State pension age rise needed to balance books

Sapphire

Procrastinator333 wrote: »

Why should I be paying for the pension of these 2 just because 1 doesn't want to get work as he is going on a jaunt to Japan and the other is burning through his money for a "worthwhile" cause. I would like to work for a charity and give up my time. But if I do that I can't look after my family and provide security both now and in the future. Give money or time to charity, but don't then expect to be compensated by the state for it later in life.



Fair comments, and why should we pay the pension of such people? They want to take it easy, fair enough, but don't ask me to pay for it.

When did I suggest you should pay the pension of 'such people', currently in the 18-24 year age group? Don't try and twist things. :mad:

My response regarding this age group was in response to your apparent 'concern' about the fact that many people in this age bracket do not have jobs.

marklv

Procrastinator333 wrote: »

Sigh.

Trident is a one off cost. How is that going to support a state pension for the next 100 years?

I'm not convinced by the need for a trident replacement, but to suggest it is used to fund pensions is :rotfl:

I was just using that as an example of where money can be saved.

olly300

Procrastinator333 wrote: »

Fair comments, and why should we pay the pension of such people? They want to take it easy, fair enough, but don't ask me to pay for it.

You won't be unless you are younger than them.

Your state pension is paid for by the people currently working when you are retired.

The crisis is due to:
1. the decrease in the ratio of workers supporting pensioners
2. the increase in number of pensioners
3. the increase in longevity of pensioners

That's why governments have to be careful how they promise changing the scheme as pensioners vote and they are becoming a larger and larger demographic.

Procrastinator333

Sapphire wrote: »

When did I suggest you should pay the pension of 'such people', currently in the 18-24 year age group? Don't try and twist things. :mad:

My response regarding this age group was in response to your apparent 'concern' about the fact that many people in this age bracket do not have jobs.

The comments were not aimed at yourself, rather at them, I will try to be clearer in future.

It is their choice to do those things. Up to them. But when they get older they shouldn't get a state pension at 65. If they save up between starting work and 65, good for them. But that is more difficult with every year they wait. Their choice, but they should pay for that choice.

marklv

Procrastinator333 wrote: »

Then save up for your own pension. Why should others pay for you?

A pension isn't like education - you obviosuly can't pay for that up front. It isn't like medical care - leave that to insurance and you end up with discrimination against high risks. It isn't like jobseekers allowance - might come without warning.

You start work at 20 and unless you have the attention span of a Goldfish you know that in 40-50 years it would be nice not to have to work again. So do something about it, you have a lifetime of work to sort it out and save for it.

Ah, at least it all becomes clear. The political agenda is now open for all to see. You obviously believe in an ultra-free-market agenda where the rich simply get richer and the poor get poorer. Thank you for enlightening us. The question 'why should others pay for you' sums it all up.

Of course I'm not asking others to pay for me, but it's blatantly obvious that a pension of £95 a week is hardly a massive amount, isn't it? Explain to me how France, Germany and Italy can pay higher state pensions than us? Are those countries phenomenally richer than the UK? Of course not. OK, so in that case why all the fuss about state pension payments in the UK? Answer: because it's all part of an ideological agenda that the Tory party (part of it, not even all of it) is pushing to make life better for the richer 1% of the population. That's all there is to it, and you are simply a mouthpiece for this ideology.

Where your reasoning fails is that for most people aged in their early 20s life will not be an uninterrupted 40-45 years of work, regular pay rises, and then retirement, as if by magic. I would say only a minority will follow this pattern. For most there will redundancies, dismissals, long term pay freezes, career breaks and lots of other life events that will break the pattern. And especially for females, having children will necessarily entail a break in work, which could last several years. This is why a state pension, and a good one, is absolutely essential.

Procrastinator333

olly300 wrote: »

You won't be unless you are younger than them.

Your state pension is paid for by the people currently working when you are retired.

True, should really have phrased it as why should the taxpayer pay for them.

olly300 wrote: »

The crisis is due to:
1. the decrease in the ratio of workers supporting pensioners
2. the increase in number of pensioners
3. the increase in longevity of pensioners

That's why governments have to be careful how they promise changing the scheme as pensioners vote and they are becoming a larger and larger demographic.

Absolutely. There is a very big difference between what should be done and what will be politaclly acceptable. It does annoy me slighlty that basically what we are saying is that because one group is larger (or large enough), they can influence the decision over whether to take money from others and give it to themselves.

marklv

olly300 wrote: »

You won't be unless you are younger than them.

Your state pension is paid for by the people currently working when you are retired.

The crisis is due to:
1. the decrease in the ratio of workers supporting pensioners
2. the increase in number of pensioners
3. the increase in longevity of pensioners

That's why governments have to be careful how they promise changing the scheme as pensioners vote and they are becoming a larger and larger demographic.

Well, in this case there is a good argument not for constantly delaying the state pension, which hurts everyone regardless of income, but making it means tested, so that the rich pensioners do not receive it.

marklv

olly300 wrote: »

In general the baby boomer generation who are retiring now will live longer but due to obesity in children it will start decreasing again.

You are reading too many sensationalist tabloid articles. Obesity in children doesn't necessarily translate to lower life expectancy in adults. In general, obesity is only a serious health issue once there are accompanying conditions such as diabetes - Churchill was obese, a heavy smoker and a heavy drinker, and died at 90.

olly300 wrote: »

BTW neither of my parents had a long retirement in fact one didn't even get to retire before dying. And neither did their siblings so I know I'm f***ed.

Join the club.

olly300 wrote: »

The state will dictate that both employers and employees pay into pensions. They do do in other European countries.

The issue is what is the state going to do with the provision for the larger number of temporary and freelance workers as a result? When employment costs go up companies start using more temps and freelancers.

Your last point clarifies why compulsory pension contributions will not solve the problem on its own. There is also the fact that most people do not have a smooth 40-45 years of uninterrupted work before retirement, as I explained in a previous post.

Procrastinator333

marklv wrote: »

Ah, at least it all becomes clear. The political agenda is now open for all to see. You obviously believe in an ultra-free-market agenda where the rich simply get richer and the poor get poorer. Thank you for enlightening us. The question 'why should others pay for you' sums it all up.

I believe the state should provide various things to all. Education of a good standard. Quality Healthcare. Basic safety net. Protection.

I don't believe the state should do much more beyond that. Yes I do think free markets and capitalism are a good thing.

marklv wrote: »

Of course I'm not asking others to pay for me, but it's blatantly obvious that a pension of £95 a week is hardly a massive amount, isn't it? Explain to me how France, Germany and Italy can pay higher state pensions than us? Are those countries phenomenally richer than the UK? Of course not.

Please point me in the direction of any empirical studies that show pensions are not a crisis waiting to happen.

marklv wrote: »

OK, so in that case why all the fuss about state pension payments in the UK? Answer: because it's all part of an ideological agenda that the Tory party (part of it, not even all of it) is pushing to make life better for the richer 1% of the population. That's all there is to it, and you are simply a mouthpiece for this ideology.

Germany, Italy and France - I do not know any detail of their circumstances, so can't really comment. But a) how much longer will that last (especially for Italy and France) b) do they have the same population issues c) what level of taxation do they pay relative to us?

marklv wrote: »

Where your reasoning fails is that for most people aged in their early 20s life will not be an uninterrupted 40-45 years of work, regular pay rises, and then retirement, as if by magic. I would say only a minority will follow this pattern. For most there will redundancies, dismissals, long term pay freezes, career breaks and lots of other life events that will break the pattern. And especially for females, having children will necessarily entail a break in work, which could last several years. This is why a state pension, and a good one, is absolutely essential.

All the more reason for them to start young. You talk about a "good" state pension. So who pays for it?

Also, nicely avoided on the question as to whether we should redistribute some of your wealth to the third world.

marklv

Procrastinator333 wrote: »

AS shown with that link, 50-64 have the lowest unemployment rate of any age category. They just keep doing what they are doing. Or they save up if they want to retire early.

OK, but how many people above 65 are currently in employment? You are making assumptions without considering the fact that health issues rise significantly once you are over 55 years of age, rise faster the older you are. Would many employers be willing to keep on elderly workers who are unable to perform fully due to health problems? I doubt it.

Procrastinator333 wrote: »

The only way you can look at this sort of thing is via averages. People are on average living longer. End of.

OK, but there are other ways of using the pot more sensibly, eg. means testing the state pension rather than simply delaying payout until shortly before death.

Procrastinator333 wrote: »

The states job is whatever the electorate wants it to be. I am uncomfortable with something like forced pension contributions, but then I'm more uncomfortable paying for the pension of someone who has pis*ed their money up the wall instead.

You sound like a Daily Mail or Sun journalist - yawn. I remind you that there are millions who have no money to pi** up any walls.

Procrastinator333 wrote: »

Not if those NI contributions don't cover the cost of that pension. The government can't afford it with the curent tax receipts. Raise taxes or raise the retirment age. Not a lot of other choices. I opt for an increased retirement age.

And I opt for higher taxes, and means testing. With the latter taxes would not have to be raised dramatically. In any case, I would only riase taxes for the richest few percentages of the population, so the majority would be unaffected.


:rotfl:

Procrastinator333 wrote: »

I believe Winston Churchill offered the best description of what I believe the state should do:

"A net below which none shall fall, but all are free to rise."

In terms of the pension I think people should work longer because they are lving longer. I think the state pension they get should provide a roof, warmth, clothes, food and maybe a TV. After that it is up to you or I to save for anything else we want.

I always hate it when people quote Churchill, as if he was the fountain of all knowledge.

You state that people are living longer, but the fact is that they are ageing at the same rate. This means that there are more very elderly and infirm people, it does not mean that a modern 65 year old is the same biological age as a 55 year old from 1950. Therefore your argument is nonsense. Would you expect the state pension to be payable at 85 some day? Your whole way of thinking is utterly ridiculous. Employers have already campaigned against the elimination of the compulsory age 65 retirement age, and now the prospect of workplaces being turned into care homes!! Do you honestly believe that this is the recipe to give Britain a dynamic and productive workforce? Nonsense!

Procrastinator333 wrote: »

You are such an advocate of wealth redistribution from the rich to the poor when we talk about it in terms of the UK. If you are such an advocate, how about we start an $1 a day tax. By which I mean a tax on everyone in the UK as we all earn massively more than the vast majority of the world's population. We can then redistribute this to every person who only eanrs a $1 a day. But let me guess, it only works if the money is being given to you?

What goes on outside the UK is not my concern nor should it be the concern of the UK government that is elected by UK citizens and taxpayers. The government of this country is sovereign over this country, not the whole world. We have already helped the third world by paying millions out in aid and by opening our doors to millions of immigrants. Enough is enough.