onto any of the civilian pension websites and look at what a similar pension would cost the average Sqn Ldr mate at age 60 and you wouldn’t get much change out of £3k per month. So if you think that is bollocks, keep living in denial...
VinRouge - are you an Actuary? Do you work for the Government Actuary’s Department (GAD)? If you do, why have your reports been so wrong in your opinion over the years? I have never heard that 8% figure in my 30 odd years of service in relation to SCAPE and I would be interested to see the reference to which the 8% applied.
downsizer - that figure is the approx 'virtual' cost of a similar pension if bought outside. It is being used by HMRC to catch serving personnel who are now falling into the Annual and Lifetime limits imposed by them. Exceed these limits and you get a letter demanding a punitive payment of extra tax due on this 'virtual' pension contribution. See Pension Horror - Annual Allowance
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Germany
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
VinRouge - are you an Actuary? Do you work for the Government Actuary’s Department (GAD)? If you do, why have your reports been so wrong in your opinion over the years? I have never heard that 8% figure in my 30 odd years of service in relation to SCAPE and I would be interested to see the reference to which the 8% applied.
If it’s increased by this figure (do the research), why are we all not retiring to the Bahamas with those little umbrellas in our drinks with the supposed increase in service pensions? I remember a shafting for 100K in 2010, but no increase on the AFPS calculator in the past 5 years.
as for the integrity of GAD, those CBEs don’t earn themselves do they? Or are we pretending the Chairman of AFPRB wasn’t disposed of a few years ago for not agreeing with the party line?
Last edited by VinRouge; 8th Nov 2019 at 19:58.
Wow, who knew that the Iraqi TV production crew that brought us the 1991 classic John Nichol & John Peters piece-to-camera were now working for the MoD. No visible bruises on those reading the script - better make-up team?
The final 'don't worry' bit for those who have already left the service achieved the opposite effect.
The final 'don't worry' bit for those who have already left the service achieved the opposite effect.
