John Whitby wrote:

lawrence Jenkins wrote:
This Governments lives for media manipulation too "bury bad news". Only
recently when plans to increase the private sector retirement age for
men
to 67
John wrote ...
Surely that's the state pension age that is planned to be
increased, and has nothing to do with what age people get their
occupational pensions at. Obviously those who don't have a good
occupational pension scheme may not be able to afford to retire
until they are 67, though.
Lawrence wrote..
there was open criticism of the fact the Civil service had been left
untouched at 55 I believe.
John wrote
60. Yes, civil servants have a good pension scheme, but in
"compensation" they tend not to be that well paid in comparison to
the private sector.

So it's sixty then John, well that defeats my point as there's only a
seven years difference.
You missed the point Lawrence. The state retirement pension age for Civil
Servants (male) is 65, the same as all others who receive the state
retirement pension and will change if/when this age is changed for all.
John

Some years ago, in a Civil Service pay round, where pay was compared with
the private sector, the "non-contributory" pensions scheme was taken as
being worth 7%. At the time I wished that the 7% had at least appeared in
my pay slip, then removed.

After I'd been working for the Civil Service for about five years, and had
been promoted, I found I was earning less than the tea-boy and floor
sweeper in a local factory. I consoled myself by thinking that I'd get an
early retirement and a reasonable pension.

If the proposed state-pension changes go ahead, in 40 years the state
retirement age will have increased to 67. By that time, all Public Sector
workers will be retiring at 65, so the gap will have reduced from 5 to 2
years.


--
Graham Davis
Bracknell