In thinking that I may never be allowed to retire.........

[whymumwhymum]

Have worked in public sector for nearly 20 years now and just saw in the news today that they are planning on keeping the pensions for my age group and under back until we are 66 ffs.

That was not what I signed up for when I decided to pay into the scheme!

Thats nearly another 30 years and tbh I don't think i'll survive in this job that long, and thats not taking into account that by the time I'm 50 or older they will probably have pushed the age back further.

I don't feel particularly ' lucky' to be a public sector worker, i worked and studied damn hard for years to get my now reasonably (not by any means highly) paid job. I will never ever get a bonus even if i do twice the 'reasonable' work, will also never get overtime payments. I'll never have a company car or private health care or any other perks.

Many's the night I've lain awake worrying about the people i get paid to look after .

The pension was the one thing that made it 'wothwhile' long term and i am losing faith that I will ever see it, in payments alone i calculat I will have paid in somehwre in the region of 100k over a working life of 45 years not accounting for inplation. Should have just saved the money or better still blown it on stuff I could actually enjoy before i'm six feet under!

This might sou d stupid, are pensions better than paying that 200 into a high interest account?

Generally, yes, for the following reasons

• If you have a pension through your employer (private or public sector), your employer will generally match your contributions, or possibly pay in more than you do, providing you make your contributions.

• There's a tax break. The pension fund can claim back the basic rate of tax on your contributions, so say the tax rate is 22%, for every 78p you pay in, the tax man adds 22p.

• Even "high interest" accounts only pay 3% or so- that's less than inflation- so you're losing money in "real terms". Most pension schemes invest in higher yielding investment vehicles such as bonds and equities, so you should theoretically get a better return.

Not a bad article by Lord Hutton.

www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/pensions/8583961/We-need-a-sensible-debate-over-pensions-not-a-shouting-match.html

I'm with Riven. I'm jealous of the baby boomers. I can see that I'm going to have to work for at least ten years longer than my parents before I can retire and I do feel a bit pissed off about that. It is quite frightening just how much money we need to save if we want to retire even just a couple of years before the state retirement age.

and, jaffa, we will also have to look after our baby boomer parents in old age too, I reckon. My mum is now 63 and I can't see her becoming really ill for 20 years or so (god willing). I don't think I will end up with any inheritance (fair enough) but I expect once that is used up I will also have to pay for her care because pensions and the NHS are eroding so fast that I suspect in those two decades there wont' be much left and we will all somehow be expected to become family carers again (while also 'creating wealth' etc and not 'burdening the state).

The arguments about who earns more in public or private sector, who gets more perks etc. is just a red herring.

In terms of contract law, it depends upon what your employment contract states. If there was a clause that agreed the employer could change the terms and conditions of employment (inc pension), then there is little any employee can do. If you knew that the clause was there when you signed your employment contract with those terms

However, if there is no clause it is illegal to change the terms and conditions of employment after the contracts have been signed by both the employer and employee.

If you agreed with your employer you would retire on 1/3 final salary after 30 years of employment and there was no clause to change that, then the employer is acting illegally.

If there is a clause, as an employee you just have to suck it up.