Male state pension at 66 from 2016?

Just_landed

Worrying people in their 50s beats worrying people in their 60s because people in their 60s have less time to save up a year's state pension if they still want to retire at 65. >>>

When an MP (not to be) for the Conservatives came knocking on the door for my vote, I said to him what jamesd said above, IE 2016, (2026 is bad enough) HE hadn't got a clue what I was talking about. All members of Parliment need to understand what the normal people ( non civil service pension) will have to go through.

Stargazer57

exil wrote: »

And you seem to assume that if someone stays at work after 65 this magically creates a job out of thin air, rather than the person concerned preventing someone else getting promoted or being recruited.

You seem to be a believer in the lump of labour fallacy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lump_of_labour_fallacy

The £13 billion a year saving comes from this:

http://www.niesr.ac.uk/pubs/searchdetail.php?PublicationID=2406

where, to summarise, the saving takes account of the increase in economic activity arising from extending working lives, rather than merely looking at the benefits and tax of those affected.

wakeupalarm

Everyone go back to the start, do not pass go, do not collect your state pension.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/pensions/7764513/Queens-Speech-state-pension-age-could-rise-to-70.html

DiggerUK

As can be seen from the ammount of responses to this thread, state pensions are a big issue.

It was not an issue any of the parties had major campaigns on in the recent election, considering the size of the "grey vote" you would have thought that one of them would have gone for our vote.
I suspect that whatever they do, they will do it quick. They certainly will not want it as an election issue in the next election.
And that has to happen by 2015, a year before the changes proposed for 2016.

There is a pensioners "union" that you can join before retirement, I ask you to support them in any way you can. The National Pensioners Convention.
http://www.npcuk.org/aboutus.htm

hugheskevi

There is a pensioners "union" that you can join before retirement, I ask you to support them in any way you can. The National Pensioners Convention.

Ah yes, the group who advocate increasing spending on Basic State Pension by a cool £40 billion per year.

Well, £6bn of cuts decided, another £150bn or so to go, suppose £40bn more won't hurt :rotfl:

Paul_Herring

wakeupalarm wrote: »

Everyone go back to the start, do not pass go, do not collect your state pension.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/pensions/7764513/Queens-Speech-state-pension-age-could-rise-to-70.html

The pertinent paragraph:

"While attention has focused on how soon the state pension age will rise to 66, the bigger question is what happens afterwards," said John Ball of Towers Watson. "Rather than rising to 68 by 2046, we could see it going up further and faster."

Scaremongering worthy of The Daily Fail. Towers Watson are an HR Consultancy:

Towers Watson is a leading global professional services company that helps organizations improve performance through effective people, risk and financial management. With 14,000 associates around the world, we offer solutions in the areas of employee benefits, talent management, rewards, and risk and capital management.

So; blatant speculation, from someone who isn't involved with the government.

StevieJ

Stargazer57 wrote: »

As this proposal was in the Conservative manifesto, I reckon you will be wasting your ink. The reply will say "We're doing what the electors asked us to do..."

If you were going to complain the time to do it would have been when it was announced (at the Tory conference last year) or some other time before the election.

But they didn't achieve a majority

DiggerUK

hugheskevi wrote: »

Ah yes, the group who advocate increasing spending on Basic State Pension by a cool £40 billion per year.

The National Pensioners Convention have indeed made proposals to increase the State Pension.
They have also suggested a few ways to finance the increase.
http://www.npcuk.org/factsandfigures/factsandfigures_improvingstatepension.htm

hugheskevi

Indeed they do say how they will finance it:

Using the existing excess surplus balance of around £43.5bn in the National Insurance Fund, which has been paid in by today’s employees and employers, as part of the pay-as-you-go system.

The surplus is loaned out to Government Departments. To use the surplus, they would need to repay the loans, so that is higher tax/lower expenditure/more borrowing, ie, exactly the same as financing it via conventional means - it is a surplus in name only.

Increasing employers’ contributions to National Insurance from 12.8% to at least 15% of payroll, as is the case in many other EU countries.

The 'tax on jobs' and the damange it may or may not do has been discussed at length - Gordon Brown only wanted 1%, so more than double that would hardly seem prudent.

Up to £100bn a year is currently uncollected in taxation, mainly from large corporations and businesses. Serious efforts through an increase in staffing and technology could reinstate a sense of fairness and justice to the tax system and raise a considerable amount of money in the process.

I rather doubt all the political parties happened to overlook this alledged pile of money. Even if they did, it is clearly more tax on business to the tune of £100bn that they don't pay now.

Abolishing the Upper Earnings Limit of £43,888 on National Insurance contributions, ending the injustice in which the higher paid contribute a smaller proportion of earnings than the lower paid. This would raise an estimated £10bn every year.

All earning over £43,888 would pay more than half their income in income tax and NI contributions. Earning that, you would be lucky to buy a flat in London, hardly seems fair to impose crippling taxation on workers to fund more money for pensioners.

Reforming tax relief on private pensions. This currently costs the Treasury around £37bn a year – with the top1% of taxpayers receiving around 25% of the rebate, whilst the average employee receives just £330 a year. This is neither the most effective nor equitable way of using public money, giving a massive incentive to save to those who least need it.

The most reasonable of their points, but it is still the mantra of 'tax the rich and give it to pensioners.'

So in summary, the NPC want to dramatically increase taxes on business and upper-middle to higher earners in the order of at least tens of billions of pounds to transfer it all to pensioners, mainly of whom will have considerably more assets than the people paying the extra tax.

exil

Stargazer57 wrote: »

You seem to be a believer in the lump of labour fallacy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lump_of_labour_fallacy

The £13 billion a year saving comes from this:

http://www.niesr.ac.uk/pubs/searchdetail.php?PublicationID=2406

where, to summarise, the saving takes account of the increase in economic activity arising from extending working lives, rather than merely looking at the benefits and tax of those affected.

It's alleged to be a fallacy by free market economists. The reality is that organisations are not going to increase their headcounts to allow 65 year olds to hang on for another year. They'll merely delay recruiting a replacement by a year. We already have surplus labour - people who want to work and can't due to lack of jobs. If this paper is true we could solve all economic problems by forcing everyone to work till they're 100. If of course we were facing a labour SHORTAGE that's a different situation, there would be a clear economic cost to having people stop work when still capable of working. Also - has any account been taken of the unpaid work done by retired people?

Personally, I can't see myself being able to hold down my present job at 66.