Tommorows generation paying for todays mistakes

Pobby

I have various pension thingys in place but there is no way I intend to give up working at 65, God willing. The idea of getting up in the morning without some sort of challenge is not very attractive. So I fancy some sort of part time employment.

PasturesNew

nearlynew wrote: »

:rotfl:

If I was, I'd meet up with her now and again and treat her to a night out and a decent meal.

Poor girl.
Sat at home alone eating grass sandwiches and watching TV all night.

... and reading sh1te online in forums

Gorgeous_George

[QUOTE=Pobby;22990869...The_idea_of_getting_up_in_the_morning_without_some_sort_of_challenge_is_not_very_attractive.[/QUOTE]

Getting up in the morning IS a challenge.

GG

kennyboy66_2

I've had a better standard of living and education than my parents, who likewise had it better than their parents.

I'd expect my children to do likewise.

WHEN DO YOU PEOPLE STOP MOANING ?

ITS NOT FAIR, OH POOR ME.

NO WONDER THE AUSSIES CALL US WHINGEING POMS.

Cleaver

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.

***...puts on best dopester / amclusent voice, takes a deep breath...***

The toddlers of today will not need to worry in the slightest about their pension or retirement age. By the time they are in their 40s they will all be living in desolate, ragged slums with just feral dogs to protect them. Oil will have run out long ago and a nuclear resource war will have destroyed all but the most hardened of people. They will all be killing each other with shotguns and there will be an almost omi-present quasi-Islamic totalitarian government watching their every burka-clad moment.

Pensions will be the least of their worries and only survival will be at the forefront of their minds.

Thrugelmir

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?

Putting aside the issue of the Public sector.

We are living for longer thanks to medicine and better working lives.

We all need to save more to fund our "Golden Years". That's if we want to enjoy them and make the most of them.

It could be argued that a pension of over say £50k a year is excessive. If someone wishes to have a better lifestyle then it should come from their own savings, investments or business , without the benefit of tax advantages.

Then relief could be channelled into making long term saving attractive and of benefit to all.

Gorgeous_George

Cleaver wrote: »

***...puts on best dopester / amclusent voice, takes a deep breath...***

The toddlers of today will not need to worry in the slightest about their pension or retirement age. By the time they are in their 40s they will all be living in desolate, ragged slums with just feral dogs to protect them. Oil will have run out long ago and a nuclear resource war will have destroyed all but the most hardened of people. They will all be killing each other with shotguns and there will be an almost omi-present quasi-Islamic totalitarian government watching their every burka-clad moment.

Pensions will be the least of their worries and only survival will be at the forefront of their minds.

Sounds unlikely? I think not.

The future's bright - nuclear white.

GG

Degenerate

woody01 wrote: »

I am glad that i work for a multi national with a final salary pension (protected).
I would feel very uneasy even now (mid 30's), if i didnt have it.

(Not that it isn't topped up with AVC's aswell though).

I'm of a similar age, and I think anyone of our generation who puts their faith in a final salary scheme is trusting to luck. May I ask what makes your company's scheme so bulletproof? What do you mean by "protected"?

Sapphire

Graham_Devon wrote: »

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.

It would be totally wrong to introduce the scheme now, especially for people who have, say, ten more years to go before they retire, and who are likely to have made financial plans for their future based on the current system.

Changing the rules so that everyone could work until 70 would also need a radical change of view in the area of ageism. There are very few employers who would hire people over 45 in favour of younger applicants, no matter how willing the older people would be to work, and how capable and qualified they were (and despite what the law says). The prejudice against older people would need cease before the scheme proposed by Turner could go ahead.

A good way of saving money would be to cease paying endless benefits to people who are obviously able to work. This money could then be used to help pensioners, who are generally worse off in this country than elsewhere in Europe – a miserable state of affairs. :mad:

Graham_Devon

Sapphire wrote: »

A good way of saving money would be to cease paying endless benefits to people who are obviously able to work. This money could then be used to help pensioners, who are generally worse off in this country than elsewhere in Europe – a miserable state of affairs. :mad:

Completely agree.

But the headlines of poverty and kids on the streets from the bleeding heart brigade would be far worse than the headline of "pensioner has to work a couple of years longer to pay for the family next door".