Military pension
 

Anyone heard any rumours about what's going to happen to our pension with the new reduction in final salary schemes? This could be bad news I feel!

SofS for Defence had some interesting things to say on on the matter during Sundays Politics Show. It's on the iPlayer if you want to have a look.

In a nutshell he said that our pensions were not going to be touched because of the unique nature of the job we do and the effect it would have on recruitment and retention.

I suspect that some very good work has been done behind the scenes to pave the way for that statement.

Whether he keeps this promise in the face of the Govt's Public Sector Pensions Commission remains to be seen.

It would help the Forces Pension Society if more serving personnel joined - they not only look after the interests of us old codgers now on pension, they also do a lot of work lobbying on future pension rules. They also give very good pensions advice.

Wander, can you give a short list of what they have achieved? I know they worked hard for the post-service widows pension. Lobbying for those who are still serving, and not members of the society, should not be one of their roles.

A case study they sent me to encourage me to join refered to a Brigadier who was disadvantaged because of retirement dates and inflation. I wrote pointing out the the brigadier had a rather larger pension than I did. I had a very nice letter from a Maj-Gen conceding my point. I did not join and do not know what they could do for me.

My opinion there is the same as of trades unions. They should not be concerned of amended T&Cs for people who have yet to join the union, but they do. They do, I suspect, to ensure that these new members are union-orientated from day one.

Forces Pension Society
 

Can't improve on their statement of objectives on their web site
The Forces Pension Society - Information about the pensions society

Wander, thank you. I guess the key is:

"Whether you’re already retired or want to protect and maximise your Service pension in the future, now is the time to join us and support our work"

They need to get more serving members to join rather than retired members.

PN - agreed. Perhaps they ought to get out more. I only found out about the Society because one of the members of the Royal Lymington Yacht Club, of which I was Secretary, was Assistant Sec of the then OPS.

Having just taken my first pension payment I worry for those who follow. With a pilot dominated Air Force, low pensions will be a push to leave. Salaries have been better since Thatcher but lower than the airlines. A pinch on pensions means (good) people will leave for the potential of greener grass. Not rocket science.

Despite what Dr Fox said on TV last Sunday, it looks like the Armed Forces will have their pensions reviewed.

Millions in the public sector to pay more for pension

Scum of the highest order.

The bottom line is - we have to change public sector pensions - we simply have to and 'we' should all be subject to the same rules - no exceptions. If personal contributions or deferral Regs change for firemen, nurses and plod, then to retain the status we wish the Forces to retain in the hearts and minds of the public, then they must change for servicemen as well. But by focusing on MPs, you missed the really neat swerve.

MPs are still exposed to certain pensions Regs. The Prime Minister, Mr Speaker Lord Chancellor and Judges, however, are not because their particular pension scheme enables them to avoid the lifetime allowance on pensions — £1.8m this year. This means that they alone will not have to pay tax of 55% on pension income deemed to come from funds over this amount. How much did Tony Blair make again?

Judges do not get tax relief on their whopping 1.8% contributions to the Consolidated Fund scheme because it isn't a registered pension scheme in the eyes of HMRC. The Prime Minister and Mr Speaker etc may stay in the bog standard MPs’ pension scheme, which will be subject to the new tax if they wish. But somehow, I doubt it. And that is the scandal, not if HM Forces should or shouldn't have different terms and conditions to anyone else.

'In it together Mr Cameron'? Mmm.

PN: I have become a real admirer of the RBL, which I had previously thought of, as a bit of a retirement job club and talking shop. It has proved its credentials time and time again and we should put our faith in one big hitting body that has a reputation such as the one it has. I see the appeal of diversification, but I wonder if we don't spread ourselves a little thin sometimes.

Al, I take your point, certainly RBL helped me with my disability pension. Also RBL ran the resettlement workshops at Tidworth and also the accommodation there.

On the Forces Pension Society, I confess I didn't click on the name, when I retired it was the Officers' Pension Society, clearly a wholly different animal as of course officers' pensions were considerably larger than the fewer, especially Army, ranks' pensions. Even so I believe they did work for all pensions not only officers.

One thing that should be brought out more is the pension proportions: civil servants 60:80 whereas Military is much less, can't remember the exact figure but nearer 50%. I know that after flying pay was deducted my full term pension, capped at 34 years even when I served more than that, was less than half pay.

"The bottom line is - we have to change public sector pensions - we simply have to"

actually its not that simple (nothing re pensions ever is) and we don't necessarily "have to", though it is understandably attractive to government at this time


BBC - Stephanomics: (Some of) the truth about public-sector pensions

Having said that if the "hit" is merely an extra 2.5% of income that's been rumoured I'd be inclined to take it, and keep quiet, still a far better deal than you'd get in the private sector

Oddly the Torygraph does not mention the Armed Forces.

I've moaned about this before, but I still don't see why my first 3 years of commissioned service till age 21( I was commissioned 2 weeks before my 18th birthday) dont count as pensionable service, when if I had been in the ranks this period would be counted. The fact that I was doing my only stint of active service in Aden when I was 19 makes this even more galling.

Tankertrashnav, your Service before age 21 would count if you were on AFPS 2005 rather than the old version. It was the main reason I elected to change. Of course you may have retired before the new pension was offered in which case - sorry but too bad.

Much chat about equal treatment on this thread but that's all P & W. Occupational pensions are a benefit arising from employment. Different employers offer different packages to attract, recruit, retain, motivate and reward as part of the overall remuneration. Therefore as the needs of the police, armed forces, teachers, nurses etc are all very different so too are the remuneration (including pension) packages on offer. It's no good joining a career stream and then later complaining that you don't like the pension plan; if you didn't like the salary you wouldn't have applied would you!

Interestingly the armed forces have a 'non-contributory' scheme. Which the AFPRB see as such a significant benefit they suppress your salary in return (which some might see as a contribution). It really is a good scheme thanks to all the hard work put in by the Forces Pension Society and SPPol.

Tanker,

It wasn't just officers who suffered this fate, I joined up aged 16 and 3 months, the first year and 9 months don't count towards my pension either.

She makes the point well about making a connection between affordability and political liability. But we still have to find £1 trillion from somewhere (if you assume interest rates over the next 40 years will be realistically higher than they are now) to fill this gap in what we are supposed to have, to pay for public sector pensioners, and what we actually think we'll have. If we don't start saving now, we will be f:mad:cked later and her comparing this liability with that of for instance, free healthcare or education isn't very plausible.

I agree with your last point. Most people on between 40-50k better settle down with a stiff drink ready for the bloodbath budget.

Does anyone think its significant that under the 05 scheme you do not get an immediate pension lump sum but rather a resettlement grant.

As this does not include the key word 'Pension' could those on teh 05 scheme potentially loose their immediate lump sum on leaving without appearing to have had their pensions touched.