Tommorows generation paying for todays mistakes

Jennifer_Jane

PasturesNew wrote: »

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.

I so agree with this PN. Having worked for 45 years and mainly in Companies where there were few rights for workers (I have actually been told in one Company that they would make sure I never worked in that town again - what rubbish! But still).

So I know exactly what you mean, and I shall be delighted to finally get £870 a month (combination of Company pension and Basic State Pension) from September this year.

Ah, but the next worry is that utilities and council tax and inflation increase beyond my means and that I no longer have the ability to work (ie 'too old' at 62 and younger people who are out of work will, I assume, be able to get the jobs, if companies are being fair!).

I assume that young people now who will be retiring will all be going to their IFA's to develop a range of plans to cover themselves for the time between when they want to retire and when they will start getting their pensions (in an ideal world!).

Anyway, PN - I do agree with you.

Jen
x

1echidna

PasturesNew wrote: »

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

There is more to life than a bit of nicker elastic

olly300

The thing that worries me about the increasing the retirement age is the fact that lots of employers will not employ older workers let alone people who are past retirement age.

And by older workers it depends what industry you are in but it can start anywhere over 40, and that's not even for permanent positions.

I should state 2 of the best places I've worked in have employed people over the full age range from their late teens/early 20s to official retirement age.

PasturesNew

I don't have a pension, it's the old age pension for me, plus a top up of what is now the minimum income guarantee... so I think that means £125/week. LOADED! That's more than I've lived on after housing costs and costs of getting to/from work in the past.

I don't see why they need to drag out working years for the few, when there aren't enough jobs to go round. If they made the voluntary retirement age 60 for all then it'd free up a job for somebody who is currently on the dole.

1echidna

PasturesNew wrote: »

I don't have a pension, it's the old age pension for me, plus a top up of what is now the minimum income guarantee... so I think that means £125/week. LOADED! That's more than I've lived on after housing costs and costs of getting to/from work in the past.

I don't see why they need to drag out working years for the few, when there aren't enough jobs to go round. If they made the voluntary retirement age 60 for all then it'd free up a job for somebody who is currently on the dole.

I seem to remember in recessions past there were two strategies:

1 Early retirement which proved very costly and a lot of experienced talent was lost - same would apply to retirement at 60

2 Shifting people on to Invalidity Benefit - unfortunately created a trap and a health record may be more difficult to escape from than merely an unemployment record.

mvengemvenge

PasturesNew wrote: »

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

That depends who you've got to face having sex with

I feel terribly sorry for the young too. However, when you look back, it's only really been the baby boomers and their kids (under Thatcher's freeing-up of finance and the markets) who've had this golden period. Even then, for anyone who falls off the merry-go-round, through divorce, illness, unemployment, etc, it suddenly stops being a golden age very quickly.

Many places in the country have never really come out of the recession of the early 90's. People have just been living in a pyramid-selling kind of debt bubble.

As someone said in the papers today, now the city is a shadow of its former self and the seized-up credit market is killing off so much industry, where is any recovery actually going to come from? I just don't think people have grasped what lies ahead.

nearlynew

It's the only way of keeping a debt-based money system going.

IveSeenTheLight

Graham_Devon wrote: »

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.

I'm 35 and I worked out that I needed to work until I was 67 in accordance with the current schedule

66 in 2024
67 in 2034
68 in 2044

In 2034 I'll be 60, thus I'll have to work until 67.
Fortunately I'll be able to retire in 2041 at 67 before they extend it in 2044

Of course, I aim to retire long before then

mvengemvenge

tomterm8 wrote: »

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.

Yes, I can picture it now, a 68-year-old, disabled Tax Inspector turning up at young Johnny's garage to hassle him about his payments. Young Johnny and his (mostly young) colleagues aren't going to be aggressive, are they, despite their deep anger at having to fund everyone else in the country?

The 68-year-old beat bobby? The 68-year-old parking attendant? No chance of social discord there, is there? :rolleyes:

It's fine to say people have to work till they're old when you're looking at figures on a spread-sheet, but what about when you think about how it will practically work in the real world?

mvengemvenge

nearlynew wrote: »

It's the only way of keeping a debt-based money system going.

Are you related to Pastures New???