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
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.

echt Fri 18-Jan-13 19:55:55

A time, not a retire. I've just got out bed this morning, that's my excuse.

Lara2 Fri 18-Jan-13 19:57:53

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! angry

TheNebulousBoojum Fri 18-Jan-13 19:59:08

I'm going to retire at 60 and live like a student again, tiny amounts of cash, huge freedom to do sod all. grin
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.

Euphemia Fri 18-Jan-13 20:01:33

You leave work at 4 most days.


echt Fri 18-Jan-13 20:01:52

i'm looking forward to binning my work clothes and not having to wear a bra every day.

Oh, no marking. ;o

TheNebulousBoojum Fri 18-Jan-13 20:02:09


TheNebulousBoojum Fri 18-Jan-13 20:03:55

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.

TheNebulousBoojum Fri 18-Jan-13 20:06:30

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 grin

echt Fri 18-Jan-13 20:12:10

Oh, God, forgot about clearing the bookcases of educational stuff. Yay!

TheNebulousBoojum Fri 18-Jan-13 20:15:40

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 in a shop.

echt Fri 18-Jan-13 20:15:54

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.

TheNebulousBoojum Fri 18-Jan-13 20:19:33

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.

mrsmalcolmreynolds Fri 18-Jan-13 20:27:06

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.

DrCoconut Fri 18-Jan-13 20:27:18

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.

ShellyBoobs Fri 18-Jan-13 20:28:42

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?

MummytoKatie Fri 18-Jan-13 20:32:34

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.

SueDoku Fri 18-Jan-13 20:39:53

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..?

Milliways Fri 18-Jan-13 22:02:24

My DH put large %'s of his salary into a pivate pension for years - Equitable Life! It is worth almost nothing now sad

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.

marriedinwhite Fri 18-Jan-13 22:15:46

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.

fengirl1 Fri 18-Jan-13 22:30:17

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.

Adversecamber Fri 18-Jan-13 22:33:16

Well I had a final salary pension scheme that is now a career average ! and when I signed up retirement age was 60 so I know what you mean.

echt Fri 18-Jan-13 22:41:29

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.

expatinscotland Fri 18-Jan-13 22:45:20

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.

sparkle9 Fri 18-Jan-13 22:47:47

Echt I completely agree. This is why I no longer have aspirations to be a headteacher. I foresee too many staff capability issues in the future.

expatinscotland Fri 18-Jan-13 22:49:44

Wonder how many people under 60 now think it's such a swell idea to live to 100+? Sure, fab if you're rich.

ShellyBoobs Fri 18-Jan-13 23:07:05

But don't you realise that pretty much everyone else is also in the same position?

People who aren't lucky enough to have a (still very generous) final salary pension are also staring down the barrel of a reduced pension.

They would have been told that the £100 per month they put in (or whatever it is) should be worth, say, £50,000 in 30 years' time. Only to find now that it's going to be worth half that.

No doubt someone will be along to say, "it's not a race to the bottom". Well no, it's not, but that argument only seems to get trotted out when it's someone with a still very generous pension feeling hard done by.

evansthebread Sat 19-Jan-13 00:38:31

I've seen my BIL, at 55 now, struggle for the last 10 years at his very physical job in a steel plant. A normal 9-5 pattern at that job would be hard enough but he works 12 hour day and night shifts. Sis seriously doubts he'll last til 67, yet alone retire then to enjoy it.

They also took out a private pension when they were all the rage (he's a contract worker so hasn't had a works pension). It was closed a few years back and is now, due to the robbing bastards running it taking commissions even though the money is sitting there doing nowt, dwindling rapidly.

The teachers living next door will retire considerably better off than most, whilst currently enjoying the long holiday and comparatively short working days and weekends off. Rant alert and nothing to do with pensions. Sis gets bouncingly pissed off when they decide to sit in their garden on sunny days with their Bose system cranked up full whack when they KNOW their neighbour is trying to sleep for his nightshift (sis has had numerous complaints about my BIL starting his car at 5.30 in the morning from them!! She suspects the music thing is a form of punishment for that as they go back inside the minute BIL is seen up and about). Rant over, sorry bout that.

I understand where you're coming from and think most of us can see your point, but I think you should be thankful for small mercies, you are more fortunate than a lot of people.

marriedinwhite Sat 19-Jan-13 08:45:44

The capability procedures are incredibly difficult to implement at any age but thank goodness Ofsted have now reclassified a grade 3 as needs improvement rather than satisfactory.

All workers need to perform and be present in accordance with their contracts of employment.I don't want my children receiving consistent grade 3 lessons regardless of the age of the teacher.

A chap we know is 64; has taken his pension, is working two days a week and tutoring about 7 sessions at 35 per hour.

thesnootyfox Sat 19-Jan-13 09:00:48

YANBU to feel resentful about the goalposts moving but I think it was inevitable really. We are sitting on a pension time bomb and it is only just starting to be addressed.

YABU to think that teachers have the monopoly on hard work. I'm getting a little fed up with teachers thinking that they are the only ones who are sitting up to 10:00 p.m in the evenings working and marking at the weekend. I don't doubt that teachers work hard but the rest of us do too. Last night I was up to 1:00 a.m. working on the laptop I actually enjoy what I do so it isn't really a hardship. I have no idea when/if I will ever retire. I have 13 years of pension contributions that amount to nothing.

KoalaTale Sat 19-Jan-13 09:14:53

Yabu, if you were a lawyer before surely you earned and saved a lot in the past? none of my business

I do have some sympathy but also understand the state pension system was untenable and needed changing. I'm in my thirties, private sector and pay 20% of my salary to a defined contribution scheme so I can hopefully retire at around 60, not guarantees though, if the stockmarket crashes so does my pension!at least yours is guaranteed?

DolomitesDonkey Sat 19-Jan-13 09:16:36

There will always be losers in Ponzi schemes.

Lara2 Sat 19-Jan-13 09:27:19

ShellyBoobs, I don't feel that my pension will be generous, if I retire at 65 I'll be bloody lucky to get 10k a year after working fulltime for 40 years! I think that's crap!
I don't think I'm a special case, but I do want what I signed up for and was promised - you have a degree and a postgrad qualification but we'll pay you pretty poorly and in return will make sure you're not living below the poverty line when you retire. I have 15 years left, possibly 18 and it's a scary prospect.

atacareercrossroads Sat 19-Jan-13 09:34:54

Yanbu, most of us are in this position regardless of our jobs. It's shit.

dajen Sat 19-Jan-13 09:36:19

Everyone has had to accept changes to the goal posts but those if final salary schemes are still so much luckier than those without. I have seen my state pension retirement age increase from 60 when I started work to 67 now. At least I am in a final salary scheme I have some idea what I will get from working and am aware that my employer pays 19% contributions to the scheme in addition to my 6%.

My husband has never worked for an employer with a pension scheme. When he started contributing to a private pension the annuity rate was about 15% (ie a pension pot of £100,000 on retirement would provide an income of about £15,000 at 65) Rates have continually reduced and now he would be lucky to get £5000 a year for the same pot and who knows how much worse it will get so how can he ever plan to retire? All the money in his pot come from what he has paid - If teachers and others who complain work out how much they have paid in over their career , including investment returns, I bet they would be surprised how little it would buy them on the openmarket specially if they wanted to retire at a relatively early age!

louschmoo Sat 19-Jan-13 09:47:01

I work in an industry which is primarily composed of small businesses. I have never worked anywhere which has offered any kind of pension sad. Legally they may have to but it's difficult if your HR Manager is also your line manager and the owner of the company. As someone said earlier it's not a race to the bottom. But if I'm going to get irate about pension rules then my concern is the people who have no provision at all from their employers- because they work in industries which have no union representation; because they are self-employed and doing agency work 'as industry standard' rather than by choice; and because it is difficult to be the 'lone voice' pushing for benefits when no one else in your company raises their head above the parapet.
I do sympathise with people for whom the goalposts have changed. But there are many many people working in this country who will never be entitled to anything like a pension scheme where employers contribute so generously as in the public sector or very large private sector businesses.

Adversecamber Sat 19-Jan-13 09:57:41

The other aspect to consider with any job is that all those retiring at 68 instead of 60 are effectively blocking a job for a young person and youth unemployment figures are shocking.

Sabriel Sat 19-Jan-13 10:13:02

YANBU. I started work at 16 and have always worked apart from 4.5 years at home when my DC1 was born. The calculation for a full state pension was always 44 years of NIC for a man and 39 years for a woman, which I was well on track for. It would have been fairer to have started to change the rules for those who didn't start their working life until 21/22 instead of retrospectively moving the goalposts for people in their late 40s/50s.

My dad was a civil servant and luckily turned 60 at the time when he was forced to retire at 60. He died at 62. I have known 4 colleagues die (2 of those *at work*) aged late 50s/early 60s.

My DH works nights in a manual job. He is already old at 51. There is no way he will be able to continue to 67, and he has no pension.

marriedinwhite Sat 19-Jan-13 10:21:23

I worked from 21 to about 35 and made contributions as high as possible to private pension schemes from the age of 24. Those schemes have racked up a pension worth about £15k I think when the time comes - for me about 12 years.

I had 8 years off with the DC and went back to work in the public sector in 2003 - if I carry on that should provide about another £10-£15k I think.

On top of that I will have my state pension.

I have always worked hard and have always contributed the maximum possible into a pension. I understand that a pensions time bomb has been ticking and that there is a whole population to be supported - that is the ultimate purpose of the welfare state.

What has made the situation far far worse is that for years successive governments have refused to introduct compulsory pension contributions for all workers. That should, in my opinion, have happened 20 years ago. I know many many people who didn't contribute and work with many now who forego a 14% government contribution because they don't want put any of their own money in - and I'm talking about young people in their 20s with no commitments who just can't see the need and would rather have the money in their pockets to spend on lifestyle. I think that's the national scandal.

echt Sat 19-Jan-13 10:38:04

marriedinwhite, while you appear to be congratulating yourself on your foresight and hard work, you would be better pointing your finger at corporations who took pension holidays to lower their tax bills.

Just Google: corporations and pension holidays, and compare the millions they pissed away, and allowed by government.

The present day analogy would be the current proposal that private companies running NHS provision should have tax breaks... because the private sector is independent...and therefore is deserving, indeed NEEDS government support.

Hang on...

I do agree that 'retirement' will not happen the way it is currently happening as that has only been for one generation - the extraordinarily lucky elderly now.

It's fine if you can be in good health and retire at 68/70 and have reasonable health for ten years. It's not fine if you do the societally desirable thing and drop dead at 72.

If dh as a teacher retires at 70 and drops dead at 72 I will be properly fucked as all that pension money (which we're currently paying into as a family) disappears.

That pension contribution is also our second biggest expense and is 80 quid extra a month than this time last year.

What we really need is plenty of good, flexible part time work for the elderly to do so that they can supplement their state pension.

PrettyKitty1986 Sat 19-Jan-13 10:48:57

I think yabu to think you're hard done by because the goalposts have moved in regards to pensions. I work in the private sector for a multinational company and my job is now completely different to when I chose it 8 years ago. My job responsibilities, annual pay rise and bonus expectations, pension arrangements, working hours etc have completely changed since I joined. And there's nothing I can do about it because of a clause in my contract stating 'reasonable changes can be made'. Why is the public sector any different?

Tailtwister Sat 19-Jan-13 10:54:21

I can understand why you're annoyed OP, I would be too. We're all taking a hit though in some way or another. Just the way it is I'm afraid!

atacareercrossroads Sat 19-Jan-13 11:34:36

Agree 100% kitty

NumericalMum Sat 19-Jan-13 11:43:23

Why do you all become teachers then? Surely you knew what you were getting yourselves in for?

How to teachers in other countries cope where they haven't got the glorious state cash cow to pay them a lovely pension forever? I guess they cope by working a hell of a lot harder than UK teachers longer because they have no choice!

I am not young (but thanks for the compliment) and I am not naive. I have had my pension reduced considerably working for a multi-national and I can moan and scream as much as I like but I will be told to go and find another job if I am to happy.

And whilst I get teachers have marking to do at weekends etc who else in the world with such a great pension, so much time off etc gets to clock off work and sit with their feet up all evening and weekend?

NumericalMum Sat 19-Jan-13 11:46:37

Lauries would you not get a spousal pension? If not have you made allowance for this? Chances are you will outlive your husband statistically speaking!

Euphemia Sat 19-Jan-13 12:19:20

NumericalMum How do you figure that teachers in other countries work a lot harder than in the UK?

I'm 27 years into my pension scheme. Up till recently I could have retired in 13 years time. Now I will have to work another 24 years to qualify. I will be 68 and will have been working for 52 years......confused

TheNebulousBoojum Sat 19-Jan-13 12:44:50

'Why do you all become teachers then? Surely you knew what you were getting yourselves in for?'

Yes, I did in 1984. Things changed a bit and that is what the thread is about.
I think altering things for the future is reasonable, but I was part of the fight to prevent the changes being applied retrospectively.

LeeCoakley Sat 19-Jan-13 13:09:23

Us in our mid/late 50s I would imagine are feeling the moving goalposts the most at the moment. Too late to up our contributions to anything meaningful. Apparently, (if it was allowed) I could contribute my whole public sector salary of £9,000 pa for the next 11 years and then get a pension of £4,000 at 67!

Also are we ALL living longer? Manual workers, high stress workers etc. We all have the same state retirement age due to living longer but I wondered if that was true of a complete cross-section of jobs.

thegreylady Sat 19-Jan-13 13:21:28

I retired from secondary teaching at 55. If I had had to go on (68now) I really believe I would have died as so many colleagues who continued to 60 did.
Teaching is very very hard if you do it properly.

TheNebulousBoojum Sat 19-Jan-13 13:22:40

What did you do instead, thegreylady?

marriedinwhite Sat 19-Jan-13 13:30:29

This has me thinking. MIL was a teacher and retired at 59 on reduced pension. She's 77 now. There are three ex teachers living around her. One is the same age and retired on reduced benefits at 55. Two are late 80s and early 90s now. One worked until she was 65 because she loved it and one carried teaching into her 70s having retired as a secondary school head in her early 60s. Teachers have always had to take reduced benefits if they have retired before the default retirement age - the difference is that the default age has been raised for all not just for teachers.

I am glad that one more inequality between men and women has bitten the dust. No-one can have their cake and eat it.

Catsnotrats Sat 19-Jan-13 13:52:24

Numerical Mum - I'm not sure why you think teachers in other countries work harder. Could I perhaps point you towards the OCED report that gives average working hours for teachers in developed countries.

OCED average weeks worked - 38, England -38
OCED average days of instruction - 187, England -190
OCED average net teaching time(for lower secondary) - 704, England - 703
OCED average hours required at school (lower secondary) - 1171, England -1265
OCED average total statuary hours (lower secondary)- 1673, England - 1265

As you can see we are pretty much bang on average. The only one where it is less is total statuary hours. That is because our contracts are technically only for when a head teacher tells us we must be in school teaching, supervising children, attending meetings and parents evening. All other activities e.g. planning, marking etc. still must be done but we have the choice when and where we do them.

Unfortunately I can't find average retirement ages, but based purely on my own anecdotal experience it seems to be late 50s/ early 60s as in England.

Hth with your sweeping statements.

thegreylady Sat 19-Jan-13 16:57:52

I did supply and picked and chose the schools carefully. I also did a lot of GCSE marking and,while it existed KS3 marking. At its height I could make £15 to £20,000 a year from marking alone. I was a Senior Marker for both exams and worked June and November. There were lots of associated extras too.
By the time I was 60 I had given up supply. This year has been my first without marking since 1979.

Euphemia Sat 19-Jan-13 17:12:33

I might leave at 60 and do supply, pick and choose my days. I don't want to end up too worn out to enjoy retirement. sad

gobbin Sat 19-Jan-13 17:22:59

Numericalmum, I gauged your age based on your statement that you have 40 more years' work left in you followed by hopefully 30 years' retirement. Unless you're well under 30, you're planning on living to a statistically unrealistic age!

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