Andrew wrote:

On 10/02/2018 23:57, Roger Hayter wrote:
And so they should expect because that is what the government, through
its executive organisations, contracted with them to do.

ROFL. The age-old 'contract' excuse.

When these people started work their lifespan was assumed to
be as much as 15 years LESS than we now know that it will be.
when these people started work (in the 70's) the concept of
'retiring abroad' was not considered (apart from the Windrush
folk going home). Now we have an army of baby-boomers
retiring to other EU countries (and even Reuinion) with
pensions that were originally factored into the whole GDP
equation.

That is simply untrue. The pension terms (both contributions and
benefits) have been altered many times over the years, in light of such
factors as rising life spans, and the discovery that women were
independent human beings who warranted equal pension rights.




QED, all these people have RENEGED on their side of the
contract, so why should the *taxpayer* be forced to make
up the difference ?.

There was no such bargain. There could have been, but there wasn't.
Again, there have been ample opportunities to change the rules if anyone
had wanted to.





The increase in longevity that the ONS famously missed,
has made people buying annuities take the hit on the chin,
100%. But no such correction has been made to public service
pensions. Even the 2011 so-called reforms to public service
pensions *excused* the baby-boomers because they were
within 10 years of retirement.

There were some highly significant retrospective changes. Not least to
the maximum notional pension pot before draconian taxation, and maximal
annual increases in value (not the same as contributions).


The next gen will have to
retire at 65 and probably without the eye-watering lump
sum, but probably with a better accrual rate than 40/80th's.

Free Lunches don't exist.

No and there has been nearly ten years of pay freeze in the public
sector.


--

Roger Hayter