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

patchwork_cat

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:

Who is going to pay for your old age ? - Those children that other people have gone to CONSIDERABLE expense to raise. It is future generations that pay for our retirement and we pay for the retirement of those people you are championing.

I personally am not going to receive SRP until I am 67. I do agree that I do not feel sorry for pensioners managing on £95 who worked, they should have made provision for their old age.

Good old daytime telly the last month on ' saints vs sinners' had a saint of an old dear who had worked all her life and couldn't afford heating. Well sorry, but we are making ourselves poor by paying into an occupational pension, now. Our children are missing out because we can't afford it due to OPI payments, but others spend all their pay and then will be, 'oh poor me I have no money' when they retire and my children who have missed out will bail them out!

Not bitter, at all! - no seriously I did a calculation earlier to see how much more money we would have if DH didn't pay into his OPI and it was a lot! Recently they have changed the conditions of his 'gold plated' pension and it isn't nearly as good, but we are making ourselves poor paying for it.

ceridwen

Actually - as regards paying my way - I personally certainly will be. I anticipate still doing SOME work - but it will be work of my choice - which I will be free to do at last. Reason being - I have never yet had the chance to do any work of my choice except on a voluntary basis. Once I am retired - then I will be contributing to Society with work (that I will be able to afford to do at that age on a voluntary basis).

I appreciate that many retired people have no such intentions and just plan on it being endless leisure - but that is their choice and, after all, many of them are too ill to do anything much anyway. Are you saying that you would force this (substantially too ill to do so) agegroup to try and hold down a job they may well be too ill/tired to do and, in the process, that job won't be available for a younger person who needs a job? If one is holding onto a job that a younger person needs then that certainly doesnt demonstrate caring for a younger generation (knowing that they cant have it - because you've still got it).

dunstonh

I'm not sure what the fuss is all about to be honest.

The state pension age is currently 65 (after equalisation) and is already scheduled to increase to 68. The average age of retirement is 62/63. So, on average, people do not wait to the state pension age.

Starting the increase to 68 earlier than planned isnt going to impact on that many people. Just those who plan to retire between 2016-2024. An extra year of contributions and advance planning could do many of them a lot of good.

Old_Slaphead

Don't see how moving retirement to 66, 10 years earlier than originally envisaged is going to help public finances that much.

Those in jobs will just 'job block' for another year whilst those without jobs will claim welfare for an extra 12 months.

The only way to resolve the country's problems is to stimulate growth and create new jobs in the wealth creating private sector by reducing the cost of the overbearing public sector.

patchwork_cat

ceridwen wrote: »

Actually - as regards paying my way - I personally certainly will be. I anticipate still doing SOME work - but it will be work of my choice - which I will be free to do at last. Reason being - I have never yet had the chance to do any work of my choice except on a voluntary basis. Once I am retired - then I will be contributing to Society with work (that I will be able to afford to do at that age on a voluntary basis).

I appreciate that many retired people have no such intentions and just plan on it being endless leisure - but that is their choice and, after all, many of them are too ill to do anything much anyway. Are you saying that you would force this (substantially too ill to do so) agegroup to try and hold down a job they may well be too ill/tired to do and, in the process, that job won't be available for a younger person who needs a job? If one is holding onto a job that a younger person needs then that certainly doesnt demonstrate caring for a younger generation (knowing that they cant have it - because you've still got it).

The problem is that at the moment in many organisations you have people taking early retirement and then going back as agency staff on much more money and taking the job away from younger people.

The rise in retirement age is already coming in so many of my generation are already going to have to work until 67 be they too ill etc. all the reasons you have stated for not raising it in 7 years. Or is my generations health going to be so much better than todays late 50's I think not.

bumpoowee

ceridwen wrote: »

I appreciate that many retired people have no such intentions and just plan on it being endless leisure - but that is their choice

I agree it is their choice - I am happy for pensioners to spend their money on whatever they like - provided they aren't consuming a disproportionate amount of taxes to do this with.

ceridwen wrote: »

Are you saying that you would force this (substantially too ill to do so) agegroup to try and hold down a job they may well be too ill/tired to do and,).

I don't think anybody advocates forcing people who are genuinely incapacitated into work, but people will not be much different between the ages of 65 and 66. Indeed I would in theory be 68 when I retired if I went off state pensions alone - this affects everybody (and again your generation are affected least of all).

ceridwen wrote: »

that job won't be available for a younger person who needs a job? If one is holding onto a job that a younger person needs then that certainly doesnt demonstrate caring for a younger generation (knowing that they cant have it - because you've still got it).

I would dispute this. For a state pension to be viable, a certain proportion of the workforce must be working/earning and only a certain proportion can be retired. We can't retire people early just to make way for younger people if it's unaffordable. If more people are working and earning there will be more jobs due to increased money for these people to spend anyway.

Old_Slaphead

dunstonh wrote: »

Starting the increase to 68 earlier than planned isnt going to impact on that many people. Just those who plan to retire between 2016-2024. An extra year of contributions and advance planning could do many of them a lot of good.

Irrespective of planning to reduce the impact of a later payment of pension, couples planning to retire in this period can expect to see a one-off reduction in state benefit of up to £10,000.

This for an age group who are seeing a sharp reduction in pension fund values with relatively little time to rebuild the shortfall....I think the Tories may well have shot themselves in the foot with a fair proportion of the 'grey vote'

patchwork_cat

Ceridwen I was under the impression that you were a similar age to myself, am I correct in thinking that this is an argument that you aren't affected by yourself? Nosey I know!!!

dunstonh

Irrespective of planning to reduce the impact of a later payment of pension, couples planning to retire in this period can expect to see a one-off reduction in state benefit of up to £10,000.

To be replaced with them carrying on working at a level of income that is likely to be greater than £10k.

This for an age group who are seeing a sharp reduction in pension fund values with relatively little time to rebuild the shortfall

Short term fluctuations have little impact. The contributions being paid now buying cheaper units could actually see them make more by 2016 than had the drop not occurred.

Many should have already started to phase their risk down on their investments.

patchwork_cat

Old_Slaphead wrote: »

Irrespective of planning to reduce the impact of a later payment of pension, couples planning to retire in this period can expect to see a one-off reduction in state benefit of up to £10,000.

This for an age group who are seeing a sharp reduction in pension fund values with relatively little time to rebuild the shortfall....I think the Tories may well have shot themselves in the foot with a fair proportion of the 'grey vote'

However do you not think that they are not counting on much 'grey' vote as those of us that are grey or going! still remember the last Tory government and are certainly not going back there!