I retired some 4 years ago on half my then salary since when I've had a small increase. This is what the private sector calls a gold-plated pension. What they seem to forget is that I paid 6.75% of my salary into that pot and my employer a little more.
When the Teachers' Pension Scheme was first opened, Churchill asked that teachers contribute towards it for a couple of years to get the fund going and then the scheme would become non-contributory. The Emmott Committee recommended that the scheme be funded by HMG; had that been done, by 1972 it would have stood at £2000 million!
While acknowledging that my pension is more than some people get for working full-time for 40 hours a week, I must note that those in the private sector were very happy with their money-purchase schemes when the stock market was doing well.
They had no sympathy for public servants who pointed out the anomalies in their final salary schemes, not least that their funds seemed to consist of notional amounts and that pensions were being paid from superannuation income with no investment whatever.
Now the situation is reversed, they're squealing about the unfairness of it all. Hmm... 
Nostrinian: it wasn't just the RN who was hit with pay reductions (all public servants had a cut of up to 15% in Snowden's 1931 Budget) but the cuts hit Jolly Jack that much harder because of the reduction in allotments and some sailors couldn't keep up with payments.
Last edited by exscribbler; 2nd Dec 2008 at 00:21.