State pension age rise needed to balance books

ILW

I never realised that all those people working on minimum wage were doing it because they wanted to, and had turned down high paying jobs in the city. You learn something new every day.

Procrastinator333

Sapphire wrote: »

As I said in my previous post on this subject, your statement is irrelevant to what I was talking about. Who cares what you think about their pension arrangements? They are not a subject of the discussion on this thread.

You put them up as an example, maybe not in relation to pensions, but you put them up as an example. It is sn pen forum and if I wish to comment on their pension arrangements then it is a subject of discussion. Nobody has to bother replying.

Are you just grumpy because your initial point about 50-65 year olds not being able to get a job was shown to be rather wrong by the ONS?

marklv

Procrastinator333 wrote: »

Look how well their economy is working out.

For the last few decades the Irish economy has been doing a damn side better than ours.

Procrastinator333 wrote: »

That is not that if there is no money to pay for it! You are like a small child screaming I want I want to a mother who only has money money to buy the basics.

There is no money left. The country is up to it's neck in debt. Spending must be slashed just to stop adding to the pile, let alone to actually reduce it.

Money, like everything else, has to be managed. Savings can be made from many different areas, but hitting poor pensioners is a low blow. You have to consider the social consequences of what you do - the trouble is that you and those like you don't care about the social consequences.

Procrastinator333 wrote: »

It is not the pension system so much as the principle. Your favoured policy is to take from the rich to support you and those around you. Yet you would not take from yourself to help those with less than you. How is that not hypocritical?

Yes, I take from the rich because the rich can afford to pay more. It's a simple mathematical equation. 60% of £1M is £600k while 60% of £20k is £12k - now, tell me, which is greater? Also, what difference to a rich person's life by being taxed at this rate rather than say, 30%? Not much I would say. He can still drive his Mercedes S class, play golf at his club, go on 5 star holidays four times a year, etc. But take away £12k from someone earning £20k and that person could struggle to pay the rent, phone bill and even buy basic groceries.

Your analogy with third poverty is stupid because there is no tax imposed by the government specifically to pay for this (thank God). People who want to give money as charity are free to do so. If I was earning £1M a year I would be perfectly content to pay my share of tax, even at a rate of 70%. £300k a year would be more than enough for me to have everything I could possibly want, so you are very wrong.

Graham_Devon

Procrastinator333 wrote: »

You pay 8% class 4 NI. Employees pay 11% NI. 3% saving. Is that not correct? And the next part is not a criticism, but you are able to offset a lot of expenses to save more tax (if you don't do this you should investigate).

Plus class 2.

There may be a slight saving, even with class 2 mixed in. But as you say, swings and roundabouts. I won't get paid for Bank Holiday Monday, lose a whole day, yet you probably will. Theres my 3% saving gone.

I'm trying to make the point that as with all things in life there is a choice. People chose to live in Devon even though there are lower salaries. They do that for the non monetary reasons. If I could work in Devon doing my current job or another for the same salary I would. But I can't so I live where the work is.

Would you define choose, as bought up here? I didn't move here out of choice, I was bought up here, as were so many others, as so many all over the country!!

Someone in many of those jobhs is probably close to min wage. They will pay little tax, but in most cases receive far more from the government than they put in. I don't mind that, I really don't. But as a net taker from the government, why shouldn't they wait a few more years to get their pension?

Well I haven't a clue how many will be taking benefits aswell. Completely depends on their circumstances.

Many people do have access and waste it. I think we are agreed they need a kick.

I don't disagree. My point throughout this thread though is my generation (or should I say, people of my age, 20's-30's in the 2000's) have had little choice. If they are just normal people, a pension is often way out of affordability, especially considering we are expected to either buy a house and have seen them tripple in the time we have been in jobs, or are expected to rent, and have seen rents explode in price. Just can't do it all. That's my point.

Everybody has access to a pension, just not the company contributions. You can still get the advantage of tax savings by setting up a SIPP. Perhaps there should be additional tax breaks for those who do not have access to a company scheme to offset the difference. But anything like this requires the person to contribute too.

Anyway, even if you believe my answers are wrong, the question remains. How should things change? They have to change, money and population demographics have seen to that. If raising the retirment age is wrong, by all means offer up another answer.

Personally the only change I can see working is for the essentials in life to reduce in price. People to stop speculating on them and increasing the price out of the realms of the average person.

The basics for me, and my mates of my age is very very simple. If houses had moved with inflation, I'd have a house by now, and be paying handsomly into a pension...unless I chose to pee all my money up a wall.

Houses did not move with inflation. Therefore they eat pretty much all of our income, whether renting or buying. Hence 2 are still renting, I've got half a house, and none (bar the one who got given stuff) have pensions....yet we are of the age where kids have arrived.

It's all messed up. Excess in housing and speculation has screwed us all. Young and older. Debt is far higher than it ever has been and has exploded over the last decade. Welfare bills have exploded over the last decade.

What really gets my goat, is the 50-60 year olds telling us to pay into a pension, buy a house, save a deposit, work longer, live in less and less space and then say "well, in our day, a video recorder was £400". (Gone off on a tangent now!)

Procrastinator333

ILW wrote: »

I never realised that all those people working on minimum wage were doing it because they wanted to, and had turned down high paying jobs in the city. You learn something new every day.

My comment was slightly flippant. Fair enough. But there is so much opportunity out there I just don't believe someone has no choice but to accept min wage for their entire life. Perhaps a very small minority. But not many.

If academia isn't your thing, take the vocational route. Move location, try another skill, another job. There are countless routes and opportunities.

Procrastinator333

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Would you define choose, as bought up here? I didn't move here out of choice, I was bought up here, as were so many others, as so many all over the country!!

In part. I grew up in the middle of a field (not literally). Wish I could have stayed there. I dislike London and the crappy tube. But if I want a decent salary it is where the jobs are.

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I don't disagree. My point throughout this thread though is my generation (or should I say, people of my age, 20's-30's in the 2000's) have had little choice. If they are just normal people, a pension is often way out of affordability, especially considering we are expected to either buy a house and have seen them tripple in the time we have been in jobs, or are expected to rent, and have seen rents explode in price. Just can't do it all. That's my point.

Perhaps it comes back to needing better educaiton in schools, but I really don't think people realise how little it costs to make a meaningful impact on your pension if you start when you begin earning. It only becomes a mountain when you leave it for 20 years.

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Personally the only change I can see working is for the essentials in life to reduce in price. People to stop speculating on them and increasing the price out of the realms of the average person.

The basics for me, and my mates of my age is very very simple. If houses had moved with inflation, I'd have a house by now, and be paying handsomly into a pension...unless I chose to pee all my money up a wall.

Houses did not move with inflation. Therefore they eat pretty much all of our income, whether renting or buying. Hence 2 are still renting, I've got half a house, and none (bar the one who got given stuff) have pensions....yet we are of the age where kids have arrived.

It's all messed up. Excess in housing and speculation has screwed us all. Young and older. Debt is far higher than it ever has been and has exploded over the last decade. Welfare bills have exploded over the last decade.

What really gets my goat, is the 50-60 year olds telling us to pay into a pension, buy a house, save a deposit, work longer, live in less and less space and then say "well, in our day, a video recorder was £400". (Gone off on a tangent now!)

I'm sorry, but there is no way the government can control the price of housing. Something still needs to be done. Raise the pension age, better financial education, combine it with a level of means testing and perhaps some tax breaks for those without access to a company pension scheme. If not that, then what? But something must be done.

I personally would advocate a serious relaxation of things like the green belt and planning laws. That would have an impact on prices. But I don't see it happening.

I'm in my 20's too. House prices do really grate at me too. It does seem nuts, but we are where we are. We are still infinately better off than 90% of the worlds population, so can't complain and should just get on and make the best of the hand we have been delt.

Graham_Devon

Procrastinator333 wrote: »

I'm sorry, but there is no way the government can control the price of housing.

Well I disagree entirely, the government can control pretty much anything it wants to if its within EU law and only effects our country.

That, afterall, is the sole reason we have, or had (dunno if it's gone yet) the FSA.

The government have played an active part in pumping up the prices over the last decade with many schemes passed, and many schemes created to keep people buying and keep HPI going.

Very recently an example is getting lenders to relax reposession rules in return of a QE favour. An active government participation in the housing market.

Procrastinator333

marklv wrote: »

Money, like everything else, has to be managed. Savings can be made from many different areas, but hitting poor pensioners is a low blow. You have to consider the social consequences of what you do - the trouble is that you and those like you don't care about the social consequences.

Or I just live in the real world. What would you cut then if not increasing the pension age? And it needs to be big.

marklv wrote: »

Yes, I take from the rich because the rich can afford to pay more. It's a simple mathematical equation. 60% of £1M is £600k while 60% of £20k is £12k - now, tell me, which is greater? Also, what difference to a rich person's life by being taxed at this rate rather than say, 30%? Not much I would say. He can still drive his Mercedes S class, play golf at his club, go on 5 star holidays four times a year, etc. But take away £12k from someone earning £20k and that person could struggle to pay the rent, phone bill and even buy basic groceries.

Yes the rich should pay more, and they do. The fact is there are many more on the lower incomes. I may try and look it up tomorrow, but my guess is it takes something like a 10% rise in the top rate to deliver the same tax as a 1% rise on the basic rate band. The rich can't pay for everything.

I'm not advocating raising the tax rate for those on £20k.

Raise the retirement age and means test it. Those earning £1m will not get any state pension and those that do receive it wil have to wait longer.

Anyway, goodnight all.

Procrastinator333

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Well I disagree entirely, the government can control pretty much anything it wants to if its within EU law and only effects our country.

That, afterall, is the sole reason we have, or had (dunno if it's gone yet) the FSA.

The government have played an active part in pumping up the prices over the last decade with many schemes passed, and many schemes created to keep people buying and keep HPI going.

Very recently an example is getting lenders to relax reposession rules in return of a QE favour. An active government participation in the housing market.

Never has a government been able to control the free market. At least not in the long term. That is just part of capitalism.

If you want lower prices get more houses built. It would be good to see a political party have that as a policy. It would be a big plus in where my vote is going too. But I don't see it. They won't do it for all the votes they would lose.

Right, I really am going this time! Laters.

marklv

Procrastinator333 wrote: »

Or I just live in the real world. What would you cut then if not increasing the pension age? And it needs to be big.

Well, for a start I would impose a limit on the pensionable pay for all public sector earners. I would suggest this to be pegged to an MP's salalry, say £65k, so that for instance, if a senior manager earns £120k then only the first £65k will be used for calculating his pension. Same for other high earners with public sector jobs such as doctors. This is just an example, there are other areas where spending could be cut, and this is already happening. Means testing the state pension would also considerably reduce the financial burden. Another option could be to allow people to take the state pension for a fixed period, eg. 25 years. So for example, you could take the pension at 60 and see it last until you are 85, then it would end. There are lots of ideas that can be tried other than simply increasing the age at which you can take the pension.