Is Elon Musk An "Absolute Hero...
News1 min ago
Why should a fireman be able to retire at 50?
72 Answers
He is the husband of a friend of ours and he is a fireman and is 50 next year and can retire on full pension. He is always on about the holidays he will be taking and how he will find himself another part time job to earn a bit of extra money to fund all these holidays he is planning. It makes me angry to know that I as a tax payer will be funding his lavish lifestyle for perhaps the next 30 years. It is disgusting and grossly unfair. There are lots of tasks firemen can do within the fire service that they can carry out as they get older, there is no excuse.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by dave50. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
It's not just the house fires - RTAs are possibly more regularly attended than fires. I bet all of us have seen at least one, hopefully in the distance. My nephew was on watch when they got called to the horrific pile up in the fog down Somerset. He will hopefully live to 50 but doubt he'll forget that one.
I'm sure the same applies to our police force. Is there not a set number of years you have to serve then you can retire with full pension (paid for, not state)?
My brother-in-law did this then got a job at Carstairs and worked there until he was 60. Two pensions both paid for, but no state pension until he was 65.
My brother-in-law did this then got a job at Carstairs and worked there until he was 60. Two pensions both paid for, but no state pension until he was 65.
firefighting isn't high among the most lethal occupations
http://
but what marks it out is that riskiness is built into the job: like bomb disposal officers, but unlike construction workers, they're hired to put their lives on the line. This is maybe why dave50 chose a different career.
http://
but what marks it out is that riskiness is built into the job: like bomb disposal officers, but unlike construction workers, they're hired to put their lives on the line. This is maybe why dave50 chose a different career.
Going on to a different part of the original posting - I think he might find it pretty difficult to find another - even part-time - job as there is not much going at the moment and what there is has plenty of applicants and does not pay much money. His age will be against him too, not so easy as it sounds. As for boredom, I would think he experienced plenty of that while waiting around in the station for the next call. My husband had occasion to go to the local station once - on business - one chap there was busy doing press-ups all by himself. He said if he didn't do something like that he would die of boredom. So there are pros and cons as there is to any job. Personally I would rather be kept busy than have to hang about waiting.
The initial question is a fair one and is about equity for all citizens rather than benefits for the few. IMO if the job offered a generous pension then it ought not be changed afterwards, but one can understand anger when some are getting their fair benefits as agreed whilst the rest of us are, or are in danger of, getting our agreements reneged on. Not to mention the excuses given why we should all be forced to work years more in order to allow those on welfare to stay there. The big question is why some seem to have such a better deal than others, private or not. And it is all very well saying had we wanted these conditions we could have applied, I suspect the chances of getting in are slim, which doesn't make it right. Just because we can all apply doesn't mean we can all be firemen, or whatever. We life in a very inequitable society. Maybe society needs better guidelines as to what can be offered and what constitutes an unfair offer.
-- answer removed --
http://
According to this calculator, a firefighter retiring in August 2012 on £25000 pa at age 50 with 30 years service would get a lump sum of £24000 and a pension of £9820 pa.
According to this calculator, a firefighter retiring in August 2012 on £25000 pa at age 50 with 30 years service would get a lump sum of £24000 and a pension of £9820 pa.
So, factor, that's more or less about a year's pay and then right down to a third of what he was earning. Not much really - bet you he goes on holiday somewhere exotic with part of the money - and then before he realises it and while he is still trying to find that part-time job he thinks is out there waiting for him he is down on the small part of his pension. And, although I haven't checked this, it will probably be too much for him to claim any benefits, so he is not likely to have a very lavish life style anyway.
Yes firemen can die but so can people in lots of other jobs. How would you like to drown in a vat of slurry, and farm workers benefits are tiny. It is obvious there is something wrong with public sector benefits but the question is how to change it without upsetting them. Even if you changed the rules for new entrants it would take years to balance it out.
BTW for those who said you can become a fireman it is not that easy. Try applying, and police as well. Also, I heard of a fireman who retired at 50 after 30 years service who never went to a fire in his life
BTW for those who said you can become a fireman it is not that easy. Try applying, and police as well. Also, I heard of a fireman who retired at 50 after 30 years service who never went to a fire in his life
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.