State pension age rise needed to balance books

Sapphire

marklv wrote: »

Not true for the old fashioned professions such as law and medicine. Indeed, old age is highly regarded in these areas as a sign of wisdom and experience in these areas.

It's the same in the academic world – some academics in their nineties are still very highly regarded in their fields due to their massive and often unique experience. My aunt is in her eighties and still giving many lectures – she loves it. There's certainly no sign of ageism there.

Ageism is a massive problem in IT, where any resistance to working long periods away from home is frowned upon.

Yes, ageism is also a massive problem in publishing, though when I started out in the profession there were quite a few people (mainly experienced editors) in it who were in their fifties and sixties. Now, though, it's very different – very corporate, with many unique small companies having being absorbed by deadening corporations, and a corresponding large drop in editorial standards.

(My comments in bold in both the above statements.)

marklv

Procrastinator333 wrote: »

Reading the posts, it appears I gave the impression I'm suggesting we should cut the pension or get rid of it. That is not what I'm suggesting. Simply that the age should rise. 75 is probably more sensible, but really the exact number would come from crunching the numbers.

75? You are absolutely bonkers! Lunacy. So what do people do between 60 and 75? Claim JSA? Work at B&Q three days a week? Even B&Q doesn't have millions of vacancies!!

You are talking from your anus.

Procrastinator333 wrote: »

The pension as it stands today gives a pretty basic level of support. That is fine, imo that is what the state should do, give a basic level of support to everyone. I don't think the value should either rise or fall, just the age at which it is given.

A question never answered - People live longer, why shouldn't they work longer? It just doesn't seem unreasonable?

It is simply not true to generalise and state that people are living longer. Some are and some are clearly not. My parents died in their mid 70s a few years ago, from heart disease and cancer. According to your rule they would hardly have received any pension at all.

Procrastinator333 wrote: »

Seperately to this I was criticising both the older generation and the younger generation for not doing enough to save for themselves. There are a few who really can't and I will comment on that in a minute, but the vast majority could save. There are also company schemes in place for the vast majority of employees. Again, not all, but most. Yet how many actually start a pension when they are young? Very few.

This is beside the point. It's not the job of the state to dictate to people what they should be doing with their money. Yes, it's a good idea to save, if you can afford to do so, but many cannot, at least not until much later in life. I didn't contribute to a pension until I was 29.

Procrastinator333 wrote: »

Again, the best example or sample size I can give is the company I work for. I see the pension schedules etc. 300 employees. A reasonably generous scheme. Yet only about 40% of people use the pension option. There are many many staff who could afford it, but chose to buy clothes, eat out, new phone, go on holiday etc. They would only need to cut back ever so slightly to make a huge difference to their pension. But they don't - and they are idiots.

People don't bother when they start, "Oh, it is so far away, what is the point". Then they get a bit older and get married, then have a kid, then get a house etc etc. They then only think about it maybe when they hit 40. By that time, a useful pension starts to become a mountain to climb.

What people do is none of your business nor the state's. It goes without saying that starting a pension is always a good idea, but you cannot dictate this to people. In any case, people pay a lot in NI contributions and reasonably expect a state pension at a reasonable age.

Procrastinator333 wrote: »

If you decline company contributions this year, you have to make them up yourself. So not only does the money have less time to grow, but you also have to pay in a greater proportion of it yourself.

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.

Pensions are not expensive if you just start young. Few do.

Again, valid point but not relevant to the state pension.

Procrastinator333 wrote: »

There are then a very small minority who just don't have a choice. The first group - as Pastures new illustrates with her example are those on extremely low incomes. Personally, I don't see why you would stay on such a low wage all your life. I would move, retrain, learn something new etc, but that is a different point. Those on extremely low incomes will be able to maintain their spending in to retirement. I tried that entitled to website and if I have used it correctly it told me a 65 year old with no savings, no income etc gets about £7,600. That is pretty much al tax free. That is just over £600 a month. You don't need the commute cost, so that left you with £757 expenses. A shortfall of £157 a month. Well, if you really have lived on min wage your whole life and not had any savings or winfalls then you will need to cut that rent and food back a bit. I think elsewhere you have commented that you have a large pot of money from a house sale. So rent would not be that high as you will probably buy, or you can draw on that to increase your monthly income.

When you retired PN, why could you not have worked for a few more years? You also say you have continued to work here and there, you have the pot of money, you get the state pension, so what is the problem?

Olly - I'm happy to be corrected if you have any stats for the country, but in my experience the vast majority of employers do. Also, I live in Surrey, so not a cheap are compared to the rest of the country.

You are just an arrogant, nasty git. Cut back on food? When you can already barely survive? Is this how you expect poorer people to live while the retired directors in Surrey live it up on £1.5 million pension funds? You really are beyond contempt.

marklv

Procrastinator333 wrote: »

Let me guess, we should maybe have a 70% tax rate for the top earners to pay for this.

Good idea. A 70% rate for those earning £200k a year plus and bringing the 50% rate down to the £100k-£200k a year band. I would also bring in higher rates of council tax for multi-millionaires living in mansions. Another good idea would be higher car parking charges for bigger cars, eg. 4X4s and such like.

Procrastinator333

Sapphire wrote: »

It's frankly a laughable statement to say that the state pension 'allows' people to take retirement. It barely covers essentials, and I certainly wouldn't want to try and exist on it.

Ok, so if they don't need it what is the problem with making them wait another 10 years?

The state pension on it's own does not allow people to retire. But most do end up with something of a private pension. It is often the state pension that will then tip them in to the relm of being able to afford to retire.

Sapphire wrote: »

The fact that 18 per cent of 18-24 year olds are unemployed is another matter. There are two people (males) in my family, both in this age range, one with a 'uni' degree the other not. The one with the degree is currently thinking of taking a £3,000 trip to Japan and is going on long bicycle rides with his friends, who are also of the same inclination. He is certainly not applying himself to finding full-time employment, though he does take on the odd freelance job. He lives at home and is supported by his parents. The other one inherited money when a parent died and is also not looking for work, but is involving himself in a 'worthwhile' cause.

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.

Sapphire wrote: »

When I left school (I didn't go to university or college), I did a variety of low-paid jobs until I found the niche that suited me, and progressed from there to a full-blown career in my profession. There was never any question of not working, taking 'gap' years, and so on. Work was really my university, and it was a fantastic experience and made me able to learn so much that has always been useful to me.

The problem is that today many people in the above age group have very high expectations – the fault of the education system and their parents. Few are prepared to start at the bottom in very low paid jobs and work their way up. A large proportion of students are also getting degrees in subjects that are not useful in the working world (media studies and the like). And many are also supported by their parents, instead of being hungry enough to go out and look for work and taking on low-paid jobs that may be 'boring' or too much like hard work.

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.

Procrastinator333

marklv wrote: »

I suggest they cut Trident instead. No social impact from this cut, that's for sure. I'm not suggesting cuts, I'm suggesting raising more revenue through direct or indirect taxation.

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:

Procrastinator333

marklv wrote: »

Why should people surrender their right to retire? 65 is old enough at which to retire. Even in France the state retirement age has only gone up to 62 from 60 because the French people (unlike us limp wristed British) are willing to fight for their rights. I mean who on earth wants to retire at an age when you can't actually do much outside the house? The state pension is becoming less of a pension than a form of disability benefit for the very old - I don't believe this is the purpose of a pension.

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.

ash28

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.

Procrastinator333

marklv wrote: »

75? You are absolutely bonkers! Lunacy. So what do people do between 60 and 75? Claim JSA? Work at B&Q three days a week? Even B&Q doesn't have millions of vacancies!!

You are talking from your anus.

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.

marklv wrote: »

It is simply not true to generalise and state that people are living longer. Some are and some are clearly not. My parents died in their mid 70s a few years ago, from heart disease and cancer. According to your rule they would hardly have received any pension at all.

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

marklv wrote: »

This is beside the point. It's not the job of the state to dictate to people what they should be doing with their money. Yes, it's a good idea to save, if you can afford to do so, but many cannot, at least not until much later in life. I didn't contribute to a pension until I was 29.

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.

marklv wrote: »

What people do is none of your business nor the state's. It goes without saying that starting a pension is always a good idea, but you cannot dictate this to people. In any case, people pay a lot in NI contributions and reasonably expect a state pension at a reasonable age.

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.

marklv wrote: »

You are just an arrogant, nasty git. Cut back on food? When you can already barely survive? Is this how you expect poorer people to live while the retired directors in Surrey live it up on £1.5 million pension funds? You really are beyond contempt.

:rotfl:

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.

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?

olly300

marklv wrote: »

It is simply not true to generalise and state that people are living longer. Some are and some are clearly not. My parents died in their mid 70s a few years ago, from heart disease and cancer. According to your rule they would hardly have received any pension at all.

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

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.

marklv wrote: »

This is beside the point. It's not the job of the state to dictate to people what they should be doing with their money. Yes, it's a good idea to save, if you can afford to do so, but many cannot, at least not until much later in life. I didn't contribute to a pension until I was 29.

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.

olly300

Procrastinator333 wrote: »

Olly - I'm happy to be corrected if you have any stats for the country, but in my experience the vast majority of employers do. Also, I live in Surrey, so not a cheap are compared to the rest of the country.

There are no stats for the country simply because the large number of small businesses with less than 50 employees have no need to join business federations or organisations, and be counted. In fact I know people who run small businesses in different fields. (Most of them spend all their time moaning about their staff.)

PN experience mirrors mine probably because we have worked in the same industry, where many employers don't make an employer's contribute to the pension scheme they have set up.

By law they have to set one up but there is currently no legal requirement to contribute to one, hence they can legal get away with saying they have a pension scheme as a benefit of employment but only when you read the small print do they say they don't contribute.

Larger employers tend to be the most generous with their pension schemes by actually making contributions.