State pension age rise needed to balance books

treliac

marklv wrote: »

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.

Out of interest, why should it be any different for workers in the private sector?

neverdespairgirl

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.

As I recall, you didn't much feel like working at the tender age of 21 / 22, either.

bendix

marklv wrote: »

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

I like the idea of money being saved by making severe cuts to public sector jobs, particularly those in IT.

bendix

marklv wrote: »

I could not give a monkey's fart about what other people do - that's their business. I opted to go to university because I wanted to and yes, I did have a partial grant from the government. So what? And why the hell is that anybody else's business? I did it to further my education and career prospects, as in the 1980s a degree did actually matter. What do you mean by 'take money'? I didn't take money from anyone, you moron. My parents gave me a little help, then there was the grant.

I suggest you get a life instead of !!!!!ing about what other people do.

You're such an angry wee man, arent you mark. You rail against those who disagree with you, with the fury of a man frustrated by life.

What happened to you? Where did it all go wrong? Was it losing your job to immigrant in the private sector perhaps, or was it the terrible timing at which you switched to work in the public sector, not realising that within months your cherished public sector pension would come under the spotlight.

Never mind, old chum. I'm sure things will get better for you in due course.

IveSeenTheLight

Exocet wrote: »

are apparently shortcut keys to make the task even quicker, but I haven't mastered them.

Highlight Text
Press CTRL + C (to copy)
Press CTRL + V (to paste)

Other shortcuts you may like

CTRL-A = Select All
CTRL-B = Bold
CTRL-I = Italic
CTRL-F = Find
CTRL-G = goto (in word docs)
CTRL-H = Find and Replace (although opens history in internet explorer
CTRL-K = Insert Hyperlink
CTRL-O = Open
CTRL-P = Print
CTRL-N = Open New Window
CTRL-R = Refresh
CTRL-U = Underline
CTRL-X = Cut
CTRL-W = Close Window
CTRL-Z = Undo (go back one step and can be repeated)
CTRL-Y = Undo Undo (go forward one step and can be repeated)

IveSeenTheLight

marklv wrote: »

Why should people surrender their right to retire? 65 is old enough at which to retire.

It's not surrendering their right to retire.
They could retire at any age.
The point is that they would need to be able to support themselves for early retirement.
If you are not able to support yourself then the likelyhood is that you will have to wiat until you are older until you qualify for state funded retirement

Procrastinator333

marklv wrote: »

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.

The 25 years idea is just silly. So what, 25 years and a day and they are out on the street?

Cutting off the high earners in the public sector will not make a dent in the state pension shortfall. And all it may do is mean higher salaries are required or people leave, maybe some accept it, but whichever way that is small fry compared to the numbers involved.

Have a look:

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/downloads/theme_labour/ASHE-2009/2009_all_employees.pdf

Table 1.7 a: Full time tab.

Only 10% of the population earn over £55k. Cutting off at £65k you will be lucky to get 5% of the population.

Someone on say £60k will have to have saved pretty hard all their life to get a £30k pension. Probably less than 5% of the population have a pension in excess of £30k. So where would you draw the means testing line?

Imo the pension age must rise, nothing else will cover the cost. The impact may be lessened by some means testing, but there isn't a lot of choice. Pensions need to be encouraged via better education in school and perhaps some sort of tax break for those with no access to a company pension scheme. Forced contributions should not be ruled out. I don't see how else the cost can be met in the future.



Anyway, I'm going to try and leave this as my final post on this thread. I think I have made my point (perhaps not too well) and others have commented I'm just repeating myself. I also think I may have caused offence to some and for that I apologise, it was not my intent.

marklv

bendix wrote: »

You're such an angry wee man, arent you mark. You rail against those who disagree with you, with the fury of a man frustrated by life.

What happened to you? Where did it all go wrong? Was it losing your job to immigrant in the private sector perhaps, or was it the terrible timing at which you switched to work in the public sector, not realising that within months your cherished public sector pension would come under the spotlight.

Never mind, old chum. I'm sure things will get better for you in due course.

Not all of us were born with sterling silver spoons in our mouths, went to independent schools or had all the attractive females swoon over them at university. Some of us have had to struggle and fight, and what doesn't kill us makes us stronger. Never underestimate the anger of a quiet man.

I'm not specifically angry at you or others like you like Procrastinator, what does anger me is the utter selfishness that I see from your ilk and the lack of concern or warmth towards you fellow citizens. You would be happy to sell your country down the river in order to make a few more bucks - that's the impression you give me. Your ideology is fixated on the concept that life is all about making money and using that to obtain power over others. It saddens me.

marklv

Procrastinator333 wrote: »

The 25 years idea is just silly. So what, 25 years and a day and they are out on the street?

No it's not silly, because thereafter a means test would be introduced. I'm not saying it's a perfect concept, it's an idea that could be worked on and refined by the Treasury bean counters.

Procrastinator333 wrote: »

Cutting off the high earners in the public sector will not make a dent in the state pension shortfall. And all it may do is mean higher salaries are required or people leave, maybe some accept it, but whichever way that is small fry compared to the numbers involved.

Have a look:

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/downloads/theme_labour/ASHE-2009/2009_all_employees.pdf

Table 1.7 a: Full time tab.

Only 10% of the population earn over £55k. Cutting off at £65k you will be lucky to get 5% of the population.

Someone on say £60k will have to have saved pretty hard all their life to get a £30k pension. Probably less than 5% of the population have a pension in excess of £30k. So where would you draw the means testing line?

I disagree, because this method could be used in conjuction with others such as means testing and limited period pension payments.

Procrastinator333 wrote: »

Imo the pension age must rise, nothing else will cover the cost. The impact may be lessened by some means testing, but there isn't a lot of choice. Pensions need to be encouraged via better education in school and perhaps some sort of tax break for those with no access to a company pension scheme. Forced contributions should not be ruled out. I don't see how else the cost can be met in the future.

Anyway, I'm going to try and leave this as my final post on this thread. I think I have made my point (perhaps not too well) and others have commented I'm just repeating myself. I also think I may have caused offence to some and for that I apologise, it was not my intent.

Well, I disagree with you and I'm not going to keep repeating myself either. I have already outlined alternatives which you simply dismiss out of hand. I am open to more creative suggestions from other posters.

marklv

neverdespairgirl wrote: »

As I recall, you didn't much feel like working at the tender age of 21 / 22, either.

LOL!!! :rotfl:

I don't feel much like working now at age 43! Not the point, though, because now I really do have to work in order to support myself. At 18 I was still living with my parents, both of whom were still alive.