Question about police pensions

[sidicks]

Red 4 said:

Not really.

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

No, but presumably as officers become more experienced, the nature of their role changes?

[Red 4]

sidicks said:

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.

I'm not sure about the details of the 2015 scheme - so possibly.

Double accrual also applies to the '87 scheme after 20 years service.

Figures about losses of up to about £60/ £70k - just for the lump sum - have also been mentioned.

[sidicks]

Red 4 said:

I'm not sure about the details of the 2015 scheme - so possibly.

Double accrual also applies to the '87 scheme after 20 years service.

Yes, that's what made the scheme unbelievably expensive - potentially working for 30 years and obtaining a benefit which lasted for more than 30 years! Surely it's no surprise that isn't sustainable?

Red 4 said:

Figures about losses of up to about £60/ £70k - just for the lump sum - have also been mentioned.

According to the documentation, commutation was 1:15 at age 50 (for the 1987 scheme) and 1:12 at age 60 (for the 2015 scheme), which doesn't seem a massive change.

[Red 4]

sidicks said:

No, but presumably as officers become more experienced, the nature of their role changes?

Not necessarily.

Plus - if you are not deployable; i.e. pass fitness tests/ self defence, etc. you face a reduction in pay and the possibilty of dismissal.

Have a look at The Winsor Reforms - pensions were only part of the changes.

[Red 4]

sidicks said:

According to the documentation, commutation was 1:15 at age 50 (for the 1987 scheme) and 1:12 at age 60 (for the 2015 scheme), which doesn't seem a massive change.

Nonsense.

It was up to 23 on the 87 scheme last time I looked.

[sidicks]

Red 4 said:

Not necessarily.

Plus - if you are not deployable; i.e. pass fitness tests/ self defence, etc. you face a reduction in pay and the possibilty of dismissal.

Have a look at The Winsor Reforms - pensions were only part of the changes.

But if you can't do the job, why shouldn't you be dismissed?

Edited by sidicks on Sunday 25th February 17:54

[sidicks]

Red 4 said:

Nonsense.

It was up to 23 on the 87 scheme last time I looked.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploa...

Section 7.2

However, it looks like you were right:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploa...

Edited by sidicks on Sunday 25th February 18:01

[Red 4]

Your link doesn't work.

Like I said - it's up to 23.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/police-...

So, potentially, a massive hit.

[sidicks]

Red 4 said:

Your link doesn't work.

Try now!

[Red 4]

sidicks said:

Red 4 said:

Your link doesn't work.

Try now!

It's wrong.

They've been amended as per my earlier post.

[sidicks]

Red 4 said:

It's wrong.

Wrong i.e. out of date?

[pavarotti1980]

Red 4 said:

It's wrong.

They've been amended as per my earlier post.

Just remember he knows nothing about it and doesn't post on something he knows nothing about.

[pavarotti1980]

sidicks said:

pavarotti1980 said:

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

Like i said, you're an ignorant troll.

Can you point me to any posts on here that are ignorant? I must be missing something because all I have done is ask you 2 questions and so far you have failed to answer either

[sidicks]

pavarotti1980 said:

Can you point me to any posts on here that are ignorant? I must be missing something because all I have done is ask you 2 questions and so far you have failed to answer either

pavarotti1980 said:

Published sector pension hater of the highest order

Wrong. Ignorance.

pavarotti1980 said:

Which translates as hater HTH

Are all the cops wrong on this too?

Wrong. Ignorance.

pavarotti1980 said:

You may need to actyally read the thread first though as you said previously you hadn't.

Wrong. Ignorance.

Edited by sidicks on Sunday 25th February 18:18

[pavarotti1980]

sidicks said:

Wrong. Ignorance.

In your opinion HTH

[sidicks]

pavarotti1980 said:

In your opinion HTH

Were you wrong? The reason for that could be a genuine error or it could be ignorance.

Edited by sidicks on Sunday 25th February 18:29

[sidicks]

sidicks said:

Red 4 said:

It's wrong.

Wrong i.e. out of date?

Presumably they were updated to reflect economic conditions, just as future pension accruals have been reduced for the same reason. Which seems entirely reasonable surely?

[pavarotti1980]

sidicks said:

Were you wrong? The reason for that could be a genuine error or it could be ignorance.

Edited by sidicks on Sunday 25th February 18:29

Was I wrong in saying you were being slippery and not answering a question? No

[sidicks]

pavarotti1980 said:

Was I wrong in saying you were being slippery and not answering a question? No

Not answering a question because you don't have any knowledge about the issue is not being 'slippery'. It's being sensible. HTH

Feel free to keep failing at petty point scoring, whilst everyone else tries to discuss the issues.

[pavarotti1980]

sidicks said:

Not answering a question because you don't have any knowledge about the issue is not being 'slippery'. It's being sensible. HTH

Feel free to keep failing at petty point scoring, whilst everyone else tries to discuss the issues.

Didn't say I had knowledge. I asked if the cops posting were wrong? So let's try again......