State pension age to rise to 66 for men from 2016

Running_Horse

Leaving aside economic inequality between the sexes for a moment, let us consider inequality of life expectancy. A large part of this must have been down to the kind of jobs men tended to do. In previous generations they would have retired at 65 after a lifetime of manual labour, and been dead with three or four years. There needs to be a much more flexible approach to the retirement age in the future.

ceridwen

Running_Horse wrote: »

Leaving aside economic inequality between the sexes for a moment, let us consider inequality of life expectancy. A large part of this must have been down to the kind of jobs men tended to do. In previous generations they would have retired at 65 after a lifetime of manual labour, and been dead with three or four years. There needs to be a much more flexible approach to the retirement age in the future.

HOW? Wouldnt that tend to lead to arguments along the lines of "You've had a physically easier job than me - so you can get stuck at work for x number of years longer than me".

I could foresee all sorts of problems with that - as the instant rebuttal to that would be "You were the one who chose to do a manual job - so dont expect me to spend longer at work because of YOUR choice"....

I see no way round this that would be fair to all - and make due allowance for different peoples different life choices. The retirement age has to remain the same regardless of what type of job anyone chose to do back at age 16/18/21 or 22. We were all very different people at that sort of age to what we will be by the time we reach retirement age and many people, in hindsight, would make very different life choices. We can't be penalised or rewarded because of someone ELSE'S lifechoice of over 30/40/etc years ago...

i8change

Originally Posted by ceridwen
Would you like to be in the position that many middle-aged women are in - ie that they have been brought up to do "traditional female jobs" and that is precisely what they ARE doing? (ie earning less money than men).

Yes, I paid the mortgage off at 36, the wife went to Uni at 40 (kids were getting older) finished and got a good job at the BBC. I do 18 hours (clerical work) part-time and sort the house. Typical househusband type.

No envy, will probably retire this year at 50 and the wife loves her job.

Wife had to work hard to get the job though, would n't have time to waste on nearly 7000 posts on a forum like this.

You must have the sort of lifestyle my mothers generation had if you have that much time on your hands.

Unless you are a typical twisted feminist type with no other half to keep you company. :eek:

marklv

Running_Horse wrote: »

Leaving aside economic inequality between the sexes for a moment, let us consider inequality of life expectancy. A large part of this must have been down to the kind of jobs men tended to do. In previous generations they would have retired at 65 after a lifetime of manual labour, and been dead with three or four years. There needs to be a much more flexible approach to the retirement age in the future.

I'm all in favour of flexibility but Britain already has the lowest state pension of any Western European country. Consequently there is no need to increase the retirement age any more rapidly than the earlier plan put forward by the last Labour government.

marklv

Masomnia wrote: »

Presumably by 'this bunch of thieves' you mean any incumbent government. Labour were of course increasing the retirement age to 66, the Tories are just bringing it forward.

Is it any great surprise? People living longer and longer, paying in less and taking out more.

I'm planning on there being no state pension at all when I retire.

Labour are as guilty as the Tories in this, but the Tories are more extreme in their aims.

I accept that people are living longer but as out national state pension is already the lowest in the Western world I see no reason why we need to push the retirement age so high. I could understand it if the state pension was £200 a week, but £97 a week? Give over!!

marklv

i8change wrote: »

Yes, I paid the mortgage off at 36, the wife went to Uni at 40 (kids were getting older) finished and got a good job at the BBC. I do 18 hours (clerical work) part-time and sort the house. Typical househusband type.

No envy, will probably retire this year at 50 and the wife loves her job.

Wife had to work hard to get the job though, would n't have time to waste on nearly 7000 posts on a forum like this.

You must have the sort of lifestyle my mothers generation had if you have that much time on your hands.

Unless you are a typical twisted feminist type with no other half to keep you company. :eek:

Sounds to me that you started work at 14 and got married at 16!! :rotfl:

I didn't get married until 36 and bought my first house at 38.

marklv

lostinrates wrote: »

That's why we are hedging our bets. DH and I plan to provide for ourselves through his pension, but paying into state for mine. I think its pretty unlikely too.....at least in a non - means tested capacity.

Means testing the state pension is what I have been advocating all along. Keep the damn state pension at 65 but withdraw it from the doctors, senior public sector managers and various other highly paid specialists who will receive £30k+ a year in employee pensions. Put a taper on the state pension and slowly withdraw it once the employee gets over £30k in employment pension.

i8change

The pensions commission said ours were the "least generous in the developed world."

German pensions extreemly generous but put back to 68 to afford.
Italian can be taken from 58 if paid enough years in, both sexes.
French more generous, put back to 62 (both sexes) in 2018, they are out on the streets:-
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1289308/While-Britons-face-working-70--France-grinds-halt-strikers-protest-retiring-62.html

Back in the 80's most women stayed at home (whilst kids young) and one wage paid for two pensioners. Now most women have to work and two wages pay for two pensions.

Continentals live longer than us and always have. They get more because they won't accept any !!!!!!.

Unlike "soft johnny English" who alway just take it (poll tax excepted.)

marklv

i8change wrote: »

The pensions commission said ours were the "least generous in the developed world."

German pensions extreemly generous but put back to 68 to afford.
Italian can be taken from 58 if paid enough years in, both sexes.
French more generous, put back to 62 (both sexes) in 2018, they are out on the streets:-
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1289308/While-Britons-face-working-70--France-grinds-halt-strikers-protest-retiring-62.html

Back in the 80's most women stayed at home (whilst kids young) and one wage paid for two pensioners. Now most women have to work and two wages pay for two pensions.

Continentals live longer than us and always have. They get more because they won't accept any !!!!!!.

Unlike "soft johnny English" who alway just take it (poll tax excepted.)

Well, in the UK people are too apathetic. We get kicked in the teeth repeatedly by governments of left and right and just accept it like morons. The other difference is that in France and other countries there is a tradition of a 'social contract' between state and citizen, whereas in Britain there is no such tradition, as people are only subjects of HM and not citizens in the full sense of the word.

Maybe it's a shame that Boney didn't invade this country.

i8change

Originally Posted by marklv
Sounds to me that you started work at 14 and got married at 16!! :rotfl:

I didn't get married until 36 and bought my first house at 38.

Voluntary redundancy (BT) is sometimes quite lucrative

Hoping HMRC will give me the boot this year. They are starting "Voluntary Exit" schemes so people can vacate "Strategic" posts leaving them to be filled by staff in "surplus" posts.

Not as lucrative this time but it will do me. Paid a lot of tax when with BT so glad to get some back.