Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[STEMO]

The retirement age of 67 is something of a misnomer too. Can anyone honestly see a copper, a nurse, a prison officer or a class teacher still doing the job at that age. Unless the police and NHS are different, I can only speak for education.

I missed firefighters off, sorry. Now that is a physical job.



I think something has got to be put in place before 2026 when the transition ends. People will become ineffective/dangerous in their jobs trying to hang on as long as possible for fear of losing a large part of their pension.

It shouldn't be "a fear of losing a large part of their pension". It should be working out what you are going to do for the final 15 years of your working life before you retire rather than assuming wrongly that the tax payer is going to fund your retirement from 50.

If you want to retire at 50 then YOU need to make provisions to do that, you can't expect the tax payer to fund you.

No teacher is going to find any kind of comparable work at 55, so they will hang on for grim death to the job they know, whether they are competent or not. When a teacher gets a bit 'tired' and is challenged on their performance, it usually leads to resignation and retirement. This will not happen after 2026 when the last of the transition members have retired and, short of a mass sacking, the classrooms will have a significant amount of teachers who are not capable. Not good for education. Also not good for any other service.
And I don't see any mention of 50 in my post 

[LC0112G]

No teacher is going to find any kind of comparable work at 55, so they will hang on for grim death to the job they know, whether they are competent or not. When a teacher gets a bit 'tired' and is challenged on their performance, it usually leads to resignation and retirement. This will not happen after 2026 when the last of the transition members have retired and, short of a mass sacking, the classrooms will have a significant amount of teachers who are not capable. Not good for education. Also not good for any other service.

So because teachers don't want to do the work that is available to them, the tax payer should pay them their pensions 12 years early with no reductions?

I do agree that one of the effect will probably be that people try to hang on to their existing jobs well past their natural sell by dates. Ultimatley that's a job for management to sort out, and historically public sector management hasn't been as effective as private sector.

And I don't see any mention of 50 in my post 

Ok I'll rephrase. If you want to retire in your 50's then YOU need to make provisions to do that, you can't expect the tax payer to fund you

[STEMO]

No teacher is going to find any kind of comparable work at 55, so they will hang on for grim death to the job they know, whether they are competent or not. When a teacher gets a bit 'tired' and is challenged on their performance, it usually leads to resignation and retirement. This will not happen after 2026 when the last of the transition members have retired and, short of a mass sacking, the classrooms will have a significant amount of teachers who are not capable. Not good for education. Also not good for any other service.

So because teachers don't want to do the work that is available to them, the tax payer should pay them their pensions 12 years early with no reductions?

I do agree that one of the effect will probably be that people try to hang on to their existing jobs well past their natural sell by dates. Ultimatley that's a job for management to sort out, and historically public sector management hasn't been as effective as private sector.

And I don't see any mention of 50 in my post 

Ok I'll rephrase. If you want to retire in your 50's then YOU need to make provisions to do that, you can't expect the tax payer to fund you

I didn't say they didn't want to work, you're twisting things. I said they wouldn't find any comparable work and, let's be honest, I doubt they'd find anything at all. The harsh reality attitude is fine, if that's the way you roll, but it smacks of vitriol.

[LC0112G]

No teacher is going to find any kind of comparable work at 55, so they will hang on for grim death to the job they know, whether they are competent or not. When a teacher gets a bit 'tired' and is challenged on their performance, it usually leads to resignation and retirement. This will not happen after 2026 when the last of the transition members have retired and, short of a mass sacking, the classrooms will have a significant amount of teachers who are not capable. Not good for education. Also not good for any other service.

So because teachers don't want to do the work that is available to them, the tax payer should pay them their pensions 12 years early with no reductions?

I do agree that one of the effect will probably be that people try to hang on to their existing jobs well past their natural sell by dates. Ultimatley that's a job for management to sort out, and historically public sector management hasn't been as effective as private sector.

And I don't see any mention of 50 in my post 

Ok I'll rephrase. If you want to retire in your 50's then YOU need to make provisions to do that, you can't expect the tax payer to fund you

I didn't say they didn't want to work, you're twisting things. I said they wouldn't find any comparable work and, let's be honest, I doubt they'd find anything at all. The harsh reality attitude is fine, if that's the way you roll, but it smacks of vitriol.

But what gives teachers/firemen/policemen etc a right to 'comparable' work once they are unable or unwilling to do their current job?

In the private sector you typically get 'let go' if/when you become unable to do the job. Or you resign if you become unwilling to do the job. Either way you then need to try and find another job, but it doesn't have to be 'comparable. Some people end up stacking the shelves in Asda, others may use their experience and training to find management jobs.

The problem is with the jobs for life mindset (mainly) in the public sector, and that once you can't/won't do the job any more they should pay you your pension instead.  That model is unaffordable. You can call that vitriol if you like - I see it as reality.

[Doctor Gollum]

Both my parents were teachers until they retired.

Mum got a couple of part time jobs to keep her busy for a couple more years.

My uncle, on the other hand, due to the 30 year service rule, had to retire at 45/6... having joined the Police as a cadet. He has just hit 70 and is still working part time.

[Rangie]

The retirement age of 67 is something of a misnomer too. Can anyone honestly see a copper, a nurse, a prison officer or a class teacher still doing the job at that age. Unless the police and NHS are different, I can only speak for education.

Point is, pensions were invented/intended to give you income when you are too old to work. No-one is saying that a fireman, police officer or soldier can continue in post until state pension age, but there are other jobs that these people can do once they are 50+. What could not continue was public service employees retiring on full pensions (typically 2/3rds of final salary) below age 60. It was costing the tax payer far too much what with current 65yo life expectancy being 85 for men and 87 for women.

Most public sector pensions can be taken at age 55 if you really want to. However, there are big reductions though - typically 5% per year under 67. So if you take the pension at age 55 then typically you'll lose 50% of it's value. If at all possible it's best to get to 65 (better still 67) before drawing it.

There are plenty of people with no pension provision other than the state pension, and they'll have to work till 67.

Indeed.  One of my oldest friends I saw rise from being a PC on the beat to finally a Chief Superintendent of a Traffic Division when he decided to retire at 55.  As he was always academically minded, specialising in IT, he then went on a teachers training course and into adult education, which he loves as his last employment before he retires to enjoy a very good pension indeed.

.   


And good luck to him Lizzie he's earned it fair & square same as I have all this bleating about "unfairness" everyone has a choice and hopefully enough commonsense to look ahead financially.
No point in having plenty of leisure time & no cash it's that simple.

[Entwood]

The retirement age of 67 is something of a misnomer too. Can anyone honestly see a copper, a nurse, a prison officer or a class teacher still doing the job at that age. Unless the police and NHS are different, I can only speak for education.

Point is, pensions were invented/intended to give you income when you are too old to work. No-one is saying that a fireman, police officer or soldier can continue in post until state pension age, but there are other jobs that these people can do once they are 50+. What could not continue was public service employees retiring on full pensions (typically 2/3rds of final salary) below age 60. It was costing the tax payer far too much what with current 65yo life expectancy being 85 for men and 87 for women.

Most public sector pensions can be taken at age 55 if you really want to. However, there are big reductions though - typically 5% per year under 67. So if you take the pension at age 55 then typically you'll lose 50% of it's value. If at all possible it's best to get to 65 (better still 67) before drawing it.

There are plenty of people with no pension provision other than the state pension, and they'll have to work till 67.

Indeed.  One of my oldest friends I saw rise from being a PC on the beat to finally a Chief Superintendent of a Traffic Division when he decided to retire at 55.  As he was always academically minded, specialising in IT, he then went on a teachers training course and into adult education, which he loves as his last employment before he retires to enjoy a very good pension indeed.

.   


And good luck to him Lizzie he's earned it fair & square same as I have all this bleating about "unfairness" everyone has a choice and hopefully enough commonsense to look ahead financially.
No point in having plenty of leisure time & no cash it's that simple.

The opposite also applies ... a shit load of pension when too ill/infirm to enjoy it is somewhat pointless.

Do your own number crunching and make your own decision.....  I left the RAF with a decent eneough pension. but worked part time in the courts for a few years as a "top up" ...  Mrs E worked part time in education but took early retirement the same month my state OAP started to be paid as that plus her (reduced for early) pension worked out about the same ... we "did the numbers" and made decisions that suited US .. no one else ... and no regrets here at all.

[Rangie]

The retirement age of 67 is something of a misnomer too. Can anyone honestly see a copper, a nurse, a prison officer or a class teacher still doing the job at that age. Unless the police and NHS are different, I can only speak for education.

Point is, pensions were invented/intended to give you income when you are too old to work. No-one is saying that a fireman, police officer or soldier can continue in post until state pension age, but there are other jobs that these people can do once they are 50+. What could not continue was public service employees retiring on full pensions (typically 2/3rds of final salary) below age 60. It was costing the tax payer far too much what with current 65yo life expectancy being 85 for men and 87 for women.

Most public sector pensions can be taken at age 55 if you really want to. However, there are big reductions though - typically 5% per year under 67. So if you take the pension at age 55 then typically you'll lose 50% of it's value. If at all possible it's best to get to 65 (better still 67) before drawing it.

There are plenty of people with no pension provision other than the state pension, and they'll have to work till 67.

Indeed.  One of my oldest friends I saw rise from being a PC on the beat to finally a Chief Superintendent of a Traffic Division when he decided to retire at 55.  As he was always academically minded, specialising in IT, he then went on a teachers training course and into adult education, which he loves as his last employment before he retires to enjoy a very good pension indeed.

.   


And good luck to him Lizzie he's earned it fair & square same as I have all this bleating about "unfairness" everyone has a choice and hopefully enough commonsense to look ahead financially.
No point in having plenty of leisure time & no cash it's that simple.

The opposite also applies ... a shit load of pension when too ill/infirm to enjoy it is somewhat pointless.

Do your own number crunching and make your own decision.....  I left the RAF with a decent eneough pension. but worked part time in the courts for a few years as a "top up" ...  Mrs E worked part time in education but took early retirement the same month my state OAP started to be paid as that plus her (reduced for early) pension worked out about the same ... we "did the numbers" and made decisions that suited US .. no one else ... and no regrets here at all.

.   


Virtually same scenario here although I vowed not to work again once retired, some folk are financially astute and some are not do your figures as you say .

[Lizzie Zoom]

The retirement age of 67 is something of a misnomer too. Can anyone honestly see a copper, a nurse, a prison officer or a class teacher still doing the job at that age. Unless the police and NHS are different, I can only speak for education.

Point is, pensions were invented/intended to give you income when you are too old to work. No-one is saying that a fireman, police officer or soldier can continue in post until state pension age, but there are other jobs that these people can do once they are 50+. What could not continue was public service employees retiring on full pensions (typically 2/3rds of final salary) below age 60. It was costing the tax payer far too much what with current 65yo life expectancy being 85 for men and 87 for women.

Most public sector pensions can be taken at age 55 if you really want to. However, there are big reductions though - typically 5% per year under 67. So if you take the pension at age 55 then typically you'll lose 50% of it's value. If at all possible it's best to get to 65 (better still 67) before drawing it.

There are plenty of people with no pension provision other than the state pension, and they'll have to work till 67.

Indeed.  One of my oldest friends I saw rise from being a PC on the beat to finally a Chief Superintendent of a Traffic Division when he decided to retire at 55.  As he was always academically minded, specialising in IT, he then went on a teachers training course and into adult education, which he loves as his last employment before he retires to enjoy a very good pension indeed.

.   


And good luck to him Lizzie he's earned it fair & square same as I have all this bleating about "unfairness" everyone has a choice and hopefully enough commonsense to look ahead financially.
No point in having plenty of leisure time & no cash it's that simple.

Oh yes indeed Rangie.  He had a very active service and was very 'involved' as you would expect from some one who rose through the ranks as he did.  Some of his work was harrowing, apart from the huge 'life or death' responsibility he took especially when he became involved in Gold Command decisions, let alone 'everyday' duties.

I would never deny such an individual their very well deserved retirement, no matter how much it "costs" us taxpayers.  Knowing what I did with him and now with current high ranking and lesser police officers, with some of the crap they have to deal with, all I can do is praise their dedication, professionalism and pure grit no matter how long or short their service is. We rely on them everyday whilst they Protect and Serve us often against the odds.

If others cannot, and did not, plan for the future and ensure they had a sound pension in place that could support them beyond the State Pension then that is their problem. It is no good them moaning about others, Public Servants or those in the Commercial World, ending up with the pensions they envy.  Those pensions were well earned, as I know mine was, with much hard long hours graft, tears, frustrations, and even danger involved at times (or everyday in the example of 999 workers and the armed services) doing our duty. 

[Rangie]

Absolutely agree Lizzie, you have to be a certain type to have a successful career in any of the uniformed services & many would simply not hack it and choose easier jobs/careers, glad to say our son is in the Police and we are very proud of him.