Rupert_Baehr Posted March 10, 2011 Share Posted March 10, 2011 But they are non-contributory in the sense that a pension contribution isn't taken from the pay packets of soldiers and airmen... It is ... and it isn't. When the government introduced the military salary, the declared reason was to allow servicemen to be able to compare their pay with that of their civilian counterparts. The comparisons were not very favourable, and the argument was made that 'We are paying you less, because we have subtracted 9% from your pay as a pension contribution'. For some strange reason they were not prepared to increase military pay by 9% and then take it away as a direct contribution. Meanwhile, the politicians who make these "difficult decisions" are sitting on a truly gold plated pension, underwritten by the taxpayer and hoping that nobody notices. I suspect many people have noticed - but politicians (like self-employed people) set their own pay and pensions. Unlike the self-employed, politicians don't have to earn the money to pay for them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest sibon Posted March 10, 2011 Share Posted March 10, 2011 It is ... and it isn't. When the government introduced the military salary, the declared reason was to allow servicemen to be able to compare their pay with that of their civilian counterparts. The comparisons were not very favourable, and the argument was made that 'We are paying you less, because we have subtracted 9% from your pay as a pension contribution'. I know and understand that very well. I think that our forces deserve better pensions than they get. They certainly shouldn't be pawns in this battle. The correct way to deal with the forces pensions must surely be to put them into the general taxation pot. After all, nobody would object to paying for the pension of an Army, Navy or Air Force veteran... would they? Yet, those "unfunded" pensions appear in a review with Teachers, Nurses, Firemen et al. Making the schemes seem underfunded. Convenient, eh? Let's make the other public sector professions pay the forces pensions. It is an absolutely disgraceful piece of dissembling. I suspect many people have noticed - but politicians (like self-employed people) set their own pay and pensions. Unlike the self-employed, politicians don't have to earn the money to pay for them. I think that the message will hit home quite strongly:D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rupert_Baehr Posted March 10, 2011 Share Posted March 10, 2011 ...and honestly, i cant see why anyone should be able to retire at 38 in any profession. barmy. 60 yrs imho should be the age for ALL pension schemes, public or private, ... Would you be prepared to employ people until they reached the age of 60, irrespective of whether they were physically fit to do the job? What would you do with all the people who were 'surplus to requirement'? Would you find them 'make work' jobs? 38 is an Optional Retirement point. You can leave at age 38, or you can be told to leave at age 38. If you were told to leave at age 38, you would not be being 'made redundant' because your job wouldn't have gone away - it would be given to a younger person. It's illegal to discriminate against a civilian on the grounds of age, but the MOD is exempt. - For good reasons. The Armed Forces do need a (limited) number of officers to serve past the age of 38, but that number far exceeds the number who are approaching the age of 38. Is it in the interest of the country to employ placeholders? - I don't think so (not that what I think matters) nor do the government. The Armed Forces are a 'special case' - it's (arguably) not in the country's interest to have large numbers of aged servicemen, so 'age discrimination' - which would be illegal elsewhere - is permitted. If you (or the government) are not prepared to keep people in the Forces past the age of 38, then what else can they do except retire them? You can't make them redundant (not if you're going to give the job to somebody else.) You know how many senior officers you need. You don't need many spares. How many footballers are there aged 59 (1 year before your suggested retirement date) who are playing professional football? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest sibon Posted March 10, 2011 Share Posted March 10, 2011 If you (or the government) are not prepared to keep people in the Forces past the age of 38, then what else can they do except retire them? Especially when many of them will be so traumatised that normal "work" is not an option. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rupert_Baehr Posted March 11, 2011 Share Posted March 11, 2011 Especially when many of them will be so traumatised that normal "work" is not an option. That - IMO - is another can of worms. We've all (I suspect) seen pictures of people who have suffered horrendous physical injuries and I - for one - am amazed by how well they adapt and get on with life. (IMO, the country owes a heavy debt to those it 'put in harm's way' - a debt which is underpaid.) The emotional (or mental) injuries are often not so apparent. We (people in general) are beginning to understand those injuries and hopefully governments (not just the British government) will do more to help those who suffer from them. Much more needs to be done, but the problem isn't a new one. I went into a public-'ouse to get a pint o' beer, The publican 'e up an' sez, "We serve no red-coats here." The girls be'ind the bar they laughed an' giggled fit to die, I outs into the street again an' to myself sez I: O it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Tommy, go away"; But it's "Thank you, Mister Atkins", when the band begins to play... I've no complaints about the way I was treated in the Armed Forces. I left largely intact (apart from the usual 'occupational hazards' - hard of hearing and piles ) Many others are far less fortunate. Irrespective of what governments say, money will control the treatment they get. (Though IMO, there are many more things which could be done which don't cost much money at all.) There also many employers in civilian life who are well aware of the benefits ex-servicemen (and women) can bring to their companies. - My thanks to those people. (And in particular, to the head teacher who employed me [in part] because I was an ex-serviceman. ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mj.scuba Posted March 11, 2011 Share Posted March 11, 2011 well done that man. we now just need all the similar top brass in the UK to follow suit, we are after all in this together. Yes, and should be extended to the wbankers too that got bailed out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OneVision Posted March 11, 2011 Share Posted March 11, 2011 Some would say that politicans work hard for their pension Wonder what John Prescott did to deserve his £1.5million pension pot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OneVision Posted March 11, 2011 Share Posted March 11, 2011 This guy did pretty well too: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/council-condemned-for-eyewatering-payouts-2219570.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
algy Posted March 11, 2011 Share Posted March 11, 2011 I wish they'd distinguish between local government and the civil service, teachers etc. The local government scheme pays into an investment pot which provides the pensions. The others I think don't have a pot, the contributions pay the pensions and the government makes up the shortfall. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted March 11, 2011 Share Posted March 11, 2011 From what they were saying on the news, teachers will retire on a pension of £21 000. I wish I got that a year now,never mind as a pension. Train as a teacher then... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.