Pension Rant!
15 December 2005, 02:04 PM
#1
Pension Rant!
Following on from the Gordon Brown thread, it is becomming increasingly annoying reading the papers demanding that Blair backs down over his settlement with private sector pensions, which would have raised the retirement limit to 65.
As usual, reporters can't be bothered actually researching the issue, as the truth is often less news worthy.
The deal struck included central government (how convenient), but not the 1.2 million local goverment employees. Not one artice / tv news has mentioned this. Also, in local government at least, you can only retire at 60 if you have 25 years service, which discounts most people.
unison did some research into the pensions of the top company bosses who wrote to Blaire to tell him off. Ironically, 80% of them could retire at 60 (on an average of £160k), and 60% accrued their pension twice as quickly as their staff (ie 1/30th per year, rather than 1/60th). And these people are trying to stop others retiring at 60! (firures are as I remember, but not far off).
Traditionally a good pension has been the only perk of local government, but with most funds in the red, the so called guarantee is of little worth.
I don't really care about the retirement age, as it will rise for everyone anyway, and I intend leaving the public sector for somewhere with benefits (such as paid overtime). It just annoys me when the news tells half a story, and people assume it's correct.
Rant over
As usual, reporters can't be bothered actually researching the issue, as the truth is often less news worthy.
The deal struck included central government (how convenient), but not the 1.2 million local goverment employees. Not one artice / tv news has mentioned this. Also, in local government at least, you can only retire at 60 if you have 25 years service, which discounts most people.
unison did some research into the pensions of the top company bosses who wrote to Blaire to tell him off. Ironically, 80% of them could retire at 60 (on an average of £160k), and 60% accrued their pension twice as quickly as their staff (ie 1/30th per year, rather than 1/60th). And these people are trying to stop others retiring at 60! (firures are as I remember, but not far off).
Traditionally a good pension has been the only perk of local government, but with most funds in the red, the so called guarantee is of little worth.
I don't really care about the retirement age, as it will rise for everyone anyway, and I intend leaving the public sector for somewhere with benefits (such as paid overtime). It just annoys me when the news tells half a story, and people assume it's correct.
Rant over
15 December 2005, 05:08 PM
#3
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Lanarkshire
Posts: 2,144
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I will start receiving my pension at the age of 44, after spending 22 years in the forces, works out at approx £9,000 per year.and a lump sum of about £30,000.
i think 60 is fair for everyone, i certainly don't want to be grafting like i have been when i get older.
Mac
i think 60 is fair for everyone, i certainly don't want to be grafting like i have been when i get older.
Mac
15 December 2005, 06:00 PM
#4
Scooby Senior
Originally Posted by pwhittle
unison did some research into the pensions of the top company bosses who wrote to Blaire to tell him off. Ironically, 80% of them could retire at 60 (on an average of £160k), and 60% accrued their pension twice as quickly as their staff (ie 1/30th per year, rather than 1/60th).
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post