ZOMBIE THREAD ALERT: This thread hasn't been posted on for a while.
to feel angry that every day my retirement seems to get poorer and further away?(82 Posts)
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?
A time, not a retire. I've just got out bed this morning, that's my excuse.
OP, if you think 68 is feeling old for a secondary teacher, try contemplating it as a Reception teacher! I don't really mind working longer but I do mind paying more and getting less!
I'm going to retire at 60 and live like a student again, tiny amounts of cash, huge freedom to do sod all.
I intend to spend the first two years asleep. That will be 38 years at the chalkface, no breaks except two single terms for maternities.
You leave work at 4 most days.
i'm looking forward to binning my work clothes and not having to wear a bra every day.
Oh, no marking. ;o
I'm looking forwards to having a house that isn't full of
crap useful resources for ages 4-11 and banks of government initiatives and huge lever arch files.
Not having to smile at unreasonable adults and make conciliatory noises will be lovely too. I like children, I could volunteer for stuff and drop out when I wanted to.
There are quite a few issues here:
1. The goalpost moving - that is very, very wrong. We can debate the necessity of it but that doesn't detract from the fact that people signed up to something and then have it changed.
2. Pick a job you can do into old age - I did, happy to still be doing my job when I get older. But I'm not a teacher
3. Teaching is not a job you can do easily into old age. Any eejit saying they leave at 4 and only work 8 months of the year is uninformed. It's very physically demanding if you're an active teacher. Some teachers don't have an active job, have no management responsibilities, don't teach lower set year 9, whatever - there are some teachers who may be able to. The vast majority are really active though and won't be able to.
The average teacher lasts 8 years in teaching - trust me, they're not all leaving cos they're bored of having too many holidays
Oh, God, forgot about clearing the bookcases of educational stuff. Yay!
I teach PE twice a week, I forsee the standards declining as I totter around a football or netball pitch at 70 trying to remember WTF I'm doing. I'm doing future generations a favour really.
Perhaps I'll retrain as...as....summat in a shop.
Agree with what Lauries says.
The only reason I can contemplate teaching at 65+ is because I'm in a reasonable school, mixed ability all through, and the evidence is around me in the number older staff who still work, and not with an air of sufferance.
So, Op. You planned on teaching for 15 years? Perhaps you could go back to being a lawyer?
Or join me at the till in The 7-11.
Just a point for those public sector folk saying that what you have already paid for is being taken away/worsened - that is not true. The pension built up until the point that the normal pension age goes up will still be available at the original age without penalty. You will also be able to take the new style pension at that age, but it will be subject to a reduction - effectively an early withdrawal penalty. It's not right to say that you "can't retire" until 68 or whenever, it's whether you can afford to do so on the pension available at an earlier age.
Fwiw as a rough guide a pound of income throughout retirement can easily "cost" 25 pounds or more and employer contribution rates for final salary schemes are often in excess of 25% of payroll just for the people who are working now, never mind any shortfall for those already receiving pension. These are big and risky numbers.
So on balance I think YABU.
The lump sum has gone too. Unless you opt for a lower pension. If changes need to be made they should in fairness be to entrants as of a certain date. Not applied retrospectively.
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.
This. In fucking bucket loads.
68 y/o scaffolder?
68 y/o nightshift manual labourer in a factory?
My mum was in the Civil Service in the 70s. She dealt with working class men who all retired at 60. And generally died before they were 61. A 62 year old man was commented on.
These days people can easily expect to live to 80, 85 maybe longer. A reasonable proportion go to university so don't start work until 22 or so rather than the 16 that was traditional. So only 38 years of working from 22 to 60 to fund maybe 20 - 30 years of retirement? You can see why the maths doesn't work.
It is annoying but I would rather work to 67 and die at 87 than work to 60 and die at 70.
I'm getting ready to retire (I'm 64 so have worked past my 'official' retirement age) and the idea of carrying on for another 5-6 years would be appalling... but it's what my younger colleagues are looking at. I've budgeted carefully to pay off my mortgage and get big jobs done (e.g. new central heating system) while I was still at work - and I feel very, very lucky to be in this position. What worries me is what people in really physically demanding jobs are supposed to do - I heard a radio interview recently where someone asked whether you would fancy being carried down a ladder by a 68 year-old firefighter..?
My DH put large %'s of his salary into a pivate pension for years - Equitable Life! It is worth almost nothing now
He hasn't paid anything into a pension the last few years (self employed) but concentrated on reducing the mortgage and when that finishes (this year hopefully) we will reconsider the pension.
My pension is better I hope. I had 22 years in a Bank Final Salary scheme and am now with the NHS, which is being cut but better than a lot.
Everyone now has to work until they are 67. Why should it be different for teachers? 6% (or thereabouts personal contribution); 14% (or thereabouts employer contribution). Can't think of another pension scheme where one can take retirement any time after 60 plus lump sum and be entitled to same job (or reduced hours if employer agrees) with a break of one day, carry on drawing the same salary and continue to contribute into a second pension pot.
Also, OP - if you are a teacher how can you not have had more than a two week break since you were 22.
The entire working population is in the same boat as you. Not all of it gets such a large employer contribution; not all of it gets such generous holidays, not all of it gets such protected contractual terms, not all of it works in the warm, not all of it has the protection of a trades union, not all of it gets such a generous entitlement to sick pay. Not quite sure why the teachers are complaining more loudly than everyone else. 10 years ago I thought I would be able to retire at 60; now I have to work at 67. I have to get on with it because that's the way it is for everyone.
My grandfather worked into his 70s by the way, my stepfather until he was 69, my dh's grandad did a part-time job until he was 89 - and in all weathers. They liked it; they didn't moan.
If I can, I hope I will be economically active into my 70s.
Also, no-one actually has to carry on until 67. People like teachers can take reduced benefits at 60 if they want; and they can then take a part-time job to make up the money if they don't want to teach. Fab position to be in compared to the many many workers.
Haven't read all of the posts so flame me if you like! I feel very angry that the pension scheme I bought into when I started is no longer what I'm entitled to. I wouldn't mind if the pension I had paid into was maintained at that point and from then on was different, but no.... I'm left wondering now how I'm going to manage when I retire. I should also add I don't think it's a good idea for classrooms to be filled with teachers who are hanging on for grim death before they can afford to retire - a very real possibility now.
Message withdrawn at poster's request.
I'd be surprised if the classrooms were full of 65+ teachers. I predict a rise in capability procedures against older, more experienced, more expensive and less , ahem, biddable teachers.
It was never realistic to believe you or anyone would be able to retire and not work again at 55 and never have to work again unless you're a multi-millionnaire.
'Retirement' when it was originally set up as a construct was only supposed to last about 5-10 years before you died, and a certain percentage being expected to die before ever retiring.
In fact, I think some of these 60 somethings are going to be in a world of shit soon enough because there won't be enough people to support them in non-work for the 30-40 odd years many of them will live.
Message withdrawn at poster's request.
Join the discussion
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.Register now
Already registered with Mumsnet? Log in to leave your comment or alternatively, sign in with Facebook or Google.
Please login first.