Police Pension advice

atush

I go back to the promise that was laid out at the time of joining.

Everyone is mad e a pension promise on joining, but it is not written in stone. Ask the thousands who have lost any an ALL FS/DB pensions in the proivate sector. You signed up for somethig the country can't afford. Final.

That isn't govt spin. It is economics 101.

How many negeatve police reports have you seen in the paper recently?

Issues of police lying and falsifying reports are what I saw i the news- nothing to do with being hoodwinked by govt. They lied about Hillsborough, and they lied/did wrong under Pleb Gate. I was not particularly concerned with false identities for undercover officers which are needed to protect the officers in these days where it is easier than ever to research a person and their background using the net.

Yes despite this, we the public do actually value the police. But we aren't stupid either.

billchecker1

But Atush. It was written into statute law. How much more concrete can you get?!

The question of affordability is something else entirely and whilst pensions are undoubtedly getting more expensive as people get older the most common sense solution would have been to apply to new recruits only. Overseas wars and aid aside I am not convinced that this could not have been done.

Work longer: yes fine I don't mind
Pay more: again I value the scheme so am happy to do this.
Get less out at the end: no I'm not happy with this.

atush

You wont have to get out less, if you work to 60?

I am not sure I have seen the statute law you are speaking of, where your pension cannot be changed. Everyone else's can be.

I do know that the general public were upset to see that policemen who joined at 18 were retiring at age 48 on full pensions with a lump sum big enough to buy a house in France/spain. As was mentionned here a few years back. So something had to change.

I can understand you not being happy, I cannot see where anything you could do with your contributions that will be better. I also think it is a shame you can't take your pensions in two lots.

So, start filling those S&S isas.

hyubh

billchecker1 wrote: »

Wow so much bitterness. Not sure why.

There's no 'bitterness' - I'm primarily just replying to factual inaccuracies.

The new scheme does not affect those with less than 10 years to go. They are allowed to retire at 30 years service in exactly the same way as everyone was until now.

Your talk of 'they' is rubbish - the 'within ten years' thing is a standard protection being implemented across the reformed public sector schemes - it's not something special for the police, let alone members of the Police Federation.

... in order to get 66% of your final salary for life after only 30 years
of service. The numbers just don't add up.

That was what we signed up to. Simple.

And it is grossly unaffordable!

NO! I WISH - I am a humble PC on 33000 a year. Please tell me that they have been taking too much out of my salary?!

Don't get too excited - that would make the correct rate 13.5% for this financial year.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/increased-police-officer-pension-contributions--2

So what? If you live to a reasonable age, it will be repaid several times over in pension payments, backed by a blank cheque signed by central government on behalf of the general taxpayer.

You do realise that we pay tax too? It goes out every month. We are tax payers too.

Again - so what? So are police officers in the 2006 scheme, and so are police support staff in the LGPS, and neither of those schemes are anywhere near as good as the 1987 police one.

It couldn't be any clearer. Save money yes, however this should be for new recruits, not those who have already joined up and paid in for a substantial amount of time.

That would be (and has been) unfair on the new recruits. You began this reply by complaining at the special protections for older members; now you're complaining about the lack of special protections for older members, where 'older' is just not quite as old as the first group.

You do know they dramatically changed the scheme in 2006?

Um, that's why I've been frequently alluding to it, and been careful to talk of 'the 1987 scheme' not 'the police scheme' when referring to your own situation...

This was not as good as the old scheme, but better than the newer scheme.

It was a lot worse than the 1987 scheme and (for some) will be much of a muchness compared to the 2015 one.

Like I say two changes

It won't be 'two changes' for you - that was my point!

The 'risk' is in fact tiny - the police pension schemes are 'pay as you go' ones in which there are zero investment risks on either the employee or employer side, due to the fact central government will by law pick up any shortfall.

See here we have ignorance about the changes going on. A fitness test is being introduced along with knowledge tests.

How does that contradict what I said?

Along with increasing privatisation

Not that this has much relevance for the police, but Google TUPE and "fair deal". What happens is that existing staff have their pension rights protected but new staff in the newly privatised or outsourced entities don't - it's like the 1987 vs 2006 police scheme situation, only where there isn't even a still-decent DB scheme for the newbies.

The public have been completely hoodwinked by the governments spin. How many negeatve police reports have you seen in the paper recently? Hillsborough?! Jimmy Saville. I was 8 when that happened yet the public think we are an overpaid lazy workforce.

Pension reform has abolutely nothing to do with that.

None of my friends in the public sector pay anything like I do into a pension yet they are jealous of it.

They are more than likely not in a scheme that gives anywhere like a pension of 2/3 their final salary after only 30 years of working.

hyubh

billchecker1 wrote: »

But Atush. It was written into statute law. How much more concrete can you get?!

Between the 1920s and the 1970s, it took an Act of Parliament to change public sector pension schemes like those for the police or local government workers. However, when the schemes were reformed in the mid-70s, it was set out that a mere statutory instrument could change them going forward. This then set the scene for lots of tinkering (less so for the police, a lot more with the LGPS) ever since.

billchecker1

Atush,

Yes but it was rare for police to retire at 48 in reality most worked a lot longer. Like I say I think having to work longer is right and fair. But to get less out at the end is wrong.

I am plugging away with my S+S Isa in anycase. Cant hurt to have extra.

Your talk of 'they' is rubbish - the 'within ten years' thing is a standard protection being implemented across the reformed public sector schemes - it's not something special for the police, let alone members of the Police Federation.

There are several reasons why I belive this. Thinking amongst a good majority of people is the same. That the fed were a toothless tiger who are way to close to government.

And it is grossly unaffordable!

Again I am not to convinced about this. I am told that savings wont kick in for a long time yet anyway.

Again - so what? So are police officers in the 2006 scheme, and so are police support staff in the LGPS, and neither of those schemes are anywhere near as good as the 1987 police one.

But why the comparison in a race to the bottom. I could say "well they could have joined the police instead" but that means less. It was a benefit of joining. I don't think any of the schemes should have changed.

For new recruits and staff yes but not for those already in. It is unfair to do otherwise.

That would be (and has been) unfair on the new recruits. You began this reply by complaining at the special protections for older members; now you're complaining about the lack of special protections for older members, where 'older' is just not quite as old as the first group.

My position is that they should have applied it consistently to all people in those schemes ie 1987 and 2006. And have an entirely new one for 2015. That wouldhave been the fairest way possible. In the same way as housing allowance was stopped for newer recruits but kept for those already in receipt.

The 'risk' is in fact tiny - the police pension schemes are 'pay as you go' ones in which there are zero investment risks on either the employee or employer side, due to the fact central government will by law pick up any shortfall.

See here we have ignorance about the changes going on. A fitness test is being introduced along with knowledge tests. How does that contradict what I said?

Because they will make it harder and harder to reach 60 and therefore get the full pension. Therefore there is risk the the expected amount may not be what you get at the end, although I do accept that changes in this area are overdue.

The public have been completely hoodwinked by the governments spin. How many negeatve police reports have you seen in the paper recently? Hillsborough?! Jimmy Saville. I was 8 when that happened yet the public think we are an overpaid lazy workforce. Pension reform has abolutely nothing to do with that.


Quote:
None of my friends in the public sector pay anything like I do into a pension yet they are jealous of it.
They are more than likely not in a scheme that gives anywhere like a pension of 2/3 their final salary after only 30 years of working.

I don't agree. David Cameron was part of the infamous Sheehy report and I do believe they have an anti-police attitude. The Windsor report is very much an extention of what he wanted back then. This would be a whole new discussion!

There are many restrictions on a police officer that people in the private sector would be shocked to see. The pension was the one thing that people could look forward to when risking their lives. It is a real shame that this has now gone.

Ultimately there is nothing said on this board which will change things. A large amount of cops actively hate the current government and the fed/ Home office. Its just we cant really talk about things for fear of persecution. Read up on the Inspector Gadget blog.

hyubh

billchecker1 wrote: »

Your talk of 'they' is rubbish - the 'within ten years' thing is a standard protection being implemented across the reformed public sector schemes - it's not something special for the police, let alone members of the Police Federation.

There are several reasons why I belive this. Thinking amongst a good majority of people is the same.

Your wild conspiracy theories are ridiculous. What exactly are your 'several reasons'?

And it is grossly unaffordable!

Again I am not to convinced about this.

You are living in la-la land if you think effective employer contribution rates in the upper 30 percents are 'affordable'.

I am told that savings wont kick in for a long time yet anyway.

Insofar as they won't, it will be because of the stupid protections for those who have benefited most...!

Again - so what? So are police officers in the 2006 scheme, and so are police support staff in the LGPS, and neither of those schemes are anywhere near as good as the 1987 police one.

But why the comparison in a race to the bottom.

The proposed 2015 police scheme is nowhere near the 'bottom'.

For new recruits and staff yes but not for those already in. It is unfair to do otherwise.

What crap - like I said, you began by whinging at the special protections for members a bit older than yourself, then went on to whinge at how officers of your age haven't got special protections compared to those who joined afterwards. That isn't applying a standard of 'fairness' - that's applying a standard of looking out for number one.

My position is that they should have applied it consistently to all people in those schemes ie 1987 and 2006. And have an entirely new one for 2015. That wouldhave been the fairest way possible.

No it wouldn't. Why should people younger than yourself be lumbered with paying more for less while you get away with paying the same for much, much more?

Because they will make it harder and harder to reach 60 and therefore get the full pension.

Want to quote some actual stats to back up that assertion? No, I thought not.

billchecker1

hyubh,

I dont intend on debating the issue any further with you. By using terms like "crap" you undermine the process of intelligent debate so I will leave it here. I say on here only what I would to someone in real life.

However I would suggest if you know anyone who is in the police, ask them what their opinion is of the fed and the government and I suspect their thought wont differ to widely from my own.

jimi_man

In answer to the original post to Dodgiedave. If you don't partake in the 2015 pension, then your 1987 pension will be deferred until you are 60. So from age 52 to 60 you won't have any Police pension. So you'll have 14.5 years, say 15/60ths (a quarter) of pension when you are 60. You lose out on the double accrual after years 20-30 by not joining the 2015 one. The reasoning is obviously because you are not paying anything into the pension, sound enough I feel.

If you joined the 2015 scheme then you can retire at 52 as you planned, and your 15 years would now be 15/45ths (a third) which you would get then, because you have completed 30 years in a Police Pension scheme and that satisfies the PPS 1987 regulations. Your 15 years in the 2015 scheme would be roughly 15/54ths which you wouldn't get until you are 67, I think.

Why you wouldn't join the 2015 scheme with that in mind, I have no idea, other than clinical insanity. After all you would need to make some pension provision surely?

If you earn say £36,000 then a quarter pension is £9000 pension a year from 60 till 86 say (average life expectancy age? A reasonable guess, I'm sure others can correct). That makes a total of £224,000 pension over a lifetime if you didn't join the 2015 scheme.

If you did join it then you'd get a third (£12,000 a year) from 52 to 86, a total of £408,000 PLUS your 2015 pension at aged 67.

If you can afford to throw away £84,000+ then great - please can you chuck it my way!!

Seriously, I cannot comprehend why someone wouldn't want to do this.

hyubh

billchecker1 wrote: »

I dont intend on debating the issue any further with you. By using terms like "crap" you undermine the process of intelligent debate so I will leave it here.

Let me guess... you don't in fact have 'several reasons' for believing the special protections for those within 10 years of retirement are a Police Federation conspiracy? Or indeed, you can't in fact coherently argue why those special protections are wrong, yet bemoan the lack of special protections for slightly younger officers like yourself? Or for that matter, give any sort of evidence for a casual link between the Jimmy Saville brouhaha and police pension reform?

However I would suggest if you know anyone who is in the police, ask them what their opinion is of the fed and the government and I suspect their thought wont differ to widely from my own.

Just because many people in a certain group have a certain opinion about something doesn't make that opinion true.