Tommorows generation paying for todays mistakes

Graham_Devon

Just gathering peoples thoughts on this.

Lord Turner has stated today he should have been more radical in pension reforms, and has suggested the pension age should be raised to 70.

He's also said public workers should have a more flexible scheme instead of a final salary scheme.

I'm a public sector worker (though self employed mostly) and I agree.

However, what I don't agree with is the proposals which secure most of the working population now.

It seems all the reforms are aimed to hit those currently in their 20's, who will only recieve a state pension at 66. Then those still at school will have to work till 67 and toddlers will have to work until 68.

Why? Why change it for future generations, meaning we all get away with it and ask the next generation, those who didn't have any say in anything to pay for our mess?

Lord Turner has stated he would back the pension age hitting 70 in 2030. How convinient, most of the fatcats, MP's, himself, all those who actually make the rules at the moment, won't be hit with another 5 years work.

Thoughts?

Personally, I say if we need reforms we do it ASAP, and we don't just pass everything onto our kids. It's completely selfish.

PasturesNew

I just get miffed that I will work for 50 years and get the same pension as those who had a better life and worked many, many less years.

diable

PasturesNew wrote: »

I just get miffed that I will work for 50 years and get the same pension as those who had a better life and worked many, many less years.

Don't say that as I have already worked for 29.5 years and have another 20 to go :eek:

PasturesNew

I just envy those that sit on their 4rses in the summer, secure in the knowledge they know where the next £ is coming from.

I never know where the next £ is coming from.

1echidna

It is all that guff about legislation not being retrospective and changing the rules too much over those that people assumed applied to them. Look at the fuss over taxes on gas guzzlers which people said was retrospective as it didn't apply when they bought their vehicle. I tend to agree though, not very fair, but (fat cats aside) it can be hard for people in modest circumstance to suddenly change the rules they have assumed apply for many years, just as they are about to reap what may well be modest benefits.

olly300

PasturesNew wrote: »

I just get miffed that I will work for 50 years and get the same pension as those who had a better life and worked many, many less years.

Sex equality laws always cause winners and losers.

PasturesNew

olly300 wrote: »

Sex equality laws always cause winners and losers.

Well, the main losers are those not getting any sex.

olly300

BTW Graham your data on retirement ages is wrong.

The State Pension age for both men and women is to increase from 65 to 68 between 2024 and 2046, with each change phased in over two consecutive years in each decade. The first increase, from 65 to 66, will be phased in between April 2024 and April 2026; the second, from 66 to 67, will be phased in between April 2034 and April 2036; and the third, from 67 to 68, between April 2044 and April 2046.

http://www.thepensionservice.gov.uk/state-pension/home.asp

Basically if you were born after 1960 don't expect to retire at exactly 65.

1984ReturnsForReal_2

This is nothing new.

Its been going this way since the late 80's & early 90's.

tomterm8

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Thoughts?
.

People in the public sector who are coming up to 60 now, shouldn't expect to retire at 65. Not going to happen. And people over 65 should expect the government to raid their pensions.

diable

PasturesNew wrote: »

Well, the main losers are those not getting any sex.

Keep it yourself :beer: