Male state pension at 66 from 2016?

cyclonebri1

zygurat789 wrote: »

It is undeniable that the state pension age of 65 is totally outdated and I am sick of people whinging about it, it's a fact that you will have to retire at 65+(+not that much). If you have saved up enough to retire early then you have been (as your £20,000 dreamers would put it) grossly overpaid,

And I'm sick of your prattle, lets split your post in half.

Firstly, convince me that manual workers, in the private sector not their own buissinesses are in a fit state to carry on working at 65 let alone 66, you don't find many 65 year old dockers, steelworkers, builders etc, they are physically worn out and don't have the option to continue. There is a world of difference in the capabilities of ex manual versus white collar workers, They, we, cannot fairly all be treated equally.
If our belovered government, could find suitable, non physically demanding roles for peeps to ease out of work then fine. No problem with that. But that's not the situation, they are expected to hump breeze blocks up ladders at the same rate as a 20 year old:T:T:T
65 year olds have not suddenly found the fountain of youth:mad:

If you think that's whinging, I'm fine with that.

Your 2nd comment about being grossly overpaid if you have saved enough to retire early is beyond belief.:eek: Many of us, and I include myself here, have sacrificed, bigger homes, fancy cars and holidays to enable us to plan for the inevitable decline in health in later years. Some of us have had to fall back on this contingency, I myself suffered a broken back, neck and fractured skull in an accident, not at work, that meant |I had to retire early at 55, it was MY savings and MY frugallity that ensured that I can survive to 65, never planned for 66. I wasn't grossly paid, but I did supplement my income by working an average 60hr week in a largely manual position over the whole of my working life.

And if you think that's whinging, you have my sympathy. :(

zygurat789

cyclonebri1 wrote: »

And I'm sick of your prattle, lets split your post in half.

Firstly, convince me that manual workers, in the private sector not their own buissinesses are in a fit state to carry on working at 65 let alone 66, you don't find many 65 year old dockers, steelworkers, builders etc, they are physically worn out and don't have the option to continue. There is a world of difference in the capabilities of ex manual versus white collar workers, They, we, cannot fairly all be treated equally.
If our belovered government, could find suitable, non physically demanding roles for peeps to ease out of work then fine. No problem with that. But that's not the situation, they are expected to hump breeze blocks up ladders at the same rate as a 20 year old:T:T:T
65 year olds have not suddenly found the fountain of youth:mad:

If you think that's whinging, I'm fine with that.

Your 2nd comment about being grossly overpaid if you have saved enough to retire early is beyond belief.:eek: Many of us, and I include myself here, have sacrificed, bigger homes, fancy cars and holidays to enable us to plan for the inevitable decline in health in later years. Some of us have had to fall back on this contingency, I myself suffered a broken back, neck and fractured skull in an accident, not at work, that meant |I had to retire early at 55, it was MY savings and MY frugallity that ensured that I can survive to 65, never planned for 66. I wasn't grossly paid, but I did supplement my income by working an average 60hr week in a largely manual position over the whole of my working life.

And if you think that's whinging, you have my sympathy. :(

I suggest you go back and read my post and the one to which it replied and then you may understand what I was saying. Your comments are totally irrelevant to my point.
Can you not claim DLA?

artha

cyclonebri1 wrote: »

65 year olds have not suddenly found the fountain of youth:mad:

Agree. Just because people are being kept alive longer through improvements in medical treatments it does not necessarily mean that physical capability is improving for many people. A friend of mine is a GP and they openly admit that they just patch people up to keep them going for longer and longer but don't improve general health.

Many of us, and I include myself here, have sacrificed, bigger homes, fancy cars and holidays to enable us to plan for the inevitable decline in health in later years.

I have also done that and feel somewhat aggrieved that my frugality and self reliance(never claimed any sort of benefit) is now being rewarded with a (possible) kick in the teeth as regards my basic state pension

cyclonebri1

zygurat789 wrote: »

I suggest you go back and read my post and the one to which it replied and then you may understand what I was saying. Your comments are totally irrelevant to my point.
Can you not claim DLA?

No I don't understand what you were saying, and yes I do claim DLA. But I am commenting on what you said in the post I quoted. Don't try to back track me please. You obviousley have pious, pompousn self opinionated tendancies, you are wellcome to them.:o:o:o

I stand by my views of you.

cyclonebri1

artha wrote: »

cyclonebri1 wrote: »

Agree. Just because people are being kept alive longer through improvements in medical treatments it does not necessarily mean that physical capability is improving for many people. A friend of mine is a GP and they openly admit that they just patch people up to keep them going for longer and longer but don't improve general health.




I have also done that and feel somewhat aggrieved that my frugality and self reliance(never claimed any sort of benefit) is now being rewarded with a (possible) kick in the teeth as regards my basic state pension

A fiend of the family is now an ex GP, he and my wife were on the same board of school govenors. I was in his surgery when he was 59 and I was 53.

"Brian, as soon as you can get out of there do so" was his advice. He retired at 60, and he was the head of practise:A:A:A:A

zygurat789

cyclonebri1 wrote: »

No I don't understand what you were saying, and yes I do claim DLA. But I am commenting on what you said in the post I quoted. Don't try to back track me please. You obviousley have pious, pompousn self opinionated tendancies, you are wellcome to them.:o:o:o

I stand by my views of you.

Then read it again with an open mind.

Stargazer57

artha wrote: »

cyclonebri1 wrote: »

A friend of mine is a GP and they openly admit that they just patch people up to keep them going for longer and longer but don't improve general health.

All the data I have seen suggests that healthy life expectancy is increasing at much the same rate (plus or minus a month or two) as life expectancy itself.

artha wrote: »

cyclonebri1 wrote: »

I have also done that and feel somewhat aggrieved that my frugality and self reliance(never claimed any sort of benefit) is now being rewarded with a (possible) kick in the teeth as regards my basic state pension

If you work out the value of the basic state pension (in terms of the amount of money you would need to buy an equivalent annuity) the amount you would need to buy an earnings-linked pension from age 66 in 2016 will be significantly more than you would have needed to buy the bsp ever before.

So you haven't been kicked in the teeth, you have been given a free gift, but you seem determined to complain about it.

artha

If you work out the value of the basic state pension (in terms of the amount of money you would need to buy an equivalent annuity) the amount you would need to buy an earnings-linked pension from age 66 in 2016 will be significantly more than you would have needed to buy the bsp ever before.

So you haven't been kicked in the teeth, you have been given a free gift, but you seem determined to complain about it.

Since when did paying NI for 40 years make a basic state pension a free gift?
Earning £66000 a year and getting child benefit/tax credit is a free gift and a disgrace that should be stopped as soon as possible

cyclonebri1

Stargazer57 wrote: »

artha wrote: »

All the data I have seen suggests that healthy life expectancy is increasing at much the same rate (plus or minus a month or two) as life expectancy itself.

artha wrote: »

If you work out the value of the basic state pension (in terms of the amount of money you would need to buy an equivalent annuity) the amount you would need to buy an earnings-linked pension from age 66 in 2016 will be significantly more than you would have needed to buy the bsp ever before.

So you haven't been kicked in the teeth, you have been given a free gift, but you seem determined to complain about it.

If you want to have a pop at me, do me the honour of quoting me please, and not mixing it up with someone elses post, for fsssssssss sake

cyclonebri1

zygurat789 wrote: »

Then read it again with an open mind.

What part of the post that I quoted have I misunderstood or mis read you plank.

Some folks have an open mind unlike you, you just seem to have an open space :p:p