Disable-Adblock.png

We have detected that your browser is using AdBlock

Police Community is a not for profit organisation and advertising revenue is key to our continued viability.

Please disable your AdBlocker on our site in order to continue using it.
This message will disappear once AdBlock has been disabled.

Thank you for your support - we appreciate it !

If you feel you are getting this message in error please email support@policecommunity.co.uk


Only a number

Pensions

Recommended Posts

Currently unable to get any sense from fed or official channels, anybody any ideas. I keep reading about those with less than 10 years to go on 01/04/12 will retain their current pension scheme and finish after 30 years. However, I note intesrestingly that the other public sector workers, who I have to say are being treated disgustingly as a result of the Blair spendathon, have a rider on stating that this refers to those within 10 years of pension age.

Having done 25 years as a PC, I have 5 to go. Yet come 01/04/12 I will be 2 months short of 50 years of age. Knowing how the politicians work, all parties, I am anticipating the age going up to 60 instead of 55. Therefore will I be expected to work another 5 years and 2 months whilst somebody with less service but being 50+ will still do only 30 years. Would people expect that I am right to be concerned (understatement) or would this be taken into some kind of sliding scale account. I see this to be extremely unfair if implemented at worst scenario. I understand there is so much unfairness in everything being done to all public sector workers but my representatives just shrug their shoulders whichever channel I go down.

As Fed have no answer for me I can only assume that the pension reform will be one to stiff many but loophole some so that they benefit. How they can be allowed to overide anybody's pension at a late stage of career, with plans and budgets worked towards for years, I do not understand & never will. Anybody else expect us older service officers to be targeted under Unsatisfactory Performance Process as a result?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't forget that, currently, the police pension scheme is different from other public service schemes.

You mention 55 going up to 60, the maximum retirement age for police officers has been 60 for some time now. The pensionable age is 50 or less than that if you have completed 30 years service.

The only thing is that your pension isn't index linked until you are 55 but it is then brought up to the level it would have been, if it had been, if you see what I mean.

I don't think you have anything to worry about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for that. To be honest I have never been one for understanding exactly all aspects of pensions. Basically I signed up for 30 years expecting the government would abide by the rules I signed when starting and I could just carry on with serving the public. Simplistic & naive no doubt, I have seen many people retire at 50 onwards & it worked as clockwork. Just hope nobody, myself included, gets major life altering changes to pensions on top of the pay & conditions amendments being introduced.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anybody else expect us older service officers to be targeted under Unsatisfactory Performance Process as a result?

Nope, every rank and officer are affected by these cuts. How many do you know that have gone even before windsor under UPP?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In respect of the Pension Age I have the following comments.

I am sure it is the case that anyone who is a member of the police pension 1987 (old pension) prior to 2006 has a protected pension age (PPA). This is their age when they hit 30 years police service ie if you are 48 years and 250 days when you reach 30 years police service this is your PPA. if you are 52 years and 100 day then that becomes your (PPA) etc etc. Irrespective of the changes you will be able to claim your pension at this time if you so choose. What will happen in the not to many years ahead will be that in all probability the old pension and new pensions (both final salary) will close and your pension at that time will be valued and sit in a pot going up in value by the cpi

Members will then join, if the choose to, in all probability a career average pension and given the government propoganda this will have a Normal pension age (NPA) of 60. If you retire before 60 you will only get the part of the pension that was valued at the closure of the respective final salary pension. Why, because this is an accrued right and posh boy Camerson has stated that all accrued rights will be proctected. You will not be able to take any part of the new pension until NPA. If you are entitled to it will be greatly reduced.

This is my understanding of the situation. If I am wrong then the Federation has to let us know and know NOW and not keep us sitting on the fence wondering and waiting

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for that. To be honest I have never been one for understanding exactly all aspects of pensions. Basically I signed up for 30 years expecting the government would abide by the rules I signed when starting and I could just carry on with serving the public. Simplistic & naive no doubt, I have seen many people retire at 50 onwards & it worked as clockwork. Just hope nobody, myself included, gets major life altering changes to pensions on top of the pay & conditions amendments being introduced.

It has been made clear that we can still go upon completing 30 years; no one has ever said that you wil have to work another five years. Indeed, I highly doubt that your employer would want a top of pay scale 60 year old and you will in all probability be forced out at your normal pension age of 55.

Also, it makes no sense to talk of protection only for those aged 50 or over. Who would be included in that? For the next decade or so, the overwhelming majority of officers will have completed 30 years well before the age of 55.

HMG, originally stated that their intention was to protect those nearer to retirement who may have made other plans.They canot now be allowed to reverse that to the disadvantage of officers who joined young by putting an age limit on it.

If that were the case, then a 50 year old with 15 years service may receive better protection than a 40 year old with 22 years service!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since when did fairness come into Government policy.

Take Child benefit. If one wage earner pays 40% tax then the family lose child benefit. This couple could be earning just over the tax threshold ie around 45000. Yet another couple where both parents/partners are under the 40% tax threshold ie a potential earning of around £80000 keep their child benefit. Is that fair? I know it is not. So when it comes to Government fairness lets be careful..........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since when did fairness come into Government policy.

Take Child benefit. If one wage earner pays 40% tax then the family lose child benefit. This couple could be earning just over the tax threshold ie around 45000. Yet another couple where both parents/partners are under the 40% tax threshold ie a potential earning of around £80000 keep their child benefit. Is that fair? I know it is not. So when it comes to Government fairness lets be careful..........

Yes, I take your point on that Tony, and the policy quoted by you is very unfair in my opinion.

I was trying to make the wider point that the police, unlike most other Public Sector workers do not have a defined normal pension age as such; therefore, it will be interesting how they will work it, given the recent pledge by the Policing Misister to treat our pension reform in a broadly similar vein to the reforms of other public sector workers and given that they have promised protection to those closest to retirement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I take your point Colt. I just don't trust Tories.......................or Labour........................or the traitors.......................... well politicians actually

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since when did fairness come into Government policy.

Take Child benefit. If one wage earner pays 40% tax then the family lose child benefit. This couple could be earning just over the tax threshold ie around 45000. Yet another couple where both parents/partners are under the 40% tax threshold ie a potential earning of around £80000 keep their child benefit. Is that fair? I know it is not. So when it comes to Government fairness lets be careful..........

Why should someone earning more than £45k ever be entitled to child benefit ?

Child Benefit should be means tested together with alot of other "Benefits" .

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pigman --- completely irrelevant

My argument is to do with Government policy and how it is not safe to say anything with pension age is safe.

For the record though, I think a family earning 45K is more entitled to child benefit than a family earning £80k. Although I agree neither should probably get it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for all replies, particularly Tony, if what you say is the current policy then maybe I am OK. Glad to see that we all have exactly the same cynicism of the politicians - little do all parties realise exactly the amount of mistrust (100%) the country has. Fairness is one of the first casualities when applied to the public. Strange that when the politicians were caught noses in trough they managed to self regulate and still retain an expenses budget. Submitting claims for confectionary etc, STILL, it sickens me. When on search team duty away from station and there are no provision for refreshments (Bank hols & weekends & the odd night) I still buy my own food but don't claim it back, even though entitled. I just couldn't do it. Thanks for all posts, much appreciated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
When on search team duty away from station and there are no provision for refreshments (Bank hols & weekends & the odd night) I still buy my own food but don't claim it back, even though entitled. I just couldn't do it.

WTF?

I used to do similar........not claim the small 'overnight allowance' because I couldn't be bothered to fill out the paperwork. I was just being stupid.

You are doing yourself, your bank balance, or anybody else no good at all by not claiming what you're entitled to.

Nobody, but nobody, will thank you for not claiming. Nobody, but nobody, will give a stuff if you do. Unless you've got oodles and oodles of cash, of course, and you're only doing the job to get you out of the house....

The money is there, it's incorporated into the cost of policing.

Do you claim for overnight allowance? Do you claim the tax back on your Federation subscriptions? If you claim anything, then I don't understand why you wouldn't claim for everything - they are all as 'claimable' as each other.

To be fair, if you don't claim for anything then your effectively, helping to pay yourself for doing a job for somebody else.

Somebody, somewhere once 'fought' for the regulations to be. People who ignore regulations really aren't helping The Greater Good, in my opinion...............

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kloozo discussion does develop. I fail to see why your Federation could not inform you of the pension and age position, as they are clearly aware and up to date with the position. Perhaps you asked the office cleaner instead of the well informed officer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.