Note: Please bear in mind that whilst this topic does canvass opinions, it is not a fight club. You may disagree with other posters but we do ask you please to stick to our Talk Guidelines and to be civil. We don't allow personal attacks or troll-hunting. Do please report any. Thanks, MNHQ.

to feel angry that every day my retirement seems to get poorer and further away?

(82 Posts)
Sleepysand Tue 15-Jan-13 12:40:45

When I trained I expected to be able to retire at 55. My colleagues ten years older than me have already retired but I am not entitled to my pension for 19 years. AIBU to resent that their benefits are ring-fenced when mine are taken away and my children will likely never get to retire?

greenfolder Tue 15-Jan-13 12:44:15

my retirement age has gone from 60 to 67- and i doubt I will ever live to see that (parents died in their early 60s).

so, my plan is to pay mortgage off by 50(am 45 now and on track) and have a ball in my 50s- work but travel and do all the stuff i want to do.

if i do outlive my parents, i'll have enough to see me through combined with the state pension. No point in having substantial savings in retirement- might all go on care homes.

Nancy66 Tue 15-Jan-13 12:45:35

55 is very young to retire.

Sleepysand Tue 15-Jan-13 12:48:29

55 is very young to retire

I agree, but 68 seems very old to be a secondary school teacher. I retrained at 40 because I wanted to be able to retire at 60 - I had 12 weeks' maternity leave with each of my kids and haven't had more than a fortnight off since I was 22.

Pandemoniaa Tue 15-Jan-13 12:50:20

I think you are being a tad over-dramatic assuming your children will never get to retire but, on the other hand, they are likely to be far healthier workers at 70 than earlier generations who were often worn out long before reaching official retirement age 65.

I was affected by the first tranche of pension harmonisation. I would have got my pension at 60, then it was put back to 63 and not long ago I got a letter telling me not to clutter my head with thoughts of getting it until 2018 at the earliest. DP, on the other hand, squeaked through and is now contemplating a life of luxury on his state pension (I am being ironic here) at the age he expected to get it.

Yes, it's really frustrating to be on the wrong side of legislation but equally, life is rather short to spend it resenting those things you can do nothing about. Let alone resenting the people who, by sheer accident of when they were born, have done things that you can't. However, retiring at 55 is a luxury that's never been afforded to many people so you were always fortunate to have that expectation.

Hobbitation Tue 15-Jan-13 12:51:01

YANBU, sometimes I feel this Govt is like a big blue flying pig, constantly hovering over my head and crapping on me from a great height.

Most people will be worse off as a result of the changes, especially those in their 20s and 30s. DH has seen his income drop £100 a month as of this month as a result of additional compulsory public service pension contributions, will drop by another £100 a month next year as a result of the same scheme, and in 2017 if these state pension changes go ahead he will be paying an extra £500 a year for pension uplift that we will never benefit from. By the time people who are in their 30s get to pension age the state pension probably won't even exist.

Younger people need to get out and vote them out at the next election, they only care about 50+ people who are their core electorate.

Everyone seems to think the welfare budget is spent mostly on "feckless single mothers" and "the work shy", or fraud, whereas in fact about 3% goes to the unemployed, 0.5% goes on fraud and the majority of the rest is state pension.

Callisto Tue 15-Jan-13 12:59:25

YABU - we are all living longer therefore we all need to work for longer. The line needs to be drawn somewhere.

Oh, and as a self-employed worker, it is very nice to have something that benefits me.

Hobbiton - not sure why your husband shouldn't contribute to his own pension tbh.

Lilymaid Tue 15-Jan-13 13:00:10

I have a small number of years in a local government pension scheme dating back pre-DCs. I am astonished that this is still paid from age 60 (my work was largely office based so not physically onerous). Private sector pensions tend to be paid from 65 onwards and aren't nearly as generous.

Sleepysand Tue 15-Jan-13 13:00:52

retiring at 55 is a luxury that's never been afforded to many people so you were always fortunate to have that expectation

Not really fortunate - it was a big part of the reason why I gave up my former career as a lawyer and retrained as a teacher. I chose the career for the package it offered, and then had the package unilaterally removed.

Hobbitation, I am in the same boat - increased contributions for decreased benefits. I believe that some twat government minister announced this week that no-one should speculate about what the retirement age for those under 40 would be. I know I am luckier than those fifteen years younger than me - but it is hard not to look at those ten years older and wonder why they aren't "all in in together" too...

Whoknowswhocares Tue 15-Jan-13 13:04:15

Trouble is pensions were designed to cover a few, short years between work and death. Retire at 60 now and it has to last 25 years average for a woman and just a bit less for a man!

That isn't sustainable, whatever government is in power, either for a company or public service pension. Rather than feel angry which gets us nowhere, perhaps being grateful that we all have so much longer to live is the way forward?

Sleepysand Tue 15-Jan-13 13:05:41

Private sector pensions tend to be paid from 65 onwards and aren't nearly as generous

My Big Sis pays into a large multinational scheme. She pays 4% of salary to get 1/60th of her final salary for every year she pays in, i.e. 30 years work = 50% salary. She can retire at 55. I paid (under the old rules) 6% of a (far smaller) salary to get 1/80th from age 67. In other words, I pay more for longer and get less.

I do feel for the self employed, but (if you rank qualification levels like for like) public sector workers are underpaid (the usual stat ignores the fact that public sector workers are generally better educated than private sector) and the pension was part of what made it pay.

Hobbitation Fri 18-Jan-13 12:19:44

I don't mind DH contributing to his own pension, he already does, it's the fact it's compulsory to contribute more - a set amount - that bothers me or have no pension at all. There is not a choice to contribute a bit less and have less at the end like a private pension. It's a big percentage of our monthly income and a lot of money to ask for that's all. I used to pay in just over £100 IN TOTAL to my company pension, matched by the company and I earned more than him.

Same applies for teachers and many others so it's not just us having a whinge.

It's all part of the Govt's plan to shrink the state of course. They hate the public sector.

RichManPoorManBeggarmanThief Fri 18-Jan-13 12:23:39

Look at it this way: when these pension systems were first designed, people left school at 15, worked to 65, died at 75. That's a pay in:pay out ratio of 5:1. Now, people start work at 25, want to retire at 65, and live to 85. Thats a pay in: pay out ration of 2:1.

That is the bottom line and no government, whatever the colours on the mast, can avoid that reality. This should have been sorted out decades ago. It's not as though no-one realised it was going to happen.

JuliaScurr Fri 18-Jan-13 12:26:32

the recession/debt/deficit is perfect cover for dismantling the Welfare State
yanbu
find something better to replace them with

RainbowsFriend Fri 18-Jan-13 12:47:13

Part of the problem with changing the teachers pension scheme is that the Government can't show the numbers to prove increased contributions are needed.

Because they are not - it is self-funding, but the unions are prevented from using this as an argument as the teachers pension scheme is not separate and ring fenced but used to supplement police pensions etc.

If it was a private pension fund the contributions would have to be invested and ring fenced etc and what the government is doing would be illegal. but they are not invested or ring fenced and the contributions just go back to the government as a sort of additional tax.

theroseofwait Fri 18-Jan-13 12:48:08

YANBU - I'm in exactly the same position. I 'signed up' (unfortunately not literally) to go at 55 and now I'm looking at an extra 13 years all of a sudden.

As for retiring at 55 is a luxury that's never been afforded to many people so you were always fortunate to have that expectation - well hardly, because our line of work is so demanding that most reserach shows that if you leave it until 60 you drop dead almost as soon as you retire.

gobbin Fri 18-Jan-13 13:03:54

...*retiring at 55 is a luxury that's never been afforded to many people*...
I really, really resent the fact that both my husband and I have paid all our dues, paid AVCs into a separate pension pot since we were both 22 and originally planned to retire in our mid-50s given that by then our mortgage would be paid off and we could plough that money into investments to fund the shortfall between then and when we got our pensions at 60.

So, for all this judicious planning, we get slapped in the face. My teacher's pension I get at 62 and state at 66. That's NOT what I signed up to in 1988. Who wants a 65 year old teacher?! I'm knackered now, never mind in 20 yrs time!

I was on the phone yesterday regarding my mortgage - two questions I was asked made me laugh - "will you be retired before the mortgage ends?" and "at what age do you hope to retire ?" both questions now very hard to answer as, at the moment, I'm aiming for 67 but who knows ....

Anomaly Fri 18-Jan-13 14:03:38

While I can understand people being annoyed about the goalposts being changed there is an issue with regards to pensions. How you can also say your a secondary teacher and not had a fortnight off I don't know.

Personally I think it's right that state pension and public sector pensions have the same age of retirement. I also can't stand this idea that a 68 year old teacher is somehow special there are loads of jobs that are physically more demanding than teaching that will have the same retirement age.

emess Fri 18-Jan-13 14:48:25

It's annoying to have the goalposts moved after you start playing.
DFIL retired at 60 and is now 90. 30 years of living comfortably on a public-sector index-linked pension.
DMIL ditto, though she is only 85. That's 25 years. Both in reasonable health (which is A Good Thing, obviously).
Looks like I'll have to work until I'm 67 (at least) before I get the state pension. BTW, my own DM never totally retired (helped DF in own business, which required manual work), had only a state pension, and died aged 70 .... am I looking at 3 years of happy retirement?? angry
YAN totally U ...

MisForMumNotMaid Fri 18-Jan-13 14:56:46

Whats really weird thing is we're going through the mortgage reapplication process at present and they wont let us borrow past 65 as its retirement age. DH is a teacher, will be 67. We're budgeting for post 60 years to be part time.

NumericalMum Fri 18-Jan-13 15:08:31

YABU! You have up your job as a lawyer so you could get a better pension?
You still get a salary linked pension, something which is unbelievably rare!
sleepysand your sister is unbelievably lucky. There are about 5 places in the world who still offer those pensions and almost none to people who didn't join them 20 years ago! Interest rates have fallen thanks to the labour government and therefore the pots aren't big enough to sustain these pensions.

I have at least another 40 years working and luckily as a woman today I should still have 30 years to live after retiring. I am always amazed at how teachers feel they have the hardest jobs in the world and deserve to retire at 55. You get 4 months off a YEAR! You leave work at 4 most days. My husband works 13 hour days. He often works weekends. He has an extremely stressful job which, if he makes a mistake, he can easily lose his qualification. He has to pay into his own pension. And what he gets at the end depends on what he pays in!

gobbin Fri 18-Jan-13 19:32:11

You're talking bollocks, numericalmum. If you're going to comment, at least get your basic facts right.

Presume you know all about teaching because you have a child in the system, therefore feel able to comment? Hmm. No doubt you go to the doctor waving your Google self-diagnosis in his/her face eh!

Whatever job you do, I wouldn't presume to know all about it unless I did the job myself.

You're clearly young. Once you get 25 years down the line into your career your views on your working life/conditions of service may change. I know mine have.

TheNebulousBoojum Fri 18-Jan-13 19:39:54

I find it amazing that so many people aren't teachers TBH, it's a doddle of a job and everyone knows how to do it.
How stupid must the rest of you be not to choose education as a career?
Of course I'll be able to do it at 65 or 75 or 90, child-minding for a few hours is hardly difficult.

echt Fri 18-Jan-13 19:52:54

I, too joined teaching at a retire when you could retire at 55, but the goalposts moved. I'm fortunate in that I can still access my teacher's pension at 60, though, having moved countries and still with a mortgage to pay, will have to work until at least 65. I'm 58 now and still in good shape as per the job, but will go part-time towards the end, if I'm allowed.

That'll be 40+ years at the chalkface.

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now