Armed Forces Pension At 46, How Come?

[Si1]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/pensions-retirement/financial-planning/im-46-and-earn-95000-as-an-expat-can-i-retire-in-five-years-and/

?

[Si1]

Apparently it's standard, if they don't manage to make you redundant first

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/9340188/Armed-Forces-must-wait-five-years-longer-for-pension.html

[Sancho Panza]

You used to have to do 22 and then yawn once a month to pick up yer cheque.It's changed for new entrants obviously innit.

Totally unmatched by any assets per se iirc.

[Sancho Panza]

Apparently it's standard, if they don't manage to make you redundant first

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/9340188/Armed-Forces-must-wait-five-years-longer-for-pension.html

The redundancies are a bit like the police sometimes where you leave on the Friday as a Staff Sgt and then come back on the Monday as a FTRS posting at....you guessed it Staff Sgt.

[Sancho Panza]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/pensions-retirement/financial-planning/im-46-and-earn-95000-as-an-expat-can-i-retire-in-five-years-and/

?

Just to add some of the toms have seen active service and had to live and fight through some horrendous expereiences.I personally have no problem with these guys getting an FTRS posting-they deserve it.However,in my experience,there are a lot of people who've never been outside the wire getting a nice touch doing bugger all.Some of the TA recruitment jobs really are two days a week if you can be @rsed for a five day pay cheque.

[Si1]

Just to add some of the toms have seen active service and had to live and fight through some horrendous expereiences.I personally have no problem with these guys getting an FTRS posting-they deserve it.However,in my experience,there are a lot of people who've never been outside the wire getting a nice touch doing bugger all.Some of the TA recruitment jobs really are two days a week if you can be @rsed for a five day pay cheque.

Yes I gather. Front line personnel deserve a big break, plus of course they might be unsuited to civilian life afterwards. Does sound like some rather safer roles get this windfall which seems inappropriate.

[dgul]

I think the deal is that you train up a young person in a role which is highly specialised and difficult and for which they get a reasonable wage (plus benefits). Then, sometime after their 40th birthday you tell them they can't do that job any more, and that they have to get a new job with someone else. Oh, they retrain the individual for life on civvy-street, but it is difficult to get a job paying the same as their forces job, particularly as they'd missed out on 20 years of career progression compared with the equivalent civilian.

So, you tell the young recruit that after you've used them up and flung them onto their own devices, you'll make up the income shortfall with a bit of cash. Called the armed forces pension.

Obviously some manage to get a decent job anyway, and the forces pension isn't a necessary bribe - but remember, the point at which it does its job is at recruitment, not at retirement.

[Crumbless]

If she has got a UK pension and a house here, does this not open her up to being liable to pay UK tax on her earnings?

Now i am aware of the 9 month rule but i always thought that was done on the basis you had severed all ties with the UK.

If your house is paid for and you've no kids £11k is easily enough to retire on.

Edited August 3, 2016 by Crumbless

[Si1]

If she has got a UK pension and a house here, does this not open her up to being liable to pay UK tax on her earnings?

Now i am aware of the 9 month rule but i always thought that was done on the basis you had severed all ties with the UK.

If your house is paid for and you've no kids £11k is easily enough to retire on.

I think she wants rather more then that. Traveling, and there's a picture of her on a posh yacht.

[StainlessSteelCat]

I'm pretty much a pacifist. But if you are going to ask people to serve in the armed forces, I have absolutely no problem with them getting a decent pension in their forties.

It's the MPs' pensions I feel are less justified.

[porca misèria]

I'm pretty much a pacifist. But if you are going to ask people to serve in the armed forces, I have absolutely no problem with them getting a decent pension in their forties.

It's the MPs' pensions I feel are less justified.

They're far from the only people doing physically-demanding jobs. How about the man+van who does your removals?

Richest person I know has a navy pension as part of his income. Had it for twenty or so years while also building up another good public-sector pension.

[Sancho Panza]

Yes I gather. Front line personnel deserve a big break, plus of course they might be unsuited to civilian life afterwards. Does sound like some rather safer roles get this windfall which seems inappropriate.

Reality is that the toms who are badly damaged generally do three years in an infantry regt and then leave.Our prisons have a high proportion of ex vets than the general population for a variety of reasons.Some of them have aggression problems,some aren't the sharpest tools in the box(hence they were infanteers rahter than support arms developing skils for post army life)

In the last few years the army has taken mental health more seriously.

Edited August 3, 2016 by Sancho Panza

[Royw6]

Reality is that the toms who are badly damaged generally do three years in an infantry regt and then leave.Our prisons have a high proportion of ex vets than the general population for a variety of reasons.Some of them have aggression problems,some aren't the sharpest tools in the box(hence they were infanteers rahter than support arms developing skils for post army life)

In the last few years the army has taken mental health more seriously.

Totally agree, set aside any opinions of the wars they are asked to fight, they have no choice, it is right and proper to look after our service people.

[Sancho Panza]

.

It's the MPs' pensions I feel are less justified.

Youre dead right.

[Sancho Panza]

They're far from the only people doing physically-demanding jobs. How about the man+van who does your removals?

Richest person I know has a navy pension as part of his income. Had it for twenty or so years while also building up another good public-sector pension.

I genuinely don't know why they dont means test them.I have a friend,did 6 years as an officer,uses his pension for the skiing holiday and to supplement his banker bonus............crazy.

That money should be used to support the people struggling with reality and there are plenty of them.

Edited August 3, 2016 by Sancho Panza

[Crumbless]

Reality is that the toms who are badly damaged generally do three years in an infantry regt and then leave.Our prisons have a high proportion of ex vets than the general population for a variety of reasons.Some of them have aggression problems,some aren't the sharpest tools in the box(hence they were infanteers rahter than support arms developing skils for post army life)

In the last few years the army has taken mental health more seriously.

I've recently worked on a job with 30 something ex squaddies and they hate the army, and most certainly couldn't care less about what goes on in their head.

As nice as it is to give ex servicemen £1500 a month when they get to aged 40 the reality for a lot is this is enough for them to survive on without working leads to a life of drinking all day and not helping themselves.

Youngens no longer get this and they're the ones who are on their toes looking for work and to better themselves.

To me its ridiculous and unaffordable to pay an ex soldier such sums for what could be 50 years or more, they do know what the job involves when signing up.

[Crumbless]

Totally agree, set aside any opinions of the wars they are asked to fight, they have no choice, it is right and proper to look after our service people.

They do have a choice, compulsory military service is a thing of the past.

A 40 year old getting £1500 which is about average for 22 years service for 45 years (average life expectancy) = £720,000, its unaffordable.

Anyway this ridiculous pension scheme has now ended.

[Sancho Panza]

I've recently worked on a job with 30 something ex squaddies and they hate the army, and most certainly couldn't care less about what goes on in their head.

As nice as it is to give ex servicemen £1500 a month when they get to aged 40 the reality for a lot is this is enough for them to survive on without working leads to a life of drinking all day and not helping themselves.

Youngens no longer get this and they're the ones who are on their toes looking for work and to better themselves.

To me its ridiculous and unaffordable to pay an ex soldier such sums for what could be 50 years or more, they do know what the job involves when signing up.

I've already said I can't understand why these pensions aren't means tested.

Just feel drawn to point out that noone knows how they'll react to situations of extreme stress,so by implication,they can't know what they're signing up to.

[Royw6]

I've recently worked on a job with 30 something ex squaddies and they hate the army, and most certainly couldn't care less about what goes on in their head.

As nice as it is to give ex servicemen £1500 a month when they get to aged 40 the reality for a lot is this is enough for them to survive on without working leads to a life of drinking all day and not helping themselves.

Youngens no longer get this and they're the ones who are on their toes looking for work and to better themselves.

To me its ridiculous and unaffordable to pay an ex soldier such sums for what could be 50 years or more, they do know what the job involves when signing up.

I have to ask, why do you seem to object to people getting any form of social assistance? I would prefer to have a defence force like Ireland or nearly all other civilised countries, but our gov seems keen on sending soldiers over seas to fight at their discretion. If we are to ask people to kill others hand to hand or with bullets fine (our countries shame) but I don't want them with their mental scars and PTSD teaching children, serving me sandwiches, driving buses, being doctors or doing anything else where they may do harm to themselves or others.

If your argument is stop animalising young people by sending them overseas to kill people, yes I agree. If your argument is anything else please explain.

[Crumbless]

I've already said I can't understand why these pensions aren't means tested.

Just feel drawn to point out that noone knows how they'll react to situations of extreme stress,so by implication,they can't know what they're signing up to.

Thats why they get lower educated kids to join, but they're still not stupid.

In this womans case she avoids paying UK tax, yet benefits from the infrastructure and emergency services should anything happen to her house. And gets £11K thrown at her each year. Seems too good to be true.

At least remove the tax threshold of these people.

Edited August 4, 2016 by Crumbless

[Royw6]

Thats why they get lower educated kids to join, but they're still not stupid.

In this womans case she avoids paying UK tax, yet benefits from the infrastructure and emergency services should anything happen to her house. And gets £11K thrown at her each year. Seems too good to be true.

At least remove the tax threshold of these people.

Sounds like a balanced package, wage not too high, some tax benefits, what is the problem?

If you feel that soldiers have it so easy you could join up, be a soldier yourself, benefit massively from soldiers guilded lives.

Edited August 4, 2016 by Royw6

[Crumbless]

Sounds like a balanced package, wage not too high, some tax benefits, what is the problem?

If you feel that soldiers have it so easy you could join up, be a soldier yourself, benefit massively from soldiers guilded lives.

I spelt out my issues in the last post, then you respond as only a troll knows how.

And i'm a little old to sign up, besides i don't like shouty people.

[Royw6]

I spelt out my issues in the last post, then you respond as only a troll knows how.

And i'm a little old to sign up, besides i don't like shouty people.

A troll! Me ? Edited August 4, 2016 by Royw6

[Roman Roady]

Its not just "Toms"...injured or not...seen action for all of their 22 years or sat on their @rse all of that time.

Army, Navy or even the RAF.

The contract on joining up WAS quite clear, serve 22 years man's time (starts at 17 and a half) and you are entitled to an "immediate pension" for the rest of your life.

A better deal than even the US armed forces.

That did change for new entrants a decade ago...this might have something to do with the current recruitment crisis.

Under the current low interest rate environment, this is not a bad deal...how much would this woman need in the bank to earn £11k interest per year?

Leave before 22 years service and you are entitled to a pension at 65 commensurate with time served.

Oh and...its not really a pension, its a wage.

This generally gets found out during divorce proceedings.

There is no "pension pot", it comes out of the defence budget...guaranteed!

And to get you all really pi$$ed off, senior officers such as Admirals do not retire...they are either on the "active list" or "inactive list".

The difference??...you guessed it...pay.

They are paid the same regardless of what list they are on.

Why?

Well think about what is really being sold here...if not your life for an ungrateful country, its certainly your youth. The best years of your life when you have the most energy, the years that are supposed to build the foundations of your life and the years when you are most impressionable and possibly at your most dumb.

The armed forces need youth en mass...they have very few positions for the middle aged and virtually none for the elderly.

[Si1]

They do have a choice, compulsory military service is a thing of the past.

A 40 year old getting £1500 which is about average for 22 years service for 45 years (average life expectancy) = £720,000, its unaffordable.

Anyway this ridiculous pension scheme has now ended.

What's the current scheme in its place do you know?