If you read the whole document there are several references to the Military in terms of younger retirement ages due to the 'unique nature of the Armed Forces'

However, if the plan is to move to CARE pensions and link payment to equivalent retirement ages we will still have to leave at 55 and not actually get a pension until 60/65/67/68!:mad:

Brian Nav
 

Many Police Officers are still ex-Forces (including me).

When I took off my dark blue uniform (gratuity not a pension), I had to decide what I wanted to do next. I was getting on a bit, so what choices does an ex-two ringer make. I could have gone for a high wage and less secure retirement, but chose a significant pay cut and the promise of a decent pension.

That pension has cost me a direct 11% deduction of my gross wage. And I can tell you that is a significant amount out of your wage packet each month. It's about to go up to 14%, for less at the end.

The Police pay more into their pension than any other Public Sector worker. When the review started, even the bloody Home Secretary didn't know how much we paid in. (Should we be surprised they are so ignorant!)

There has been encouragement to view us as 'Public Sector parasites'. Going after the benefit cheats and tax evaders is too difficult. We're easy targets.

You are in a branch of government and therefor part of the overall Civil Service.

Your pension is not paid by private industry, but out of the taxpayers contributions. In my eyes, that makes you part of the overall civil service.

"Ponzi schemes they are in the true definition - the payments for the pensioners today come from the payments made by the workers of today. Every day the difference gets bigger and as soon as the payments of today stop, the pensioners of tomorrow should be concerned"

Don't want to go off track but it's largely as a consequence of Government actions that Private Sector Schemes are stuffed and more workers will now end up relying on State Benefits. The State Pension is not funded though Government seeks to persuade us otherwise by the levy of a different form of Income Tax in the form of National Insurance.

Hutton is saying nothing about stopping payments. It is the level of current expenditure that is being questioned on the basis of changing demographics. This is contentious and you may have seen other threads on this forum that seek to use demographics to prove other theories like, say, the UK having a Muslim majority in 50 years.

Pay As You Go has long been one approach to pension scheme funding. It was the basis on which occupational pensions started in this country back in the 18th Century. Civil Servants who retired were compensated by the person who took their job. The State formalised such relationships and gave greater security by underpinning this promise for its employees by establishing Scheme. Unfunded Public Sector Schemes like AFPS are tested regularly by the Government Actuaries Department. Evidence that the population of Schemes is changing by living longer would be expected to conclude that Scheme Costs needed to rise. However, that is not a reason to throw the baby out with the bath water! Considered action is required, not shock horror story's about gold plated pensions, designed to stir up a reaction from workers in the Private Sector and perhaps oil change of a more political nature.

States can and do run up deficits by making political promises to gain favour (tax cuts versus say improved schools) or as a consequence of war. After World War 2 the UK did not try to re-balance the books in one Parliamentary term. It went for austerity but at the same time set up the NHS and developed Nuclear weapons. That was the choice our leaders took at that time.

Reducing the deficit by 2015 is as much a political choice. As is, say, a new Rail line from London to the North (£15 Billion plus) Trident(£20 Billion plus) both of which would clearly be out of the question for a bankrupt Nation.

If Hutton has carried out a genuine review and the Government moves towards legislation, seek evidence that is specific to AFPS as to why it must change rather than take a view driven by your wider political opinion.:ok:

Guys don't feed the Troll :ugh:

Your eyes are just plain wrong then. The Civil Service and the Armed Forces are both segments of the UK Public Sector, along with the NHS, State Education, the Police, the Fire Service, Government (at all levels) and (still) heaps of Quangos.

And it's not just semantics; to refer to the Armed Forces as part of the Civil Service is ignorant on more than one level.

TOFO

Listen to Dave Angel- you just fed the troll!

:ugh:

Graham,

Are you Trim Stab in (thin) disguise?

Indeed...sorry

I will now force myself to finish the whole bottle of 16 year Lagavulin as recompense.

Graham I take it you are a civil servant then. Why would you compare yourself to someone in the Armed Forces?:=

To get back on topic-I have a preserved AFPS pension I hope to start collecting in 2022. The stated principle (Recommendation 4 if you read the Hutton report) is that whatever is already accrued is still yours. Only service beyond the change (2015) will have different conditions.
I'm well aware that much can be lost 'twixt cup and lip', so I emailed my MP. I pointed out that I couldn't exactly jump back into my cockpit to do some more 'time', having left. I also pointed out that those made (or about to be made) compulsorily redundant didn't have options to serve longer either.
Got a reply in 11 minutes (:ok:), with a promise of a letter to the Minister and notification of his reply. I'll believe it when I see it, but it's a start.
May I suggest emails to MPs from all ppruners.

p.s.
for comparison with AFPS, I believe the Teachers' Pension Scheme is self-financing (I've got a preserved one of those too).

Frankly we're stuffed. Interestingly though, Hutton did nail the lie that the Public Sector is better paid than the Private Sector. This has been the mantra of the right wing press, esp Daily Telegraph, for some years but it completely ignores that the Public Sector has privatised all its menial labour. Consequently all low skilled labour lies in Private Sector stats not the Public Sector. In like for like terms the Public Sector is significantly under paid. Hutton's example is PUS of the Home Office who has a £ 10 bn budget to manage: he gets £ 200K per annum. The median salary for Private Sector Chief Executives with budgets of £ 10 bn is £ 2.5M per annum - so on that measure the Public Sector is paid less than a tenth of the Private Sector. Whilst one example isn't exactly a stat - I was going to go anyway but the pension change means that I would be better off by about 50% in the Private Sector - decision confirmed.

mlc
 

Sorry pal, I should have followed the old rule 'don't assume, check!'

How will this help?
 

I'm just a simple bloke - how are the changes supposed to save money? We're trying to 'slim down' the RAF to 33.500; retaining a bunch of old gits from 55-60 means that we pay them 100% of their wage for 5 years instead of 50% for that period. At the same time, we're occupying spaces that some young thrusters could be in (cheaper, fitter, more deployable). Seems to me that HM pays for me to stay at 100% or go at 50%.

Did I mention the Military Covenant? No, neither did the Govt - probably cost a few quid, so they binned it.......:(