Question about police pensions

[sidicks]

pavarotti1980 said:

I am asking you a question. A question normally necessitates an answer. Yes or no will do. Are the cops who have posted right or wrong in their summary?

You may need to actually read the thread first though as you said previously you hadn't. Is forfeiture of DB pensions another area of your expertise?

Perhaps it is you that needs to re-read the thread...

sidicks said:

I've no idea about the question the OP raised, so won't be commenting on that.

[Derek Smith]

sidicks said:

pavarotti1980 said:

Are all the cops wrong on this too?

On what? I suggest you don't spoil the thread with silly nonsense.

Edited by sidicks on Sunday 25th February 16:04

So let's get this right. Sid is asking for a poster not to spoil the thread.

Have I got this right? This from the poster who entered this thread accusing a poster (me) of telling lies.

No, he's not a god; he's a very naughty boy.

[sidicks]

Derek Smith said:

So let's get this right. Sid is asking for a poster not to spoil the thread.

Have I got this right? This from the poster who entered this thread accusing a poster (me) of telling lies.

No, I entered the thread in response to two posts about me, one of which was yours. It's quite funny that you seek to make these personal remarks and are then surprised when they are responded to.
HTH.

Derek Smith said:

No, he's not a god; he's a very naughty boy.

No, he doesn't understand pensions, he's just a policeman with an anecdote for any occasion...

[wiliferus]

TheBear said:

How do you have 17 years in a scheme that finished in 2006 but only 20 years service 12 years later and still in the job?

Joined late ‘97. The 87 only closed in 2006 to new joiners. Those already in the scheme stayed in till it closed in 2015 and were transferred to the 2015 scheme. In being transferred to the new scheme if I want my pension to mature to full value I need to work till I’m 60 now instead of serving for 30 years. So have 20 years in, and 20 to do having joined at 19 years old.

[pavarotti1980]

sidicks said:

Just answer the question. Don't be so slippery.

[sidicks]

pavarotti1980 said:

sidicks said:

Just answer the question. Don't be so slippery.

Suggest you learn to read.

[Red 4]

wiliferus said:

Joined late ‘97. The 87 only closed in 2006 to new joiners. Those already in the scheme stayed in till it closed in 2015 and were transferred to the 2015 scheme. In being transferred to the new scheme if I want my pension to mature to full value I need to work till I’m 60 now instead of serving for 30 years. So have 20 years in, and 20 to do having joined at 19 years old.

So the reforms have added 10 years to your service ... and (I'm guessing) the lump sum is massively reduced.

Pretty grim that.

[pavarotti1980]

sidicks said:

Suggest you learn to read.

Because you said you wouldn't0.? Like I said slippery.

I do like the iront of you posting to say you aren't posting on something you haven't read

Edited by pavarotti1980 on Sunday 25th February 16:53

[sidicks]

pavarotti1980 said:

Because you said you wouldn't.? Like I said slippery.

Like i said, you're an ignorant troll.

The issue is a legal one about entitlement to pensions who for those who have been sacked from the force. It is NOT a question about scheme funding or pensions costs etc, and hence not one that I have any expert knowledge about.

I've made this quite clear on more than one occasion:

sidicks said:

I've no idea about the question the OP raised, so won't be commenting on that.

I know that you like to comment on things that you don't have any knowledge about, but I try not to. HTH

[wiliferus]

Red 4 said:

wiliferus said:

Joined late ‘97. The 87 only closed in 2006 to new joiners. Those already in the scheme stayed in till it closed in 2015 and were transferred to the 2015 scheme. In being transferred to the new scheme if I want my pension to mature to full value I need to work till I’m 60 now instead of serving for 30 years. So have 20 years in, and 20 to do having joined at 19 years old.

So the reforms have added 10 years to your service ... and (I'm guessing) the lump sum is massively reduced.

Pretty grim that.

The reforms have added 10 years 8 months to my service, and both my lump sum and annual pension will be reduced. Working longer for less. And not forgetting my contributions have gone up too.
Never ceases to amaze me how many people think the Police pension is a non contribution pension.

[iDrive]

wiliferus said:

The reforms have added 10 years 8 months to my service, and both my lump sum and annual pension will be reduced. Working longer for less. And not forgetting my contributions have gone up too.
Never ceases to amaze me how many people think the Police pension is a non contribution pension.

Historically has been mistaken for the Local Govt Pension scheme

[Red 4]

wiliferus said:

The reforms have added 10 years 8 months to my service, and both my lump sum and annual pension will be reduced. Working longer for less. And not forgetting my contributions have gone up too.
Never ceases to amaze me how many people think the Police pension is a non contribution pension.

It's a bit of a double whammy as far as the lumper goes - the younger you are, the bigger the lump sum is on the '87 scheme.(commutation factors are related to age).

The other question is how many cops will manage to get to 60 ....

I'm sure sidicks will be along momentarily to explain how good the pension is and how lucky you are ...

Thanks for the reply.

[sidicks]

wiliferus said:

The reforms have added 10 years 8 months to my service, and both my lump sum and annual pension will be reduced. Working longer for less. And not forgetting my contributions have gone up too.

The benefits that you carried under the 1987 scheme up until 2015 were protected, right? So you will have 18 years on those Final Salary terms. And now you are on the 2015 scheme for future accrual? Is that correct?

As the NPA of the 1987 scheme is 50 (?), if you work longer than that and don't take that pension in the meantime, then I believe that your 1987 pension will be actuarily increased - have you factored that into your calculations?

My understanding is that there was no automatic lump sum for the 1987 scheme?

wiliferus said:

Never ceases to amaze me how many people think the Police pension is a non contribution pension.

I think the contribution rate is among the highest in the public sector?

[iDrive]

sidicks said:

The issue is a legal one about entitlement to pensions who for those who have been sacked from the force... ...and hence not one that I have any expert knowledge about.

I've made this quite clear on more than one occasion:

sidicks said:

I've no idea about the question the OP raised, so won't be commenting on that.

I know that you like to comment on things that you don't have any knowledge about, but I try not to. HTH

Just to be clear....

You've commented on a thread, the subject of which you know nothing about, to tell everyone that you don't comment on threads you know nothing about?


Crikey.

[sidicks]

Red 4 said:

It's a bit of a double whammy as far as the lumper goes - the younger you are, the bigger the lump sum is on the '87 scheme.(commutation factors are related to age).

There is no automatic lump sum on the 1987 scheme. It is obtained by giving up pension. As the pension is payable for a longer period (from age 50) then commutation factors will inevitably be higher than under the later schemes which have a higher retirement age. Note that the commutation factors aren't actually that generous in the current economic environment..

Red 4 said:

The other question is how many cops will manage to get to 60 ....

Which would apply to many professions.

Red 4 said:

I'm sure sidicks will be along momentarily to explain how good the pension is and how lucky you are ...

The pension remains very good - in terms of amount paid in (plus interest) versus amount expected to be taken out - but I'm sure you already knew that. Of course, reflecting the economic environment and chasing demographics, it is less generous than the previous scheme.

[sidicks]

iDrive said:

Just to be clear....

You've commented on a thread, the subject of which you know nothing about, to tell everyone that you don't comment on threads you know nothing about.

No, I've responded to comments about me (which were nothing to do with the thread topic). But have explained that I didn't have any knowledge to discuss that topic. The thread has evolved a little since then. HTH

[Red 4]

sidicks said:

1. As the NPA of the 1987 scheme is 50 (?), if you work longer than that and don't take that pension in the meantime, then I believe that your 1987 pension will be actuarily increased - have you factored that into your calculations?

2. My understanding is that there was no automatic lump sum for the 1987 scheme?

3 I think the contribution rate is among the highest in the public sector?

1. No. The 87 scheme is 30 years service. Wiliferus would have been able to retire on full pension at 49 - that is now 60 with a reduced lump sum and annual pension.

2. You can commute up to 25% of the pension for a lump sum.

3. Yup.

Edited by Red 4 on Sunday 25th February 17:32

[Derek Smith]

wiliferus said:

The reforms have added 10 years 8 months to my service, and both my lump sum and annual pension will be reduced. Working longer for less. And not forgetting my contributions have gone up too.
Never ceases to amaze me how many people think the Police pension is a non contribution pension.

At least one.

Part of the problem is that many seem to believe the DM.

The company that I went for an interview with produced a figure for my percentage contributions. I forget the actual figure but it was around 15%. Their figures were inarguable (except for the committed). One of their selling points was that for those with less than 12 years in, their benefits package was around the same figure.

Other benefits of changing were not being bitten, punched, annual leave cancelled due to mistake by CPS, and shift work. Also, the pension could be taken to another company without any penalty, something which I had only just realised the valued of.

And that was then. Headline figure percentage contributions have increased (with a reduction in benefits) so heaven knows what the figure is now.

Edited by Derek Smith on Sunday 25th February 17:38

[Red 4]

sidicks said:

Red 4 said:

The other question is how many cops will manage to get to 60 ....

Which would apply to many professions.

Not really.

You expect 60 year olds to be rolling 'round on the floor with pissed/ coked up 18 year old scaffolders (for example) ?

[sidicks]

Red 4 said:

sidicks said:

1. As the NPA of the 1987 scheme is 50 (?), if you work longer than that and don't take that pension in the meantime, then I believe that your 1987 pension will be actuarily increased - have you factored that into your calculations?

1. No. The 87 scheme is 30 years service.

Maybe i wasn't clear.

The OP will have 18 years service within the 1987 scheme. This entitles him to a pension from age 50 based on the service. If he continues to work until age 60, in line with the retirement age of the 2015 scheme, then the pension from the 1987 scheme will be increased accordingly if it is taken at age 60, rather than 50, which could be a significant uplift. I am unclear if the OP has taken this into account.