Tories to look at pensions.
 

LINK

How much do you think they could change things, both legally or before retention becomes critical (if it's not already)?

To be honest they're behind the times. The CS put forward plans 2-3 years ago to scrap the final salary scheme as it exists. The real gold plated schemes (the non contributory ones) have been closed for years. Regardless of what the Tories say, the schemes will be gone soon.

As it stands at the moment they cannot do anything "legally" as they are not in government...But should Joe Public vote them in they can then do whatever they want...they could scrap public pensions completely.


But....if they whatsoever as take one penny away from my pension then I...along with many, many others will be writing a letter of resignation and walking...

So can they (any governement) change the terms of our pensions? Is this going to lead those joining the service being offered a different type than AFPS75/05?

We can put up with cr@p kit, lousy accom and all the rest of it but this a sacred cow too far surely:eek:

Trouble is how many youngsters (ie 18-24 year olds!) who join the RAF really give a fig about their pension? Certainly didn't cross my mind! IMHO the first time most people who have joined the RAF think about their pension is when they are looking to leave! And its all too late then!!

Dirty, when the current lot 'tinkered' with the Teachers' Pension recently, the changes (not in 'till 2013) did not affect any rights already accrued. That eases the position for those past halfway. Depends where you are, I guess.

Oh, I considered the pension I was offered. I can still remember.

At 8 yrs a gratutity of £1,728, at 12 years it was £4,000. At 38 it was £1,203 and an annual pension of £401 exactly the same as married allowance.:}

I retired some 4 years ago on half my then salary since when I've had a small increase. This is what the private sector calls a gold-plated pension. What they seem to forget is that I paid 6.75% of my salary into that pot and my employer a little more.

When the Teachers' Pension Scheme was first opened, Churchill asked that teachers contribute towards it for a couple of years to get the fund going and then the scheme would become non-contributory. The Emmott Committee recommended that the scheme be funded by HMG; had that been done, by 1972 it would have stood at £2000 million!

While acknowledging that my pension is more than some people get for working full-time for 40 hours a week, I must note that those in the private sector were very happy with their money-purchase schemes when the stock market was doing well.

They had no sympathy for public servants who pointed out the anomalies in their final salary schemes, not least that their funds seemed to consist of notional amounts and that pensions were being paid from superannuation income with no investment whatever.

Now the situation is reversed, they're squealing about the unfairness of it all. Hmm... :(

Nostrinian: it wasn't just the RN who was hit with pay reductions (all public servants had a cut of up to 15% in Snowden's 1931 Budget) but the cuts hit Jolly Jack that much harder because of the reduction in allotments and some sailors couldn't keep up with payments.

I would have thought (hoped???) that any major changes like scrapping / significantly re-structuring of the AFPS would be done in a similar way to the implementation of AFPS 05 i.e. if you're already in and serving on that scheme at a specific date, then you retain the benefit, but all personnel joining after that date go on to a new scheme. And what if you're already drawing your pension.

However, as Spheroid rightly states, this will be the final nail in the coffin for the Forces. As it stands, there are many experienced personnel, officers and NCOs who are effectively kept in by the 'pension trap'. Whilst not ideal to have your personnel motivated purely by money, you cannot get around the fact that it means a significant level of experience is retained. If you then open the trap door, you give people no incentive at all to stay and you can then watch your key personnel walking.

This is going to be a minefield, and ultimately, a real indication of the government's (either side) alleged commitment to the forces.

Melchett01

I'm ex-forces so really hope you guys keep you pension as is... you deserve it. I see the pension as deferred pay.

However, it might be worth a quick look at the ATC issues section and check out the NATS Pensions thread.

We have currently got a 'gold plated' pension scheme, that was protected by deed of trust when NATS was part privatised in 2001.

NATS is responsible for the majority of UK airspace and as such is crucial for the economy, security and defence. If NATS employees were to strike, it is fair to say the UK would economy would collapse (even further).

HMG still owns 49% of NATS.

However, our pension is now under threat and it looks like it will be degraded, even for those people who are already in the scheme.

Be very wary of believing what anyone tells you when they say your rights are protected, and make sure you have a full understanding, otherwise they will try to screw you.

Good luck... I hope this thread is just conjecture and has no real substance

So,

Just let me get this right, because I am having some real dificulty in getting my head around this. Ever since 1992 and the last recession the civilian private sector has enjoyed astronomical growth in all areas, with wage rises, bonuses and associated Terms and Conditions that the military could not achieve.

No bonuses, no company cars, no company telephones and no 'contract award' deals. The private sector was happy and content looking down at the Public Sector knowing that the salaries they were on and their pensions linked to the stock exchange made the military, police, fire and nurses the 'poor cousins' in career choices.

How many times in the city have people looked down their nose at me in a bar in the past when they find out that I am 'just an officer' in H M Forces. The arrogance and the noveau wealth has never worried me as I have always been very proud of my profession and I see wealth not purely in monetry terms. When I still talk to my friends in the city they still find it difficult to see why I worry about my pension when they are still living comfortably off their investments made from their bonuses over the last 10 years (and I re-itterate, not just the 'fat cat' bonuses - but normal on the shop floor middle and junior management bonuses). They do not worry about their pensions as they have sucked every last bit of money out the system to prepare them for the future-which has resulted in the Govt (i.e. you and I) bailing them out. This is not just the Financial Services Industry, but retail and to a lesser extent commodities.

However, and this is my point, why all of a sudden when the private sector no longer gets its bonuses (not just the fat cat ones - the junior manager level etc), no longer gets the company car or the mobile or the corporate wining and dining that the private sector then starts to look over the fence and want a slice of my pie and my investments that I have always known will look after me when my flying days are over and therefore do not need to go for a second career in the city trying to earn my fortune.

If you remove the pension in its current state, then as per CEA, you will lose the top quality and best serving officers, NCOs and men/women from all three services as they will see that there is no financial reason to stay.

There would be every 'push' into civvie street from all of the negative aspects of Service life that are discussed so often on this forum, combined this time with very little 'pull' to remain in the services. Serving for love of Queen and country can only go so far.

From the recruiting perspective, who are we trying to kid - the future armed forces youth of today are all over Ts&Cs and they will be able to quickly weigh up the limited fianancial opportunity that a full career will offer in comparison to the earning potential in the private sector.

Bonuses, company cars, private health schemes, re-location allowances, mobile phones, corporate entertainment have not gone - just put on hold and they will return to attract the real high flying youngsters of the future. Remove the forces pension scheme and try and align it to a private sector pension scheme will result in more people leaving (especially once they have 'ticked their flying/op tour box') and possibly result in a lower calibre of individual joining the forces as the lure of the private sector is too enticing in comparison.

Have I got this wrong, what am I missing?

Exscribbler.

Your quote below shows how out of touch the public sector is with what is happening in the real world.

"I must note that those in the private sector were very happy with their money-purchase schemes when the stock market was doing well."

This is pure drival - before our unelected PM destroyed the private sector final salary schemes the UK pension sector, both public and private, was one of the best in the world. Once Brown had destroyed the final salary schemes companies moved pensioners into money purchase schemes which, unlike public sector pensions, give no guarentee of pension.

Why should the public sector not suffer the same as the private and be moved onto a money purchase scheme? Afterall public sector jobs are more secure than private sector jobs - I have yet to hear of a single public sector worker being made redundant recently.

This nettle has to be grasped now before nearly all tax revenue goes into paying unfunded public sector pensions. All new start public sector employees should be offered money purchase schemes with the employer contribution funded at the time by HMG.

AP

How does the UK Armed Forces Pension Scheme compare with those of other countries' military?

I only ask because a CF colleague was astonished at the low rates of RAF pensions for those who have served their time, compared to the rates in Canada.

As for 'final salary schemes', that's certainly not true for anyone who was paid flying pay.....:ugh:

Any government (or prospective government) which even thinks about fiddling with military pensions is in for a nasty shock. Although the 'lump sum' might be difficult to defend.....

If whatever boarding school allowance is called these days was to be under threat and pensions 'under investigation', there would be nothing left to retain significant numbers of loyal armed forces personnel.

Al R -

You're right, there is a sustainability gap in terms of public pensions, and the military ones especially. But the government - not just of today - is fully responsible for that. They are the ones that have refused to invest and have instead prefered to keep it as an unfunded commitment, for which money must be found from the budgets on an annual basis to meet its liabilities.

That this is now coming to bite them in the arse is their fault, not ours. They could have done something about it before now, but they chose not to do so. How long has pension affordability been a likely problem? Or are the current generation of politicians suddenly being taken by surprise?!!!

Once again, people are returning from theatres of war to a country fit for heroes. Only in this case, the heroes are lesbians who have had their feelings hurt and secretaries who have hurt their thumbs in a nasty computer related injury. It's just as bad now as it was in 1918, but nowadays, they have no excuse for saying pleading ignorance.

From the DT article mentioned above

PUBLIC SECTOR WORKERS GET LOWER SALARIES BECAUSE OF THEIR GENEROUS PENSIONS, DON'T THEY?
A myth. They are better paid, until you get to the very highest levels of management.
The Pensions Policy Institute, an independent research charity, puts average public sector salaries at £25,600 and those in the private sector at £25,300, although the PPI says salaries soared in the private sector when it came to the very top jobs.

and

IS IT TRUE THAT PUBLIC SECTOR EMPLOYEES ALL RETIRE EARLY ON FAT PENSIONS?
Undoubtedly, public sector employees claimed "breakdown in health" pensions in surprisingly large numbers in the past.
Before 2000, for example, 68pc of all retirements in the firefighters' scheme were due to ill health, as were the retirements of 40pc of police officers, 23pc of NHS workers and members of the armed forces, 39pc of local authority workers and 25pc of teachers.


So now you know as a civil servant you have higher wages and retire earlier!! :hmm: This is a very political issue (ie vote losing) involving many serving (about 5 million) and retired civil servants so I'm surprised the Tories are taking it on.

BB

"The Pensions Policy Institute, an independent research charity, puts average public sector salaries at £25,600 and those in the private sector at £25,300, although the PPI says salaries soared in the private sector when it came to the very top jobs."

That is a debateable point - I've seen other research which says that for the MOD (and presumably the wider public sector), 50% of staff earn under 20K per year, and 75% of staff earn under 24K per year. There are opportunities for decent pay in the public sector, but they are few and far between outside of London.

Of course 99% of statistics can be made up on the spot :-)

Oh dear! The Torygraph really should check their facts! Here's a quote from the AFPRB 2007 Report:

As I understand things, Armed Forces pay is currently set 4% below equivalent civilian pay. However, given recent world events, I guess the desirability (if not the relative value) of all government pensions has increased. So I suppose all government employees (including MPs) shouldn't expect much of a pay rise this year!!!

It's the pensions and early retirement [followed quickly by another job ] of teachers,police and fire service that really annoys the majority of people -and I don't mean the well paid ones in the City or wherever -I mean the majority of private sector workers on average wages whose pensions, if they have them, have been decimated by Brown and who have no hope of early retirement if they can ever retire.
Any government that reduces the pensions of those mentioned above and forces them to work to 65 at least would get a lot of support.

Papa,

Just wrote a quick note in my diary...... just said 'Arse'!

Have a nice w/e

Advo

You not a public servant then PJ

We obviously don't contribute to our pensions as our pay is reduced as a compensatory measure; no problems so far. However, the issue of working until 65 does not suit the circumstances of our job.

I could understand making a civil servant in Whitehall work to 65 behind a desk but the most military men (and women) are struggling to fulfil their role (deployable) at 55, hence the early retirement age. I thought it also took into account the fact that, by 55, we will possibly have sustained a few knocks, physically and mentally, and may not be in a position to pursue a further "career"?

These points are taken into account when deciding our pension but clearly not understood by all in the media or public.

Meanwhile at 10 Downing Street....

YouTube - Gordon Brown's Downfall - The prequel

Papajuliet: I don't know too much about police and firefighters returning to work after early retirement, but I do know that teachers who retire early now take a hit on their pension and lump sum entitlements. Once upon a time a teacher could retire early on ill-health and the following day start a lucrative career as a supply teacher. That was stopped by the Tories (Kenneth Baker was the SoS) and was about the only thing they did that I agreed with!

AllyPally: The TPS is unfunded because over the years HMG has used it as a cash cow to pay for other things - among which, presumably, we may find aircraft for the RAF. One of my points was just that - had the money been invested, the scheme would have been fully self-supporting; the fact that it wasn't (and therefore isn't) was caused by acts similar to Broon's raid on private pensions. While largely sympathetic to those in the situation you describe, I have to say that's not my doing; furthermore, why should we suffer just because you are? There was no invitation to join in when you were doing well, was there?

I retired at 61 after 40 years; the last year had been spent absent ill. I was one of those lucky people who enjoyed his job despite its many problems and I always intended working to 65 - PJ please note. On the other hand, had my first career choice been successful, I would have retired at 50 with a handsome gratuity and over the years would have been paid rather more than I was as a teacher. I could also have "retired" at any time to take up a well-paid job in the private sector, while retaining my original pension rights and earning even more in my second career.

Sympathetic? Only partly.

I presume that yer man Cameron is banking on the majority of the British voting public being;

a. sufficiently "sour grapes" to attack Public Servants

b. not Public Servants.

Standby to have the conditions you signed up to being pissed on.

The BNP is looking better by the day!

Melch,

I draw a pension so yes.. there could be a whiff of hypocrisy about this, I accept that, but thats looking at this in the wrong light. There's not an issue of fault here.. its just the way it is. We have to plan ahead 30-40, and 70-80 years and that can only be achieved by acting very very soon. If we don't act, it'll be our grandchildren and great grandchildren and great great grandchildren who'll be asking 'what planet were those generations on?'. Having said that, as they just finish paying off the debt we've lumbered them with, I think they'll be asking that of us anyway.

Ah, the ever emotive issue of pensions.

The military pension trap caught me well and truly. I have to say, if it weren't for the pension at the end of the tunnel I would have left far earlier than I did.

Unfortunately those days are now over! This also applies to the private sector pension schemes as well. The tax protections given to pension funds by the last Tory government were gleefully stripped away by a young, fresh faced chancellor named Gordon Brown after New Labour took power. Over the last 10 years, under his tenure, £90 Billion in taxes have been stripped from private pension funds belonging to many of this countries blue chip firms. Oddly enough those firms are now trying to cover huge pension deficits and are closing all final salary schemes.

Whilst all of this was going on the civil service has exploded. Some might say it has been a farcical way to suppress unemployment figures. Employing useless people into useless jobs under 'exotic new politically correct names'. Each of these Quango people gets their own civil service pension.

The public debt, instead of being adequately serviced, has been allowed to explode along with the private, personal debt of many people. Whilst the Boom was going on the Government has had a gleeful, kiddie like, spending spree on rubbish that hasn't produced any results. NHS national computer system anyone? £20 Billion and it's still not here?

The military have been over abused and drastically underfunded to cover the cost of all of these 'think tanks', 'Quangos' and local council non jobs. Ineffectively managed by useless politicians who think 'tactics' are the little sweets that come out of a plastic box. Two hats Des's comment on the new T45 destroyer summed it up, 'It's twice as powerful so we only need half of them!'. Makes you cry doesn't it.

Melt down is upon us. There is no money left. My military pension added to the pension I am struggling to accrue with my new employer, in an industry where we are taxed just for existing, will just about cover a loaf of bread in 10 years. I am being taxed to death and watching it all go into the pockets of social wasters who are being told to go forth and spend! I can't, after tax and soaring energy bills I have nothing left.

Protect the military pensions, invest in the forces, they are, perhaps, the last thing in this country we have a right to be proud of.

Rant over, now wheres my coffee?

I didn't realise that nurses were paid so much.... I'm in the wrong job....


Revealed: NHS nurse who earns £100,000 - Times Online

Spheroid: you're not in the wrong job! I'm just coming to the end of a course of chemotherapy at Weston Park Hospital, Sheffield. If the care I've had from the staff there and at Barnsley General Hospital is anything to go by, they all deserve a big pay rise.

They're more worthy of that kind of salary than any politician - especially our wonderful Home Secretary who affects not to know what her anti-terrorist police are doing when they're out and about arresting Opposition MPs.

BTW, isn't that Bob Mugabe's game?

I don't often get really riled about something on here, but now is the time.

Listen up all you civil service and local government bashers who haven't got a clue what they are waffling on about (what on PPRuNe, never!!).

I am now a working in local government. The vast majority of us are very poorly paid. I recently suffered a new deal on my pension, pay more and get less at the end. This is a nationwide deal not just local. There are also penalty clauses which say that if I retire before 65 I will lose a huge whack of what is rightfully mine.

I earn considerably less than the national average quoted here and I'm constantly amazed by the fact that some of the people whose benefits I administer get a lot more each month than I take home for working 37 hours a week.

I left the Civil Service as a manager to work in local government as an ordinary bod and got an immediate payrise, so they're no better off either and HMG is pratting them about as well.

I can't see how anyone on here can not see the hypocracy of criticising someone who leaves the Civil Service et al with a pension and then goes on to get another job pretty quickly. It's blindingly stupid to do so considering anyone who leaves the service having completed a full engagement immediatley receives a pension. I know I did so I know what I'm talking about here.

So, as many of us on PPRuNe constantly criticise others inaccuracy when debating issues, get your facts straight before you spout about something you know bu**er all about.

Rant over, normal service resumes WIE!!

Doc C

:mad::=:mad::mad::*

Well, nearly immediately. I've had a chill pill and I'm better now!!!

Fully agree with you Dr C. My sister works in the finance dept of local gov and is stunned by how much more contracting out costs when compared to directly employed labour (deliberate small 'l') even when pensions are factored in. Still, due to the doctrinaire policies of our major parties, they seem to be obsessed with privitising everything. As senior EC people are finding out it simply doesn't work. If you want proof ask yourself - 'Why are large organisiations such as BAe now contracting in services?'.

The 'private first, and last and always' mentality we have had to live with for over a generation is reaching its nadir. We need to get back to a properly balanced economy where both private and government play its part. The problem we have at the moment is government is taking barrowloads full of tax and passing it on to unaccountable quangos and private companies with no gaurantees of service provision (look at any PFI). We are in the worst of all worlds.

Pension provision is a vital part of this argument. Who do private companies suppose is going to pick up the responsibility for their workers once they have finished with them? Once again these companies are passing the burden onto the taxpayer. The reason so many companies closed their pensions had little to do with future burden, and everything to do with short term profit margins. It is these companies that need a dose of reality, not public service workers.

Also why we are still listening to the 'free market' cheerleaders such as those in the Telegraph, most notably Geoff Randall, after they failed to spot this economic crisis? If I'd have missed something as big as that I would have had the good grace to resign and go very quietly indeed!

The problem is all 3 political parties still back these failed policies, we need to get back to 50's & 60's style corporate government.

BTW ExScrib, hope all is going well.

;)

Wasn't it Mrs Thatcher who said that no-one should retire and receive more than one government financed pension ? Or is my memory playing tricks on me again ?

That would bu**er me. I am due to receive four !

Are you kidding me? This doesn't even merit a response....

...and so you bloody should! It isn't rightfully yours if you haven't worked long enough to accrue the benefits. Ah, bless, you have to do a life's work to earn your gold-plated, inflation-proof, 66% of final salary pension. My heart bleeds purple pi$$ for you.

Do you even know how much forces pensions are worth? They are piss-poor compared to your schemes. (I'll give you a clue....it's NOWHERE NEAR 2/3 of final salary....and for many of us, it isn't even final salary!)

Congratulations, you get paid for dishing out free money to worthless scrotes. If you look carefully, you will find that this is the biggest slice, by far, of govt expenditure. This is where we need to cut back - and hey, less money for scrotes, less pointless civil serpent jobs needed - even MORE money saved!

No I don't. A quick rundown would be interesting though. Based on 60ths? Final salary ex FP?

CG

Inquisitor, you are ignorant.

My RAF pension gave me about 33% of final salary.

The same length of time in Local Government would give me about 25%. AND I've only just crept above the salary I left the RAF on 11 years ago, so quit bitching about how much we and Civil Servants get paid and how much our pensions are worth. I'm lucky if mine is even gold plated let alone solid gold. If you want to attack someone's pay and pensions, try MPs who really have it sewn up.

Like I said, stop blethering about things you know bu**er all about or I will likely start on how all service personnel get free coal, rent, electricity and gas as all civvies know only too well!!

Sheesh!!!!!!

:ugh::ugh:

"Congratulations, you get paid for dishing out free money to worthless scrotes. If you look carefully, you will find that this is the biggest slice, by far, of govt expenditure. This is where we need to cut back - and hey, less money for scrotes, less pointless civil serpent jobs needed - even MORE money saved!"

Could'nt agree more. Benefits are a career choice for many people these days. Some people need them. many, many people dont. Cut them back.

Doctor Crutch
Spot on but if they try to take away my maid and the butler I'll be really miffed. How can one be expected to cope on our salary without free household staff?

Never expected to see a 'Mine is smaller than yours' thread on Pprune!

I thought the AFPRB ( independant gov body) set the armed forces pay and pensions and all monies came out of the defence budget. Is the plan to cut pensions so they can cut the defense budget := or to allow for decent body armour etc.

As an aside my mil pension is taxed so I get to pay tax twice on the money I earned in the mob. ( pension only based on taxable pay not specialist pay):ugh: