joolzred wrote: »
When state pensions were introduced, they were meant to be a small cushion to meet life's necessities for the average 7 years before one met the grim reaper. A man retiring in 1946 at the age of 65 had a general expectancy of living until he was 71-73. State pensions were not meant to pay for cars, holidays and other so-called necessary stuff we have today (so says my ex nan-in-law who remembers them being introduced)
Fast forward 60 years and the same situation isn't occurring. A man of 65 today generally will have 20+ years to look forward to. People are generally healthier at 65 than they used to be thanks to pollution control, cleaner jobs, drop in smoking rates and better medical care and screening.
People chose to have smaller families from the 60's onwards. You can't have it both ways - there are now more over 60's than children in this country. Do people of, or nearing, retirement age want crippling levels of taxes levied on a smaller workforce to pay for their pension at 65, or could they work a year or two more before claiming their state pension? Could they take a lower pension and retire at 65 or take a slightly higher one and claim it later?
The fact is that people have to face the figures, and the demographics and perhaps the baby-boomer generation will have to make a few sacrifices for the sake of their following generations - just as their parents and grandparents did for them!
chihuahuabear wrote: »
I agree with Ivader, the government will not force people to work who are not capable of doing so. At the moment many people continue to work beyond the retirement age, and not solely for financial reasons.
uk1 wrote: »
The current discussion is about men retiring at age 66 from 2016. As yiour father would have retired in September 2015 under both current rules and under the current ideas being floated it is highly unlikely these proposals will effect him.
When the ideas are floated is is also fairly likely that there will be a short term phasing of retirement dates and that it will not simply be an additional year for everyone. Politically any other proposal is unlikely to be supported.
He seems to have little to worry about.
jamesd wrote: »
artha, for changes like that it's good to provide the greatest possible amount of notice. The currently planned changes for men and women were announced in parliaments well before they have any effect. This one has less notice but still enough to be better than doing it within a parliament.
jamesd wrote: »
artha, it could but it's not likely. It's the right thing to be doing in principle.
Share your suggestions!
'Pret Perks' will offer free rewards
40+ tips to slash the cost of buying online