State Pension Costs

Mr_Matey

kennyboy66 wrote: »

Don't you sort of answer you own question ?
Whats the point of "an investment" in children, if they are not going to at some stage support their elders.

Why do you think that people in 3rd world countries have lots of (preferably) male children ?

A fair point, except that a lot of these benefits are new. Most people didn't used to retire at 65, and if they did, their life expectancy wasn't nearly as high as it is now.

Unless this is sustainable - i.e. my generation and future generations can expect the same benefits when we hit age 65, why would we want to mantain such a system?

We will not only have to support children but an increasing amount of the elderly, some of which could work but decide not to once they reach the magic 65.

inspector_monkfish

Right, I'm off on my jolly holidays in about 10mins, so don't forget.......


I've set up a MoneySavingExpert Fantasy Football League for anyone that might be interested....


We are up to about 22 entrants now, so looking good.

You can still enter right up until Premiership season starts.

FREE to enter - with some good prizes from Sky if you get lucky.

Here is the link:
http://fantasyfootball.skysports.com/


- Firstly, you will need to pick your team, and name it. (please use the nickname you have on here, so we know who is who)
- Once you have done this, go to 'My Team', and scroll down to 'Private Leagues'
- Then click on 'Enter New League'
- Then scroll down to 'Joining an Existing League'
- Here is where you type in the 'MoneySavingExpert' League Pin: 2822

Good Luck everyone
Regards
IM

DiggerUK

Generali wrote: »

Baby boomers' Governments put aside £0.00 towards their state pension liability. What is the moral, legal and pragmatic case for people to pay their parents' pension?

Simple, my grandkids are going to pay for my childrens benefits in the same way that I paid for my parents and grandparents.

No government puts aside funds for any form of expenditure, it has always been raised by taxes and borrowing.

baileysbattlebus

Mr_Matey wrote: »

A fair point, except that a lot of these benefits are new. Most people didn't used to retire at 65, and if they did, their life expectancy wasn't nearly as high as it is now.

Unless this is sustainable - i.e. my generation and future generations can expect the same benefits when we hit age 65, why would we want to mantain such a system?

We will not only have to support children but an increasing amount of the elderly, some of which could work but decide not to once they reach the magic 65.

You will probably find most companies have a compulsory retirement age of 65 now. Where I was it used to be 60 for everyone - men and women although men couldn't collect the state pension for another 5 years. On your 60th birthday it was goodbye. You had no choice. One guy I knew had been with the company about 25 years and he had a decent company pension, which under normal circumstances would have been fine, but his son and daughter in law had been killed and he and his wife were bringing up the 2 grandchildren (7 & 9). He desperately wanted to carry on - but couldn't. So at 60 he had to look for another job. Bitter was putting it mildly.

OH's company was the same - it is 65 in his company now - but once you're there it's goodbye - you have no choice.

So it's all very well to say that most people just stop work at 65 - most people won't have a choice.

As the law stands now a company can get rid of a worker on their 65th birthday without redundancy.

There is a court case going on at the moment to decide if the retirement at 65 is enforcable.

If it is ruled to be unenforcable the ramifications for buisinesses could be huge and very costly. It could ba an administrative nightmare. Companies could end up having to justify each indivdual's retirement to avoid discrimination claims.

About 1.3 million people work on past 65 at the moment and a lot more would like to but can't, I say like, a lot more need to.

If OH decides to work on past the age of 65 (in 10 years) and his company can't get rid of him, as he is in a senior position it means someone's career progression is delayed.

So people being able to work as long as they like has ramifcations other than state pension funding.

PasturesNew

When I retire I'll have worked for 50 years and paid into NI every one of them.
I think that's entitled me to take the old age pension.

Unlike some people who haven't worked at all in their lifetime, or chose to not work for 20-30 years, or other combinations and permutations...

So I resent anybody suggesting the money's not there because ... if it's not there it's because you're giving it to others who didn't contribute.

I've not been a drain on the country's resources in my lifetime, some people have done nothing but drain, drain, drain...

bluey890

PasturesNew wrote: »

When I retire I'll have worked for 50 years and paid into NI every one of them.
I think that's entitled me to take the old age pension.

Unlike some people who haven't worked at all in their lifetime, or chose to not work for 20-30 years, or other combinations and permutations...

So I resent anybody suggesting the money's not there because ... if it's not there it's because you're giving it to others who didn't contribute.

I've not been a drain on the country's resources in my lifetime, some people have done nothing but drain, drain, drain...

You should get a full state pension and state second pension (unless you contracted out). Think this comes to about £150 a week. Which isn't that much to live on, once bills have been paid.

PasturesNew

bluey890 wrote: »

You should get a full state pension and state second pension (unless you contracted out). Think this comes to about £150 a week. Which isn't that much to live on, once bills have been paid.

I think I did contract out, although no idea if that was maintained or what it is/means to be honest... I just know a bloke told me to tick a box many years ago when I started a pension... but then I got laid off from that job, stopped the pension payments as I couldn't afford them on the dole ... then could never start it again because you had to pay back every missed payment within a certain timeframe or they closed the account down... so that's what happened.

But, I think it's about £123 for a single person living alone to have basic state pension, then Minimum Income Guarantee. Now, £123/week, plus £200 winter fuel allowance works out at £550/month.

£550/month after housing costs ... to me is a lot of money. I've rarely had that much when I've been working, so for me it won't be a lot different to be honest

Looking forward to it.

bluey890

PasturesNew wrote: »

I think I did contract out, although no idea if that was maintained or what it is/means to be honest... I just know a bloke told me to tick a box many years ago when I started a pension... but then I got laid off from that job, stopped the pension payments as I couldn't afford them on the dole ... then could never start it again because you had to pay back every missed payment within a certain timeframe or they closed the account down... so that's what happened.

But, I think it's about £123 for a single person living alone to have basic state pension, then Minimum Income Guarantee. Now, £123/week, plus £200 winter fuel allowance works out at £550/month.

£550/month after housing costs ... to me is a lot of money. I've rarely had that much when I've been working, so for me it won't be a lot different to be honest

Looking forward to it.

Elec, gas, water, tv license, phoneline, broadband will => 400 a month disposable. Food&Drink £150. Insurance 25. House maintenance and replacement goods 100. Clothes 25. Leaving 100 a month, or just over £3 a day to treat yourself ...

It is not much.

Mr_Matey

baileysbattlebus wrote: »

You will probably find most companies have a compulsory retirement age of 65 now. Where I was it used to be 60 for everyone - men and women although men couldn't collect the state pension for another 5 years. On your 60th birthday it was goodbye. You had no choice. One guy I knew had been with the company about 25 years and he had a decent company pension, which under normal circumstances would have been fine, but his son and daughter in law had been killed and he and his wife were bringing up the 2 grandchildren (7 & 9). He desperately wanted to carry on - but couldn't. So at 60 he had to look for another job. Bitter was putting it mildly.

OH's company was the same - it is 65 in his company now - but once you're there it's goodbye - you have no choice.

So it's all very well to say that most people just stop work at 65 - most people won't have a choice.

As the law stands now a company can get rid of a worker on their 65th birthday without redundancy.

There is a court case going on at the moment to decide if the retirement at 65 is enforcable.

If it is ruled to be unenforcable the ramifications for buisinesses could be huge and very costly. It could ba an administrative nightmare. Companies could end up having to justify each indivdual's retirement to avoid discrimination claims.

About 1.3 million people work on past 65 at the moment and a lot more would like to but can't, I say like, a lot more need to.

If OH decides to work on past the age of 65 (in 10 years) and his company can't get rid of him, as he is in a senior position it means someone's career progression is delayed.

So people being able to work as long as they like has ramifcations other than state pension funding.

I agree, a lot of people stop work at 65, some choose to and some don't.

I don't believe companies should enforce retirement without either pension or redundancy. Your friend's case shows how unfair that can be. Some people don't want retire, and so long as they are productive to their company/society why make them?

Retirement should occur when the employee chooses and has enough accumulated in the pension fund to support his or her lifestyle.

Career progression for younger people is an issue and many may move companies or countries to move up the ladder. On the other hand, in certain industries there will be skills shortages if the boomers all retire at age 65.

I think it'll be a massive burden on the next generation to fund the boomer's pensions due to increases in life expectancy and demographics. A workable solution is needed quick smart.

PasturesNew

bluey890 wrote: »

Elec, gas, water, tv license, phoneline, broadband will => 400 a month disposable.

I spend £150 on this at the moment and I am at home 24/7.

bluey890 wrote: »

Food&Drink £150.

More like £100 and I get change.

bluey890 wrote: »

Insurance 25. House maintenance and replacement goods 100. Clothes 25.

Insurance/right, maintentance/replacement hopefully a bit less with a newer/small place. Clothes - I don't spend that much now.

bluey890 wrote: »

Leaving 100 a month, or just over £3 a day to treat yourself ...

It is not much.

It's more than I've often had while working. But my budget was less than you listed above.

The thing is, I know how much I'll get - and there's not a lot I can do to change that really. I hope to have a few quid set aside, but you can never tell.

Many people forget how cheaply it is possible to live, they're used to more luxuries than I've been so take that as the norm.