Teachers' Pensions - given up trying to understand.

hyubh

saver861 wrote: »

However, it seems there are core of peeps who seem to like to telling me my contribution is not useful regardless.

Correct. You confidently posted claims about the determination of TPS benefits that contradicted both the questioner and the main answerer (who actually knows the scheme). When this was pointed out to you, instead of backtracking gracefully you proceeded to derail the thread by playing the victim card, claiming you were only trying to 'debate', and that anyway, noting your factual inaccuracies was grossly unfair because everyone has their own views, don't they?

If you want to 'debate', I suggest doing so on the debating board or one of those interminable WASPI threads.

saver861

hyubh wrote: »

Correct. You confidently posted claims about the determination of TPS benefits that contradicted both the questioner and the main answerer (who actually knows the scheme). When this was pointed out to you, instead of backtracking gracefully you proceeded to derail the thread by playing the victim card, claiming you were only trying to 'debate', and that anyway, noting your factual inaccuracies was grossly unfair because everyone has their own views, don't they?

huh? I'm not sure what you are reading but to clarify, if you look at my posts I did say I did not fully understand the OP's logic and that his premise might well be correct.

My understanding was that the TPS was on final year, best of three or best average of three consecutive in the last thirteen. My understanding was not correct and I clarified it by asking the question earlier. Not sure how far back you wanted me to 'backtrack' but I'm guessing if I backed up all the way to the beginning of time you would still not be satisfied!! That's cool though ... I'm happy to put you right where appropriate!!

hyubh wrote: »

If you want to 'debate', I suggest doing so on the debating board or one of those interminable WASPI threads.

huh number 2 ??? ... Whats WASPI got to do with the price of turnips ..... or the context of this thread??

See heres the thing ... there is good news ..... everyone on the forum has a choice ... to post or not ... to read the posts or not ... to reply or not .....

even better news .... I won't be changing my posting habits :cool: .... thank you nonetheless for your suggestion .... but, for your benefit, I'm happy to declare I'm not an expert in everything on the Universe ... and where my understanding is not correct do please point me in the right direction ....

jem16

saver861 wrote: »

huh? I'm not sure what you are reading but to clarify, if you look at my posts I did say I did not fully understand the OP's logic and that his premise might well be correct.

Yes you did say you didn't understand his logic of what he wanted to do, as in opt out of his scheme, but you confidently proclaimed;

saver861 wrote: »

Your pension will be assessed on the best of, final year, last three years or best three consecutive from the last thirteen.

Now this is nothing to do with logic about what he wanted to do but a direct contradiction of what he knew full well to be the rules of the calculation. As hyubh said you then did not accept my correction of your understanding but again asked about the 13 year thing - can't really see any need for that unless you thought I was wrong too and that you were correct.

I'm happy to declare I'm not an expert in everything on the Universe ... and where my understanding is not correct do please point me in the right direction ....

Great - glad we've cleared that up.

Could you please also declare that where you are corrected and pointed in the right direction, that you gracefully accept that you might just have got it wrong and not spend the next umpteen posts trying to prove otherwise.

saver861

hyubh wrote: »

Correct. You confidently posted claims ..

jem16 wrote: »

Yes you did say you didn't understand his logic of what he wanted to do, as in opt out of his scheme, but you confidently proclaimed;

You are both using the same words .... hmmm ....

I'm not sure how you deduce a post as 'confidently proclaiming' or just posting? Is there a specific difference?

jem16 wrote: »

Now this is nothing to do with logic about what he wanted to do but a direct contradiction of what he knew full well to be the rules of the calculation.

Yes - and if the poster was fully aware that my assumption of three from the last thirteen did not apply, then my point on that was irrelevant. My incorrect assumption was not life changing information for the poster!

jem16 wrote: »

As hyubh said you then did not accept my correction of your understanding but again asked about the 13 year thing - can't really see any need for that unless you thought I was wrong too and that you were correct.

I posted the question to you and you responded - that was fine. Clarification that there was no three from thirteen. Not an issue - the world still kept spinning even!

So lets see ...... This was a resurrected thread from over a month ago and someone made a post to which I replied. The poster replied to my post and there was not any problem with that. I posted another reply this morning which crossed yours and all seemed cool.

It was only when Hyubh then posted that I was 'giving advice' etc which was incorrect, quite apart from the fact that I have pointed out there is no 'advice' on MSE. I'm not sure why Hubhy felt the need to 'confidently proclaim' I was giving advice, but not necessary in my opinion.

The poster then posted further clarification that he was not in CARE and indeed he was working part time. Both these issues would impact on whether coming out of the pension scheme would be more beneficial. I was pointing out that he would lose 5 years indexed pension for life which would be relevant. It still does not mean he would not be right to come out but if would impact on the decision. As it turns out he is working part time then he would not indeed be accumulating 5 years pension, thus that could negate some of the benefits of coming out early.

jem16 wrote: »

Could you please also declare that where you are corrected and pointed in the right direction, that you gracefully accept that you might just have got it wrong and not spend the next umpteen posts trying to prove otherwise.

I'm not sure if you are reading all my posts but if you do, you will see that I have said a number of times that my understanding of the three from thirteen was incorrect. You further clarified that. Thank you - no worries - its all good. Nice one. I don't know what gracefully accepting is in your context or that of Hybuh but I'm not giving blood for it!!

I think if you look at the context of these posts, the exchange of posts between the poster, you and I were not a problem. It seems Hyubh had different opinion - entirely his prerogrative of course. I duly responded - as I always will.

My point still stands on all of this - this is a forum which we are guests. We all have a right to post within the guidelines of the forum. There is no prerequisite knowledge required, qualifications or any other criteria. That's how it is - and more importantly that is how it should be. Anything else is akin to control and/or censorship.

It is a free resource and a free tool for everyones benefit used correctly. Nobody has a monopoly on certain topics. And, as I have said many times, its the contribution from posters and the subsequent questions and discussion that make the forum what it is. I would not tolerate anything less ..... and will answer accordingly ..... always!

jem16

saver861 wrote: »

The poster then posted further clarification that he was not in CARE and indeed he was working part time.

The poster declared all of that in his very first post.

facade wrote: »

I'm 55, working 0.6 and on the 80ths scheme

Of course you would know that if you actually know the scheme.

saver861

jem16 wrote: »

The poster declared all of that in his very first post.



Of course you would know that if you actually know the scheme.

True - I did not read that as not being in CARE - so I am further enlightened. Does my lack of knowledge on that disqualify me from posting? No - nor anyone else.

Fact is, often when considering such decisions, personally I would welcome all viewpoints. If some of these are irrelevant, incorrect or otherwise mis-informed, clearly they would not be considered. Equally someone might come up with something I had not considered. Thus, its all about opinions.

Again, my point is I was responding to the poster - who did not state any objection to any of my posts and I'm not sure we would be debating these issues if it had not been for Hyuby's interjection - needlessly in my opinion. Then again, that's just my opinion ....

saver861

facade wrote: »

Thanks for your time, you are quite right, I will devote one of my "days off" to ringing the TPS for my figures, when I have a fair idea of what the answer should be

Anyhoooo .... getting back to the topic .... if you are still reading

Have you checked whether you could freeze the pension as you suggest and start a new one at a later point. That would preserve your best of three and allow you to continue to take advantage of the ongoing DB benefits.

Obviously, the new pension would be under rules e.g. CARE and the later retirement date etc. Thus it would be subject to actuarial reduction if taken early when you retire at 60, so you would have to calculate that into the equation. Alternatively it might be you can leave that pension frozen until the NRD.

Giving up 5 or more years of DB pension, even at part time, is big ask. In any event, I would check out whether there are alternative options without losing either your best of three or pension years.

facade

saver861 wrote: »

Have you checked whether you could freeze the pension as you suggest and start a new one at a later point. That would preserve your best of three and allow you to continue to take advantage of the ongoing DB benefits.

Now that would be a good idea. Freeze what I have, and benefit from index linking, and get on the career average for 5 years @ 0.6 paying out 1/57 of the average per year, I'd get a top -up of 3/57 x my salary /0.6, which would be rather nice

However it appears from the faqs that I am a protected member, and if I opt out today, I become a deferred member, and opting back in within 5 years puts me back on the same scheme.
To get into the new scheme, ( and completely bank the old one- which is what we want ) you need a break of more than 5 years.

Just been to the tps website and got my latest statement.
You can also produce last years, except it is exactly the same apart from the date at the top.
I suspect that this years is last years, as it only covers up to 2014.
However it does use the 3 best years, which it says are 2005, 2006 & 2007.

Now if I could find where I saved last years I could see what is happening.

saver861

facade wrote: »

However it appears from the faqs that I am a protected member,

You might be a protected member but its not protecting your circumstances!!

facade wrote: »

and if I opt out today, I become a deferred member, and opting back in within 5 years puts me back on the same scheme.
To get into the new scheme, ( and completely bank the old one- which is what we want ) you need a break of more than 5 years.

Is that compulsory or is it optional? On the basis that the older schemes are likely to be more beneficial for most cases, it would be a positive to be able to rejoin the old scheme.

Certainly, I would ask the question whether it is possible, given that there is a new scheme now in place. I'm guessing the 5 year rule has been there since day one, so whether a new scheme in place gives any leeway on that is worth asking. Then again, it depends on who you get on the phone at their end - trying to get someone more senior is always better if possible, as they will more aware of the various possibilities, if there are any.

hugheskevi

Is that compulsory or is it optional? On the basis that the older schemes are likely to be more beneficial for most cases, it would be a positive to be able to rejoin the old scheme.

Compulsory - Schedule 7 of Public Service Pension Act 2013 covers this.

In a surprisingly large number of cases, the new schemes are more beneficial than the old schemes for members very close to retirement.