Navy Net - Royal Navy Community

Register a free account today to join our community
Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site, connect with other members through your own private inbox and will receive smaller adverts!

ROYAL NAVY TO GET NO PENSION

Waspie said:
My understanding of service pensions.

After 22 years service a pension is paid from age 40+. (There is a Government consession that service personel and proffessional sports people are allowed to draw pension before age 55. Due to their primary careers being at an end.)

Anyone not completing 22 years service, then receives a service pension at age 60.

The number of years served over 22 is how it is calculated. I work with ex members of all 3 services, the understanding having talked to them this morning is they will get a pension when at age 60.
Hope thats right for Ex servicemen/women who were in after 1975 . Previously to that date under those years is Zilch. I stand corrected :thumright:
 
scouse said:
Waspie said:
My understanding of service pensions.

After 22 years service a pension is paid from age 40+. (There is a Government consession that service personel and proffessional sports people are allowed to draw pension before age 55. Due to their primary careers being at an end.)

Anyone not completing 22 years service, then receives a service pension at age 60.

The number of years served over 22 is how it is calculated. I work with ex members of all 3 services, the understanding having talked to them this morning is they will get a pension when at age 60.
Hope thats right for Ex servicemen/women who were in after 1975 . Previously to that date under those years is Zilch. I stand corrected :thumright:
You are right.
Anyone who served 21 years and had to leave for family reasons--Their wife dying for instance --prior to 1975 received not a penny-piece. An Ofiicer serving 15 years under the same circumstances similarly received nothing.
Not a Conservative Government decreed but ==Harold Wilson that great Socialist ==God bless him. and his independently educated sons. No sink schools for good old Harold#
 
I left under the redundancy terms offered in 1968 (copper bowler) that paid a pension (in my case 37) and was awarded under documentary "Medical Conditions". The pension stuck at £921 pa until I reached 55 when it jumped to £5000 or so (memory inadequate).
 
sulzer said:
I left under the redundancy terms offered in 1968 (copper bowler) that paid a pension (in my case 37) and was awarded under documentary "Medical Conditions". The pension stuck at £921 pa until I reached 55 when it jumped to £5000 or so (memory inadequate).
Good for you. Had you been an officer, however lowly, you would have received nearly £1600 with an ongoing pension of nearly £11,000 pa. Who said the system was fair.
 
I retired as an SD Engineer Lieutenant with 16 years service from 21 years of age. The figures quoted are what I received.
 
sulzer said:
I retired as an SD Engineer Lieutenant with 16 years service from 21 years of age. The figures quoted are what I received.
You would have received nothing after just 16years service n Nothing had you still been a Stoker Mechanic or Artificer That fact alone is shameful. Similarly had you lost a foot (say) or a leg you would be in receipt of a larger War Pension than had you lost it as rating. Similarly Shameful!
 
******** said:
sulzer said:
I retired as an SD Engineer Lieutenant with 16 years service from 21 years of age. The figures quoted are what I received.
You would have received nothing after just 16years service n Nothing had you still been a Stoker Mechanic or Artificer That fact alone is shameful. Similarly had you lost a foot (say) or a leg you would be in receipt of a larger War Pension than had you lost it as rating. Similarly Shameful!

Disagree about the pension but not the disability. Why is it shameful? We joined as non-officers (Junior rates and ranks) and knew what we would get (or in reality not cos we were a million years from being 40 when we joined!). We (the royal we because obviously I disagree, although in the past I have undoubtedly dripped about it) only became disgruntled later in our careers. Pension is based on pay, pay is loosely based on responsibility, and associated rank (that's why WO get more than junior Lts and Lts RM). Yes we could argue all day that PO/CPO/WO X does this but Lt Logs does diddly squat but there are 4 answers; 1 as given, 2 get a commission, 3 get out, 4 get on with it.

IMD
 
In_my_day said:
******** said:
sulzer said:
I retired as an SD Engineer Lieutenant with 16 years service from 21 years of age. The figures quoted are what I received.
You would have received nothing after just 16years service n Nothing had you still been a Stoker Mechanic or Artificer That fact alone is shameful. Similarly had you lost a foot (say) or a leg you would be in receipt of a larger War Pension than had you lost it as rating. Similarly Shameful!

Disagree about the pension but not the disability. Why is it shameful? We joined as non-officers (Junior rates and ranks) and knew what we would get (or in reality not cos we were a million years from being 40 when we joined!). We (the royal we because obviously I disagree, although in the past I have undoubtedly dripped about it) only became disgruntled later in our careers. Pension is based on pay, pay is loosely based on responsibility, and associated rank (that's why WO get more than junior Lts and Lts RM). Yes we could argue all day that PO/CPO/WO X does this but Lt Logs does diddly squat but there are 4 answers; 1 as given, 2 get a commission, 3 get out, 4 get on with it.

IMD
Of course responsibility should carry more pay and pension should be based on it, No argument with that. The shameful bit is the length of service disparity to Qualify. If you cannot see the unfairness of that Well! That a General receives more war pension than a Bombadier on being invalided out with one leg is indefensible reasoning and a shameful discrimination I suggest
 
The Artificers who retired at the samer time as me received a similar amount. The reason for the "Medical Grounds" is that the actuarial reduction is waived (ie the deduction is roughly 4% times the number of years below pensionable age 45, 55 at BAe, 60 at Sulzer UK).
 
******** said:
In_my_day said:
1. Disagree about the pension but not the disability.
Of course responsibility should carry more pay and pension should be based on it, No argument with that. The shameful bit is the length of service disparity to Qualify. 2. If you cannot see the unfairness of that Well! That a General receives more war pension than a Bombadier on being invalided out with one leg is indefensible reasoning and a shameful discrimination I suggest
1. Clearly I agreed about the disability/medical pension, are "war pensions" in this sense the same thing?.
2. No I can't because as I said earlier we "knew" what we were signing up for. What you may have conveniently forgotten is that in the not to dim and distant past most officers; certainly RM officers; were non-grads and many did up to 3 years "girls time" from 18-21. I think that the pension is also linked to the career opportunities/path and promotion open to officers. On a tangent, my understanding is that the increased pay on joining for grads; ie a one year service grad at age 22 earns the same as a 22 yo, 3 years service non-grad; is to reward the tertiary education and hence "lost" earnings.

IMD

IMD
 
In_my_day said:
******** said:
In_my_day said:
1. Disagree about the pension but not the disability.
Of course responsibility should carry more pay and pension should be based on it, No argument with that. The shameful bit is the length of service disparity to Qualify. 2. If you cannot see the unfairness of that Well! That a General receives more war pension than a Bombadier on being invalided out with one leg is indefensible reasoning and a shameful discrimination I suggest
1. Clearly I agreed about the disability/medical pension, are "war pensions" in this sense the same thing?.
2. No I can't because as I said earlier we "knew" what we were signing up for. What you may have conveniently forgotten is that in the not to dim and distant past most officers; certainly RM officers; were non-grads and many did up to 3 years "girls time" from 18-21. I think that the pension is also linked to the career opportunities/path and promotion open to officers. On a tangent, my understanding is that the increased pay on joining for grads; ie a one year service grad at age 22 earns the same as a 22 yo, 3 years service non-grad; is to reward the tertiary education and hence "lost" earnings.

IMD

IMD
Have the men in White Coats been summoned?
 
******** said:
stirling said:
Whenever you lose the argument Norman you ALWAYS resort to childish put downs....pathetic.
Childish?
Rather apposite surely?
Is that you accepting the puerility of the majority of your posts then?

IMD
 

Latest Threads

New Posts

Top