State pension age rise needed to balance books

marklv

ash28 wrote: »

If people have to work until their mid 70s (God forbid). We just need to raise the school leaving age to 30.....

What is cheaper paying JSA and other benefits to the young people who don't and won't have jobs or paying a state pension and other benefits to those over 65?

For those who think it's fine for people in their mid 70s to be forced to work need to take a trip to the US and have a look in the likes of Publix at the people who pack your bag for you - or at some of the many car park attendants in the theme parks in Orlando. They should be at home taking it easy. Perhaps packing shopping could be the job for all those who are deemed by employers as not being productive enough to carry on working.

I think forcing people to work until 75 will cause as many problems as sit solves tbh.

Will we end up with jobs that no one will do because they won't be to continue to be productive (I imagine employers will set up programs to route out those whose productivity starts to wane), jobs like roofers, bricklayers, plasterers, carpet layers, in fact a lot of the "trades".

I aslo agree people should make their own arrangements - the state pension or lack of it has no bearing on our retirement.

OH paid into his pension fund starting at 24 and I was 34 (part time jobs and kids stopped me starting any earlier) - we are both 55 and I have already given up paid work - OH will stop on the 1st October.

Forcing people to work into their 70s is madness. Sheer and utter madness. The reason that elderly people (or at least most of them) are living longer is because of the relatively easy lives that the they have led from 1945 to the present day. The welfare state and the NHS have largely benefitted them more than any other generation. It's the people aged under 55 who are now having to pay more to subsidise the elderly, and this is set to get worse. Anyone born after the late 1950s is going to have a hard time.

ILW

I get the impression that most people who are currently at school don't intend to get a job until they are in their twenties as they would rather doss about in higher education for about three years getting some Micky Mouse degree. That must be a great loss to the economy.

marklv

Procrastinator333 wrote: »

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.

My definition of a 'safety net' differs from yours. I'm not against capitalism, far from it, and I'm certainly no leftie, but I do believe that the free market needs to be controlled.

Procrastinator333 wrote: »

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

I'm not denying that there is a problem, but I disagree with your approach to resolving it.

Procrastinator333 wrote: »

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?

I don't know, but the differences between western European rates of taxation are not great.

Procrastinator333 wrote: »

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.

It's the responsibility of the state to provide the state pension of course, and the money has to be riased through general taxation. However, any tax increases can be mitigated through an element of means testing when assessing pension payouts.

Your point about the third world is facetious and irrelevant.

delta5

Procrastinator333 wrote: »

So many people just don't bother and would rather have £40 in their pocket to spend on fags or booze or some other cr*p today than have over a £100 for when they retire.

and anyone on a low wage could be much better off (quality of life wise) spending and enjoying their money during their working lives when they are fit and able to do so.

Spend and enjoy for 40 to 45 years or scrimp and save to have a bit put by for a few years retirement.

Save it and if you die before retiring you have lost the lot.

Save it and possibly end up by the time you reach just the current retirement age too infirm to undertake active holidays etc never mind the far higher holiday insurance rates you will have to pay.

Sight and hearing get worse as you get older so the difference you can notice between HD TV, fantastic audio systems and run of the mill stuff is much greater while you are younger.

Save and do not get income related benefits in retirement.

marklv

ILW wrote: »

I get the impression that most people who are currently at school don't intend to get a job until they are in their twenties as they would rather doss about in higher education for about three years getting some Micky Mouse degree. That must be a great loss to the economy.

Each to his own. I don't know about you but I certainly didn't feel like working at the tender age of 18.

ILW

marklv wrote: »

Each to his own. I don't know about you but I certainly didn't feel like working at the tender age of 18.

You were happy to take the money from those that did though. Hypocrite.

Procrastinator333

marklv wrote: »

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.

Sure some will not be able to work for medical reasons, that is why there is something called incapacity benefit.

marklv wrote: »

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.

An element of means testing would be fine. But even for the highest level of state pension, I just don't think the state should be giving anything beyond a basic level of support.

marklv wrote: »

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.

And there are millions who do !!!! it up the wall.

marklv wrote: »

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.

I would suggest you do the maths. The solution to every funding issue is not just to add another few % on to the top rate of tax. It simply is not a large enough tax base to make that much of a difference.

marklv wrote: »

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

Churchill also wanted to use chemical weopons on German civilians. He was far from always right. But on that quote I agree with him. It is possible to agree with some things and not all.

marklv wrote: »

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!

People are living longer healthier lives than they have done in the past. This may now be reversing again. But at present it is true. There is incapacity benefit if health issues become too much.

marklv wrote: »

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.

And you show your true personality. Within your world you believe in wealth redistribution from the top to your level. But you don't think your wealth shuold be passed to those with less than you. What a hypocrite.

Procrastinator333

delta5 wrote: »

and anyone on a low wage could be much better off (quality of life wise) spending and enjoying their money during their working lives when they are fit and able to do so.

Spend and enjoy for 40 to 45 years or scrimp and save to have a bit put by for a few years retirement.

Save it and if you die before retiring you have lost the lot.

Save it and possibly end up by the time you reach just the current retirement age too infirm to undertake active holidays etc never mind the far higher holiday insurance rates you will have to pay.

Sight and hearing get worse as you get older so the difference you can notice between HD TV, fantastic audio systems and run of the mill stuff is much greater while you are younger.

Save and do not get income related benefits in retirement.

Fair enough, if that is what they want to do. But they shouldn't expect a state pension to keep them in the manner to which they have become accustomed if they haven't bothered to save for it themselves.

Graham_Devon

I have no idea what you guys are talking about anymore.

All I will say is I need all the money I earn now, to live now, and to progress now, to allow me to live a half decent life before I reach retirement and I have absolutely no chance of progressing in life at that point.

Sure, I'd like to think I could whack £100 away each month, but then thats another £1200 each year I haven't got to get a house. And let's face it, £100 a month isn't nearly enough.

That's about the be all and end all for me.

Out of the 3 mates I'm still very much in touch with since school, only 1 has a pension. However, he was also bought a house. 3 of us have kids. 1 of us has a house on a mortgage. 2 are still renting.

Procrastinator333

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I have no idea what you guys are talking about anymore.

All I will say is I need all the money I earn now, to live now, and to progress now, to allow me to live a half decent life before I reach retirement and I have absolutely no chance of progressing in life at that point.

Sure, I'd like to think I could whack £100 away each month, but then thats another £1200 each year I haven't got to get a house. And let's face it, £100 a month isn't nearly enough.

That's about the be all and end all for me.

Out of the 3 mates I'm still very much in touch with since school, only 1 has a pension. However, he was also bought a house. 3 of us have kids. 1 of us has a house on a mortgage. 2 are still renting.

Does your employer offer a pension scheme?

Whate are the employer / employee rates?

I'm not asking to be difficult or confrontational. Many people just don't get understand what is on offer. And many also don't get how much even small contributions are actually worth because of a) tax, b) employer rates and c) salary sacrifice.

The longer you leave it, the more you end up having to put in. Ignoring the fact money doesn't have time to grow, if your employer has say a 4% employer for 3% employee scheme.

If you do that for 20 years, it costs you 2.4% per year out of net pay for 20 years.

If you wait 10 years to join that scheme, to end up with the same contributions you have to put in your 3% you missed, plus the 4% employer you missed. So 10% for 10 years. Which in net pay terms is then 8%.

So for 20 years you can pay 2.4% net pay. Or for 10 years you can pay 8% out of net pay.

And now it sounds like you are falling in to the category of Oh well, it is too late so forget it.