RAF Pensions to change

[Wuuf]

True, however, when comparing our pay to civilians for the AFPRB reports, they deduct 7% (AFPRB 2007 report, para 2.16) from the civilian figure to arrive at a recommendation on our pay rise. If they didn't do this, our pay would be higher so are we contributing through the backdoor, yes IMO.

para 2.24:

Results​

2.24 Having examined carefully changes to benefits, assumptions, methodology of the Armed Forces, Watson Wyatt concluded that the value of Armed Forces’ benefits for Officers was broadly the same as in 2000 but the value for Other risen. The value of civilian comparator pension benefits had also risen and so for Other Ranks’ comparators. This value reflects the weighting of comparator
pension schemes between defined benefit and defined contribution schemes the pension benefits available to civilian new entrants, which are typically The valuation results indicated that Armed Forces’ Officers had a relative
advantage of 3.9 per cent and Other Ranks 3.7 per cent. Watson Wyatt advised, basis of these findings, that a reduction to around 4 per cent in the value civilian comparator pay would be fair and should remain valid for the next Looking forward, Watson Wyatt advised that the trend in civilian schemes towards lower benefits and this may be an issue for the next valuation.​

 

[Cooheed]

Slightly off topic but a welcome change..

 

[Mug?]

hhhmm not really

hhhmm not really

Cooheed Slightly off topic but a welcome change..

Should be across the board.
I am unsure about these changes. Glad for those that will benefit. Sad for those who picked the new scheme for the benefits such as this knowing they would take a hit on other things.

 

[beaumont]

Do you think they will make people do more than 16/22 years before they get IP?

 

[superradar]

How???

How???

Do you think they will make people do more than 16/22 years before they get IP?

How? They would have to extend everyone's contract or face thousands of lawsuits, reserved rights and all that. Those on AFPS 75 have less to worry about as they government has to get the Queen to sign off any changes to it. Those on 05 however!!!!
Plus if you have a read of the Public Pension Review nothing can happen before 2015, so as long as your pension is crystalised before then you shouldn't see any changes....... so long as they don't sneak a law change throughDT_Xtremez_06:

 

[beaumont]

My IP point is 2017. I am on the old scheme but I just hope they make a decision soon so I could either hope I am in the next redundancy field or leave early to start another career.

 

[mercian9130]

Changes to pensions

Changes to pensions

General note on public sector pensions ( I'm in the civvy police and due to retire in 5 months time so this is very dear to my heart, and wife works in the NHS) - rumour control with civil police and NHS consultants etc is that a. contributions will go up; b. any lump sum will be taxed.
Government can do what it wants if it can get the laws passed by the Queen in Parliament (ie with everybody - Commons, Lords agreeing) so it is probable that everybody in public service will pay more. However, taxing 'lump sums' / gratuities etc will mean that nobody will commute their pension so they'll opt to have maximum as a monthly payment. If you live longer than 12 years the Treasury lose out. It is cheaper for them to have you take the lump sum. Therefore, taxing the sum is not in their interest, Furthermore, the European Courts work here in our favour as they will tend to not back anything that decreases existing rights.
However, if you sign up to anything new that cuts your entitlements...In other words read carefully before you sign anything away.

 

[dantura]

Government can do what it wants if it can get the laws passed by the Queen in Parliament (ie with everybody - Commons, Lords agreeing)

Quite right, the normal course for a law change is as said, Commons - Lords - Royal accession, but of course there is the Parliament Act (1949) which can be used to override the Lords and lets face it, Royal Accession is only there for formality. Yes it is still legality, but the Monarch would not deny Parliament without going into possible scary constitutional consequences for them. There are often moots about legislative reform!
The point is, don't rely on the Lords or the Monarch to back your corner if Parliament is dead set.

 

[busby1971]

General note on public sector pensions ( I'm in the civvy police and due to retire in 5 months time so this is very dear to my heart, and wife works in the NHS) - rumour control with civil police and NHS consultants etc is that a. contributions will go up; b. any lump sum will be taxed.
Government can do what it wants if it can get the laws passed by the Queen in Parliament (ie with everybody - Commons, Lords agreeing) so it is probable that everybody in public service will pay more. However, taxing 'lump sums' / gratuities etc will mean that nobody will commute their pension so they'll opt to have maximum as a monthly payment. If you live longer than 12 years the Treasury lose out. It is cheaper for them to have you take the lump sum. Therefore, taxing the sum is not in their interest, Furthermore, the European Courts work here in our favour as they will tend to not back anything that decreases existing rights.
However, if you sign up to anything new that cuts your entitlements...In other words read carefully before you sign anything away.

I have been doing some interesting TUPE transfer stuff today, to transfer our civil servants onto a private pension scheme, that pays the same benefits, the contributions are set at 39% of salary, now a lot civil servants are only paying 3.5% of salary themselves and I doubt any civi employer could afford to do this level of contribution for it's in house staff.

 

[billy bollox]

The rumour I'd heard today was that if you are on 22 yrs by 2015, on 75 Pension, then nothing changes. If you don't make 22 by Apr 2015, your final pension on leaving RAF will be an average of your overall earnings in Service....now thats crap news for all techie's who have spent years in Training!! It'll bring their average right down.. PVR anyone???DT_Xtremez_42:

 

[metimmee]

Don't forget the disadvantage of being in the RAF in comparison to our sister services. My house mate was 24 when he got his 3rd in the REME, I was a Jnr Tech.

 

[bubblebutt]

The rumour I'd heard today was that if you are on 22 yrs by 2015, on 75 Pension, then nothing changes. If you don't make 22 by Apr 2015, your final pension on leaving RAF will be an average of your overall earnings in Service....now thats crap news for all techie's who have spent years in Training!! It'll bring their average right down.. PVR anyone???DT_Xtremez_42:

What was your source on this? I'm at my 22yr point in 2014 but am on LOS30 if I want until 2022.However if i'm not getting my pension until i'm 60yrs old if I serve past 2015 then my 22yr point WILL BE my exit point!cup of corrrfeee

 

[Climebear]

Don't forget the disadvantage of being in the RAF in comparison to our sister services. My house mate was 24 when he got his 3rd in the REME, I was a Jnr Tech.

And don't forget that he'll be kicked out after 22 years whereas you could potentially serve to age 55.

 

[metimmee]

And don't forget that he'll be kicked out after 22 years whereas you could potentially serve to age 55.

If you want to talk potential...then he could potentially take his KFS course and take a commission.

We are talking career averages here. Since they shoot up quicker than we do, their career average is higher. If you compare a Sgt leaving the Army with an RAF Sgt; the Army will receive a higher pension if it is based on average salary.

If they change the pension in this way, why would anyone join the RAF?

 

[glassestashthunderflash]

you could potentially serve to age 55.

Potentially, but is it realistic? No. And once again Techies dip out as we (in my case) had JT rank to deal with and will have CT before I get a sniff of 55. As a Sgt who's done 20 years, 5 1/2 of them have been in a rank (and training for the trade change) that non-techies don't have. And let's be frank, 4 1/2 years as a JT is not long, many are a lot more than that. It is likely that should I get CT it would take at least 5 years plus before FS is offered, so qround 10 years wasted.

 

[Climebear]

If you want to talk potential...then he could potentially take his KFS course and take a commission.

We are talking career averages here. Since they shoot up quicker than we do, their career average is higher. If you compare a Sgt leaving the Army with an RAF Sgt; the Army will receive a higher pension if it is based on average salary.

If they change the pension in this way, why would anyone join the RAF?

Not exactly as an RAF sgt would have worked for 8 years longer (on the basis that both served to the end of their engagement). Therefore, an Army sgt would get 22/37ths of the full pension based on his/her career-average; whereas, the RAF sgt would get 30/37ths of the full pension based on his/her career-average.

Differences get bigger at FS/WO level with a RAF FS/WO able to earn 37/37ths of their full pension whereas an Army SSgt/WO2/WO1 would still be limited to 22/37ths. (Breakdown based on AFPS75; however, principle still applies to AFPS05)

(Of course the much talked-about (but little known-about) New Employment Model may well change all much of this and could, potentially, see soldiers serving for longer - this would, in turn, slow down their rate of promotion)

 

[Climebear]

Potentially, but is it realistic? No. And once again Techies dip out as we (in my case) had JT rank to deal with and will have CT before I get a sniff of 55. As a Sgt who's done 20 years, 5 1/2 of them have been in a rank (and training for the trade change) that non-techies don't have. And let's be frank, 4 1/2 years as a JT is not long, many are a lot more than that. It is likely that should I get CT it would take at least 5 years plus before FS is offered, so qround 10 years wasted.

It's not so much a case of the extra ranks more so the % of FSs in relation to the whole trade. List 2 trades do not have the Chf Tech rank to get through; however, some of them have a very low % of FSs making it just as difficult to qualify for service to age 55.



IIRC The Bett report in the late 90s recommended that we did away with chf tech rank (amongst others) - this would have resolved the situation; however, the techy world agrued that it was essential.

 

[billy bollox]

Potentially, but is it realistic? No. And once again Techies dip out as we (in my case) had JT rank to deal with and will have CT before I get a sniff of 55. As a Sgt who's done 20 years, 5 1/2 of them have been in a rank (and training for the trade change) that non-techies don't have. And let's be frank, 4 1/2 years as a JT is not long, many are a lot more than that. It is likely that should I get CT it would take at least 5 years plus before FS is offered, so qround 10 years wasted.

Perfectly said mate!!

 

[billy bollox]

What was your source on this? I'm at my 22yr point in 2014 but am on LOS30 if I want until 2022.However if i'm not getting my pension until i'm 60yrs old if I serve past 2015 then my 22yr point WILL BE my exit point!cup of corrrfeee

As I understand it, as long as you've reached 22 yrs service by 2015, you'll be ok. However, we talked about it today and was wondering if any service AFTER 22 years would be averaged out?

ie.
22 yrs full pension as is....
5 years further service so leaving at 27 years total would mean 5 years of average pay pension.
So a CT would not necessarilly get the FS pension they're on now!!
(FS Pension as CT rank not recognised in Joint Pension Scheme)

 

[metimmee]

Not exactly as an RAF sgt would have worked for 8 years longer (on the basis that both served to the end of their engagement). Therefore, an Army sgt would get 22/37ths of the full pension based on his/her career-average; whereas, the RAF sgt would get 30/37ths of the full pension based on his/her career-average.

Differences get bigger at FS/WO level with a RAF FS/WO able to earn 37/37ths of their full pension whereas an Army SSgt/WO2/WO1 would still be limited to 22/37ths. (Breakdown based on AFPS75; however, principle still applies to AFPS05)

(Of course the much talked-about (but little known-about) New Employment Model may well change all much of this and could, potentially, see soldiers serving for longer - this would, in turn, slow down their rate of promotion)

Climebear - I meant to qualify my orignal post with both leaving at 22, in which the average for the Army would be higher.