MSE News: Tory Conference: State pension age could rise early

bumpoowee

ceridwen wrote: »

:eek: I do hope not - I've lost thousands and thousands of £s already of my retirement income - what with having my State Pension Age raised AND having to spend years not getting my OAP Tax Allowance that I expected.

I do hope - at the very least - there is phasing-in for people in their 50s and older.

It has to be borne in mind that many people in their 50s are already retired - whether voluntarily or otherwise. Certainly those in their 50s without a job who are unemployed (rather than early retired) know that their chances of ever getting a job again are extremely low.

So - my message to the incoming Government is "please accept that people in their 50s and older are too old to be hit by any raising in the age at which they get their State Pension/Serps on the one hand or receive their OAP Tax Allowance on the other hand." Many/many people in this agegroup have already retired (some forcibly) and shouldnt be forced to try and find jobs again - and those who havent retired yet have very likely got extensive plans made and well in hand already for retirement.

We are too near the end to be forced to change our plans or find ways to finance further loss of retirement income in the few years left to us.

We all need to share some of the pain to put pension funding back on a sustainable footing. Your children/grandchildren will shoulder a much greater share of this pain than you will - do you really think it is fair that people in their 50s who economically have had it very good (as a generation) contribute nothing to resolve this mess?

kennyboy66_2

At last a decent idea from the loathsome Tories.

Thats £13bn saved each year from 2016 - only another £167bn per year to go.

I would go further, I would make any one retiring in 2010 work an extra 2 months, in 2011 and extra 4 months and so on.
And keep going so that the retirement age is 68 by 2028.

bumpoowee

bendix wrote: »

I don't know what all the fuss is about. We are not sheep, forced to comply live our lives under the shadow of changing policies.

Quit whining. If you want to retire when YOU want to retire, take control of your life and make your own provision. It's not rocket science.

More harsh that I would have put it but this is pretty much how I feel - it's all very well saying 'look at the poor old dears/gents, having to survive on £95 a week', but those poor old dears/gents were once young able-bodied people who obviously didn't want to take any responsibility for their own futures.

Currently I am told I will get state pension at 68 - yet it would be foolish to expect things wont change in the next 40+ years so I'm certainly not basing all my retirement plans on what today's government is promising.

kennyboy66_2

ceridwen wrote: »

I do hope - at the very least - there is phasing-in for people in their 50s and older.

It has to be borne in mind that many people in their 50s are already retired - whether voluntarily or otherwise. Certainly those in their 50s without a job who are unemployed (rather than early retired) know that their chances of ever getting a job again are extremely low.

If you are in your 50's (lets say 54 and female) you can expect to live for roughly another 34 years.

Are you saying that it is right that you should be economically inactive for a full 34 years. Seems a tad long to me.

Pssst

If you retire at 65....what do you plan to do and will you be able to afford to do it anyway?

If you have any great plans to do stuff,travel,visit your daughter in OZ or whatever....please dont wait until your 65.

You could be,,
dead
sick
disabled
poor
sitting in a wing backed chair watching Eastenders and smelling of urine


DO IT NOW.......

ceridwen

bumpoowee wrote: »

We all need to share some of the pain to put pension funding back on a sustainable footing. Your children/grandchildren will shoulder a much greater share of this pain than you will - do you really think it is fair that people in their 50s who economically have had it very good (as a generation) contribute nothing to resolve this mess?

Actually - in my own personal case - there ARE no children or grandchildren.

I personally have shouldered a much greater burden than many throughout my life so far - as I have paid in lots of extra taxes for those who have children to receive: child tax allowances/child tax credit/State education/etc - but have never received a penny back for my own children (because there wasn't any).

Of course - we could make this fair by stating that those who don't have children = everything stays just as it is now. Those who have taken all the financial help the State gives (including out of MY pocket) do get the proposed changes in State pensions:D. I can't see people in their 50s with children agreeing to that somehow..:rolleyes:

ceridwen

Pssst wrote: »

If you retire at 65....what do you plan to do and will you be able to afford to do it anyway?

If you have any great plans to do stuff,travel,visit your daughter in OZ or whatever....please dont wait until your 65.

You could be,,
dead
sick
disabled
poor
sitting in a wing backed chair watching Eastenders and smelling of urine


DO IT NOW.......

Which certainly raises the very valid point that many people put their lives on hold until retirement - only then to find that they are too ill to do what they planned to. Sounds like a reason not to raise the State Pension Age for ANYONE then...:D

bendix

kennyboy66 wrote: »

If you are in your 50's (lets say 54 and female) you can expect to live for roughly another 34 years.

Are you saying that it is right that you should be economically inactive for a full 34 years. Seems a tad long to me.

Why not? If you have made provision and part of your lifeplan is to retire at 50 (as mine is), why shouldn't they be economically inactive whenever they so choose, so long as they are not a burden on anyone else?

Individual choice. Individual responsibility. It's an alien concept in modern society, I know, but I'm kinda old fashioned.

ceridwen

kennyboy66 wrote: »

If you are in your 50's (lets say 54 and female) you can expect to live for roughly another 34 years.

Are you saying that it is right that you should be economically inactive for a full 34 years. Seems a tad long to me.

What I AM saying is that people can't reasonably be expected to change plans they have had for literally decades.

The other way to look at this is to turn your argument on its head and say "someone in their 50s has had over 30 years of KNOWING they will retire at 60-65 and planning their lives accordingly". Things are too "set in stone" to change at that late stage and - also - its not possible for most people in their 50s to think "better start doing overtime and/or a little job on the side - to get some extra savings in order to be able to retire at the age I expect to". Most people in their 50s:
- dont have much chance of finding work at the best of times OR
- are too ill to be able to manage to do any extra work and are struggling to hold down the job they have OR
- have carer responsibilities they have to undertake in their "spare time" (or are you suggesting they should abandon any elderly relatives they are looking out for?)

bumpoowee

ceridwen wrote: »

Actually - in my own personal case - there ARE no children or grandchildren.

I personally have shouldered a much greater burden than many throughout my life so far - as I have paid in lots of extra taxes for those who have children to receive: child tax allowances/child tax credit/State education/etc - but have never received a penny back for my own children (because there wasn't any).

Of course - we could make this fair by stating that those who don't have children = everything stays just as it is now. Those who have taken all the financial help the State gives (including out of MY pocket) do get the proposed changes in State pensions:D. I can't see people in their 50s with children agreeing to that somehow..:rolleyes:

ok, ok, the point I was getting at was that your theoretical children/grandchildrens generation will shoulder a much larger share of the pain.

You can argue from the 'I don't have kids point of view' but the fact is it's all part of the circle of life, if nobody had kids we'd all be screwed and the fact is for people who do have kids and work it does usually cost them far more to raise the kids than they receive in benefits. And you were a child once! Certainly I could save a lot more money before my daughter was born, so if anything not having kids should make it easier to provide for your future.

And as Kennyboy points out, anybody retiring in their 50s now is facing a LONG time being economically inactive - many will spend longer in retirement than they did working. Don't you think it's fair they pay their way (or take less from the state) to some small extent?