Police pension can i cash it in

hyubh

real1314 wrote: »

From what I can see regarding the police pension reforms, everything you have accrued up to 2015 will still be payable at the same retirement age of 49 (the case studies only use an age of 50 rather than 49 though) so in fact you have not yet had anything at all taken away from you.

The main thing 'taken away' is double accrual - in the old (1987) police scheme that billchecker1 is in (it was closed to new entrants in 2006) the accrual rate is 1/30 in the final ten years of thirty not 1/60.

In a previous thread on the topic billchecker1 reported that while he is old enough to be in the 1987 scheme, he is not old enough to have the protections others in it will get. As such, from his point of view, if cost savings are needed, they should be solely borne by new recruits who don't have a previous scheme (and therefore historical 'promises') to be transferred from. Perhaps a bit selfish... but then aren't we all at times.

billchecker1

jamesd wrote: »

billchecker1 and others in this scheme, just plan for retiring when you want as those of us not in the public sector do. It's not particularly hard, just takes some planning and putting money away to cover the years until work and state pensions start. Plenty of help here for anyone who wants to do that and at least it will achieve a useful end result, retiring when you want to.

JamesD.

Thanks for your response. This is what I am doing at the moment.

Together with my police pension I am putting money into a S+S ISA for a joint total of 20% of my gross salary.

I really cant afford to put more in at the moment.

I also need to sort out the OHs pension provision at some point!

To be honest age isn't the issue for me. Im more than happy to work till 60 or even 65. But will be able to is the question? It is a physically demanding job and a new test is being introduced which im sure will make it harder for people to get to the retirement age. Fingers crossed.

billchecker1

real1314 wrote: »

From what I can see regarding the police pension reforms, everything you have accrued up to 2015 will still be payable at the same retirement age of 49 (the case studies only use an age of 50 rather than 49 though) so in fact you have not yet had anything at all taken away from you.

At 49 (or 50?) you will be able to retire and will receive a pension reflecting your service between starting and 2015, based on your pay at retirement.

The only thing that is being changed is the way you will accrue pension from 2015 onwards, and this was announced 2 years ahead of the change. You've been given good notice of the changes from 2015 so now have the opportunity to decide how you will deal with those changes.

It's not really valid to expect a deal that was set 20 years ago to continue forever on the same basis regardless of changes that affect it.
On the other hand it would not be reasonable to reduce the value of contributions you have already made, but as has been demonstrated, that is not happening. :cool:

The 49 year age is bandied about quite a bit. The truth is that is the very minimum age and to do that you would have to join at 18. I don't know anyone that has retired in their forties. Most retire mid to late fifties (although I accept that this is still comparatively young).

billchecker1

Wilkins wrote: »

Yes it does, when it is forced by a reality which you foolishly imagine you can reject. Just because someone promised you that 2+2=5 does not entitle you to believe it to be true.

Please don't call me a fool.

Is the whole scheme unaffordable in the long-term? Yes, yes it is.

Should the scheme have been passed out so that current members didn't suffer? Yes. Please don't tell me that THIS was an unaffordable option. With billions spent by governments on waste, this could and should have been done.

billchecker1

FatherAbraham wrote: »

Yes, I should hope it is palpable, because those pensoin have become unjustifiably generous as the demographic situation has changed. Take heed of public anger!



Let's see, the last recruitiment for ten constables I heard about in a North Eastern English county, late last year, had two thousand applicants. In any industry, if the ratio of applicants to jobs is running at 200 to 1, the post is seriously over-compensated, either by immediate pay or deferred pay (i.e. pensions).

It's impossible to join the police: the competition to get to the fat, bloated pensions is too great. There are even rumours that recruitment is biased in favour of relatives of serving offices, which is hardly unexpected when a precious resource is hoarded by a few.



Simple? It's not even true.

You have received everything that was promised. You were never promised that future terms and conditions would not change.

Your deep sense of injustice comes from believing nonsense, not reality.

Warmest regards,
FA

What a wonderfully objective post.

Without being drawn into a war of words I will simply respond to one sentence:

You have received everything that was promised. You were never promised that future terms and conditions would not change.

Actually we were. It was laid down in statute law in the police pension act. Section 2 I believe. Stated categorically that any future changes should not be to the detriment of current members.

Please do some research before hand. It just makes you look silly.

billchecker1

hyubh wrote: »

The main thing 'taken away' is double accrual - in the old (1987) police scheme that billchecker1 is in (it was closed to new entrants in 2006) the accrual rate is 1/30 in the final ten years of thirty not 1/60.

In a previous thread on the topic billchecker1 reported that while he is old enough to be in the 1987 scheme, he is not old enough to have the protections others in it will get. As such, from his point of view, if cost savings are needed, they should be solely borne by new recruits who don't have a previous scheme (and therefore historical 'promises') to be transferred from. Perhaps a bit selfish... but then aren't we all at times.

Its not selfish to want what you were promised (and as laid down in law, see above).

If I had joined today under different terms then that is what I should expect.

hyubh

billchecker1 wrote: »

If I had joined today under different terms then that is what I should expect.

The logic of your position is that it would not be unreasonable for new officers to be auto-enrolled into NEST, so long as the 1987 and 2006 schemes stay 'as is' for those already in them. Despite that, you also emphasise the stresses and strains of the job, which presumably go for new as well as past recruits. I consider this is an inconsistency (and more colourfully, 'a bit selfish'), though I realise I'm not going to change your mind on the point.

mgdavid

billchecker1 wrote: »

......
Actually we were. It was laid down in statute law in the police pension act. Section 2 I believe. Stated categorically that any future changes should not be to the detriment of current members.

Please do some research before hand. It just makes you look silly.

I did the research and read the 1976 Act (took all of 5 minutes).
Under subsection 3 (of S2) it says if you agree to the new regulations then you agree that they may be less favourable.

billchecker1

mgdavid wrote: »

I did the research and read the 1976 Act (took all of 5 minutes).
Under subsection 3 (of S2) it says if you agree to the new regulations then you agree that they may be less favourable.

There has been no agreement so that doesnt come into it.

atush

You aren't going to convince us about any of your arguments.

You have a choice, stay in the new pension or leave it. Period.

Then please go away as you are beginning to annoy us. Perhaps you'd like to spend some time reading up on Operation Alice?