Dinahmo
For those with occupational pensions I'd like to remind you that usually employers contribute to the fund as well as the employee.
They do, but that's really not the point. People need to be able to plan for their older age (or any age, really) without constantly having the goalposts shifted. It doesn't matter whether the deal was 'advantageous' our not. Even if the deal had been that employers fully funded people's pensions, and they were entitled to retire on 150% of their earnings - if that is what people were expecting to happen, and had planned their lives accordingly, it would be very unfair to whip it away when they were years ahead of retirement and unable to make good the money. Equalise things, by all means, but slowly, and in such a way that people can make choices and plan as best they can.
Also, many final salary schemes are in public sector roles which have never paid well, and the employer's pension contributions are effectively part of the salary, in the way that cars and other perks can be part of a private sector one.
I'm in the same boat as you, sparkynan. It is infuriating when people suggest that all of our generation are wealthy and entitled, when so many of us have been caught in the 6 year gap, as well as hit by the the 'high interest rates when we were paying mortgages, but low ones when we could finally save' thing.
It's bewildering to me when being annoyed about this is falsely equated with being greedy, or with not wanting a fair pension for everyone, and when so many people seem determined to keep us down by deciding what we can and can't afford.
As you say, the generations before us retired at 60, and got pensions, bus passes, free prescriptions etc whether or not they had paid in. I didn't begrudge that, but I do get annoyed when we are told that we should not expect a state pension, as our contributions have been spent on others, and it would be 'generationally unfair' of us to expect the next generation to pay in for us, or that anyone who has also contributed to an occupational pension should have their state one reduced.
I honestly don't think that expecting to get our pensions, and to be able to keep what we have saved (after being taxed on our income) is a big ask at all. Clearly there are those who disagree, and I would be genuinely interested to know why, and how they would justify a means test. Who knows, I might change my mind.
If taxation were made fairer, and financial corruption were investigated rigorously, the economy would benefit far more than it would by stopping the triple lock, or by squeezing a few more quid out of an already squeezed generation.