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?
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
'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.
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......
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!
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?
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!
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
I work in an industry which is primarily composed of small businesses. I have never worked anywhere which has offered any kind of pension . 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.
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!
Yanbu, most of us are in this position regardless of our jobs. It's shit.
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.
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.