Unpensionables

[Soon To Leave]

Fair enough if the redundancy was voluntary but if compulsory then even though I don't think you'll prove anything I imagine there more than likely would be a correlation between those Made redundant and those not and who would and would not have qualified.

It really is a matter of principle as well, people have made a committment and mostly put up with being treated like S*it to continue the job they are in whilst being stitched up by the government to save what is really pennies in the grand scheme of things compared to the money they throw away on utter S*ite.

But if the commitment was fully binding there would be no possibility of PVR or giving notice.

 

[Max]

But if the commitment was fully binding there would be no possibility of PVR or giving notice.

Well they do move the goalposts there as often as it suits them.

 

[gmac33]

Well Said

Well Said

While redundancies are inevitable and appropriate in places, the compensation or route out of the service does not reflect the covenant that was agreed originally, or the job offer and acceptance. The fight here is not just for personal gain but for that of those who will face this stark reality. Some will not have a voice or rank loud enough to be heard in the future. If you decide to push this onto your colleagues and friends then the response could be overwhelming. Please do so. It was not easy getting permission for this petition to go live, please don't let it be a waste of effort.Pension Justice for Troops - http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/35949[/QUOTE]


Well said Yorkie666. I am one of those individuals falling a mere 5 months before my 16 year pension point. I am disgusted at the way in which we have been treated, especially in the light that there were volounteers who did not get redundancy and are leaving anyway. We put up with a great deal in the Forces, countless nights/months away from familes, getting shot at and living in some pretty megre accomodations both on ops and at home. One of the few benefits we had left was our pension. I do feel very bitter about this as the pension I get when I am 60 is now only about 1/4 of what it should be; never mind the fact that I have lost my entitlement to an immediate pension. Sorry to whinge guys but how can the rest of the Armed Forces be focusing on operations when the military seem willing to stab you in the back and pull the rug from under you all in one move? I for one am definately signing this petition. Thank you for listening. Whinge over...

 

[gmac33]

These are redundancies, not early retirement, if they are not at their 22 year point they have a second career to look forward to.
Sorry but the idea is to cut costs so that will have been part of the process I assume, it's not good but as said there needs to be a cutoff and the Tax Free lump sum payoff for not getting a pension balances it out to a point and the resettlement bonus.
Speaking as someone who missed out on the Big rises in retention bonus by 4 days!

Some figures
Sgt just short of 18 yrs, £82K SCP reset grant £10k. That's £92k for doing less than 18 yrs!
term grant @ 60 £15k and £8k at 65 (index linked I guess?) £23k tax free? with 4K pension at 60 rising to 8K at 65.
I reckon that's about £100k more than a SGT would get for his 20 yrs on the 2015 scheme

Sadly as a compulsory redundee I find that your figures are slightly adrift of reality. I am 5 months short of my IP and as such have no entitlement to any pension until I am 60. At which point I recieve a whole £5K per annum and at 65 they add around another £400. I am so glad that I worked my balls off for nearly 17 years to get get kicked in the nuts like this. I do not expect my full entitlement as I have not completed my full time; however, I did not ask for this and would expect a percentage of what I have worked for. I remained on the AFPS75 for a reason as this would provide me with a buffer as I search for jobs in the future. If I were to leave at my 16 year point through choice or otherwise I would be entitled to roughly £11,000 per year as IP. which after 23 years would amount to nearly £300K; take my getting kicked out allowance from that and you end up with a figure of about £230K. I understand from a monetary POV why they have made these choices but, when you are told that there was not a "reverse promotions board" conducted and that you were Not selected for your proximity to your pension; added to that, known collegues and friends applied and were turned down (just pensionable) and now are being encouraged to PVR anyway. Great way to boost the morale of a dwindling organisation. The tax free lump sum, in no way balances for the loss of pension. I apologise for my tone "Mug?" it is not focused on you. It just disgusts me that with all of the crap we have to go through that we can be disgarded as scrap and no reasonable settlement. That is obviously a personnal statement and not extracted from the DIN.

 

[Mug?]

numbers

numbers

Sadly as a compulsory redundee I find that your figures are slightly adrift of reality. I am 5 months short of my IP and as such have no entitlement to any pension until I am 60.
I am so glad that I worked my balls off for nearly 17 years to get get kicked in the nuts like this.
If I were to leave at my 16 year point through choice or otherwise I would be entitled to roughly £11,000 per year as IP. ... I apologise for my tone "Mug?" it is not focused on you. It just disgusts me that with all of the crap we have to go through that we can be disgarded as scrap and no reasonable settlement. That is obviously a personnal statement and not extracted from the DIN.

I don't get your figures? You have worked for 17 years yet if you left after 16 you would have got £11k IP?
Invest the 60k extra the rest of us don't get and that will provide some form of income £4K maybe or reinvest this in another pension if you feel the need for more money at age 60.
Or pay a bigger lump off a mortgage and save yourself £5000 a year in interest payments.
It is all swings and roundabouts really and while not as generous as previous payouts I see it as fair considering the cutbacks we are all feeling.
I got the figures off the redundancy calculator by the way.

 

[wally375]

Done.

Hope it helps

 

[busby1971]

I don't get your figures? You have worked for 17 years yet if you left after 16 you would have got £11k IP?
Invest the 60k extra the rest of us don't get and that will provide some form of income £4K maybe or reinvest this in another pension if you feel the need for more money at age 60.
Or pay a bigger lump off a mortgage and save yourself £5000 a year in interest payments.
It is all swings and roundabouts really and while not as generous as previous payouts I see it as fair considering the cutbacks we are all feeling.
I got the figures off the redundancy calculator by the way.

Mug you need to look at your own math first, investing 60K pa will at most get you around 3% less than 2k or around 1.5 after tax, yes you can manage it into other investment vehicles but none that will pay a regular income near your estimate and this would not be index linked.

Pay 60k of your mortgage and save 5K, who on earth is paying over 9% these days you're looking at saving around 2k max.

A FS or Chf Tech would probably be looking at a 11k pension at 17 years so it's a feasible figure, an average figure would probably be nearer 8k or 9k pa for a Cpl or Sgt not allowing for computation so if someone joined at say an average of 20 years of age they'd be leaving at 36ish and missing out on 24 or 29 years worth of pension so as a minimum working on the lowest figures you are looking at missing out on 192k of pension, although it probably a lot nearer 230k (i've not indexed linked it as that's to complicated an unnecessary). People will be at the very least 130k (103k if you assume they are paying Basic Rate on this) worse off, a figure it will be hard for a lot of people to replace.

This is a kick in the balls and indefensible.

 

[Mug?]

complicated subject

complicated subject

Mug you need to look at your own math first, investing 60K pa will at most get you around 3% less than 2k or around 1.5 after tax, yes you can manage it into other investment vehicles but none that will pay a regular income near your estimate and this would not be index linked.

IP is not index linked either at least this way his money may have a chance to increase over time and can choose to keep more invested if it isn't required. If the investment was spread over long/medium term bonds/ ISAs/ stocks then 6 % would be a realistic figure, as it isn't PENSION then he should be able to benefit from the tax benefits of it was reinvested into a pension, something that is difficult with an IP

Pay 60k of your mortgage and save 5K, who on earth is paying over 9% these days you're looking at saving around 2k max.

I was looking at it over the longer term and worked it backwards 60k over 25 years becomes something like 160K at 4% or about 6K a year maybe that was a bit misleading, but again the benefits will increase as time goes by, something an IP would not do

A FS or Chf Tech would probably be looking at a 11k pension at 17 years so it's a feasible figure, an average figure would probably be nearer 8k or 9k pa for a Cpl or Sgt not allowing for computation so if someone joined at say an average of 20 years of age they'd be leaving at 36ish and missing out on 24 or 29 years worth of pension

My case was looking at a sgt and after 18 years they would not get any pension (unless on 05- where they would get about 5k a year EDP) If they were a FS after 17 yrs then I guess they would be too good to be made redundant?
If I was in the position I would feel gutted but there are people leaving on PVR/ certain med states and fitness failures or not being signed on that get nowhere near this level of compensation.
The RAF is not a job for life and should never have been thought of in that way.

 

[busby1971]

Mug your math is sh1te and assumptions are wrong, you've played the best possible scenario for your own calculations with the best effects whilst negating the benefits of an IP. In the most simplistic terms would you rather have a 60k lump sum or an income of between 130k and 230k

IP indexed linked and realized at 55.

Capital repayment mortgage would not give you a saving of 160k and a regular pension allows you to chose to pay off extra. Some people leaving on compulsory may find themselves using this money to fund a deposit rather than pay off their current loan.

If you take out the investment income from a lump sum their is no long term real time rise in your investment.

Most people who find themselves in a position to reinvest their pension into a new one tend to earn more than their pension contributions so it's not a problem.

No the RAF is not a job for life but is sold as one, the sooner the wider population wake up an smell the roses the better.

 

[Realist78]

Folks, you are being robbed! It's OK for some to say "I can understand all the cuts etc given the economic climate blah blah" but let's face it, we are not all in this together, the people who are making these decisions are not being affected.

 

[MTMAD]

Signed and hopefully it will help.

 

[Sw EX Fairy]

done, was the 7101 person to sign

 

[Harry B'Stard]

There are now 7208 signatures... and I've shared it on FB.

However; I'm not sure that I'll ever see the immediate pension that I should have had... IF I HAD 24 HOURS MORE SERVICE!::/:

HTB

 

[Soon To Leave]

.....especially in the light that there were volunteers who did not get redundancy and are leaving anyway

I dare say that was part of the plan. People leaving of their own accord without any compensation saves a lot of money. Some held off their PVR's in the hope of being made redundant and cashed in. I wish them luck.

 

[gmac33]

Agreed

Agreed

Folks, you are being robbed! It's OK for some to say "I can understand all the cuts etc given the economic climate blah blah" but let's face it, we are not all in this together, the people who are making these decisions are not being affected.

Well said Realist. We are just numbers on a spread sheet; any assumption that this procedure was transparent and open is rubbish. It leaves a very nasty taste in your mouth knowing that they can get away with it. Thanks for all the comments guys, I was starting to wonder if I was the only one thinking that this is morally and ethically wrong.

 

[needsabiggerfuse]

Had this reply today.

The e-petition 'Pension Justice for Troops' signed by you recently reached 12,909 signatures and a response has been made to it.

As this e-petition has received more than 10 000 signatures, the relevant Government department have provided the following response: The Government is aware that some Service personnel made redundant or due to be made redundant will be close to their immediate Pension or Early Departure Payment (depending on which pension scheme they belong to). However, there was no deliberate selection policy or targeting of those close to the point at which they would receive an annual income on retirement. Those who narrowly miss out on receiving an immediate income will receive a significantly larger tax free compensation redundancy lump sum payment and their pension benefits will be preserved for later payment. It is regrettable that although proximity to pension was not a factor in selection for redundancy, it is inevitable that some of those affected may leave without completing sufficient service to qualify for an immediate income. However, any change to the current policy would only create a new “line” and could well result in a different group feeling disadvantaged. This e-petition remains open to signatures and will be considered for debate by the Backbench Business Committee should it pass the 100 000 signature threshold.

 

[ivrytwr3]

do bottom line, thanks for asking the question but feck off ie no change.

 

[Soon To Leave]

To be honest, I think the official reply was the right one even if I feel sorry for those who feel adversely affected.

Each person's situation is unique and there are probably as many who are happy to receive the large lump sum as those that received a lesser sum and an IP.

Some redundancy schemes give the redundee the choice of payment to suite their own circumstances and future tax position. Couldn't the RAF have adopted a similar scheme?

 

[Harry B'Stard]

To be honest, I think the official reply was the right one even if I feel sorry for those who feel adversely affected.

Each person's situation is unique and there are probably as many who are happy to receive the large lump sum as those that received a lesser sum and an IP.

Yes thanks! DT_Xtremez_30:

Some redundancy schemes give the redundee the choice of payment to suite their own circumstances and future tax position. Couldn't the RAF have adopted a similar scheme?

No, they couldn't do that... because that would require some form of flexibility and common sense!

Plus, it would just complicate matters... don't you think that there are enough complaints about incorrect pay etc on this site alone?! DT_Xtremez_28:

HTB