The aging population

System

From the point of view of this discussion, perhaps the relevant number is the life-expectancy at commencement of one's working life?

From an actuarial point of view it doesn't matter how many babies die in their first year, but at age 20 say starting work, the important figure would be how long that person could be expected to live, therefore how many years of pension contributions should be required to pay for a standard percentage of that life to be spent in retirement.
If we hadn't got fixed on a 40 year working life, but had kept it variable expressed as a fixed percentage, the problem would never have arisen.

Butterfly_Brain

Most of the people in their 60's and 70's started work at the age of 14 unless they were lucky enough to go to university, those in their 50's started work at 15 so excuse me if this makes me angry.:mad: :mad:

Most university students don't start work until they are 21/22/23/24 that means that older people have worked on average 6 to 8 years longer, plus the increase in pensionable age by 6 years if you are a woman in her 50's.
What's next? Put the elderly down when they come to the end of their useful working lives? :mad:

CLAPTON

Butterfly_Brain wrote: »

Most of the people in their 60's and 70's started work at the age of 14 unless they were lucky enough to go to university, those in their 50's started work at 15 so excuse me if this makes me angry.:mad: :mad:

Most university students don't start work until they are 21/22/23/24 that means that older people have worked on average 6 to 8 years longer, plus the increase in pensionable age by 6 years if you are a woman in her 50's.
What's next? Put the elderly down when they come to the end of their useful working lives? :mad:

no-one in their 60s started work legally at 14; the school leaving age became 15 wef 1947 and then raised to 16 wef 1972

which means that only the over 78s started work at 14.

irenee

michaels wrote: »

So why on earth would you have paid in to a 'pension fund' rather than just saving normally?

Because these were COMPULSORY pension contributions - we had no choice if we wished to be employed

Most employer-based pension funds were until a particular Government changed things - funny that they are contemplating changing things back again :whistle:

Oldernotwiser

Clifford_Pope wrote: »

From the point of view of this discussion, perhaps the relevant number is the life-expectancy at commencement of one's working life?

From an actuarial point of view it doesn't matter how many babies die in their first year, but at age 20 say starting work, the important figure would be how long that person could be expected to live, therefore how many years of pension contributions should be required to pay for a standard percentage of that life to be spent in retirement.
If we hadn't got fixed on a 40 year working life, but had kept it variable expressed as a fixed percentage, the problem would never have arisen.

Doesn't this rather miss the poit that many of today's pensioners started work at 14 or 15 and had to work for 50 years before being able to claim their pension?

gauly

Butterfly_Brain wrote: »

Most of the people in their 60's and 70's started work at the age of 14 unless they were lucky enough to go to university, those in their 50's started work at 15 so excuse me if this makes me angry.:mad: :mad:

Most university students don't start work until they are 21/22/23/24 that means that older people have worked on average 6 to 8 years longer, plus the increase in pensionable age by 6 years if you are a woman in her 50's.
What's next? Put the elderly down when they come to the end of their useful working lives? :mad:

People in their 20s and 30s go to university because they have to - well paying jobs for unskilled workers are few and far between nowadays even though many people would prefer not to study for so long. We worked too from 14! Going to university is work (and most people do a part time job on top, plus a full time job in the holidays). I don't particularly like the argument that people who work in paid jobs rather than working unpaid in education should have more right to a pension.

Also, even people leaving school at 14/15/16 will not have paid anywhere near as much into the pension system as they get out unless they were extremely well paid. It's clear mathematically that paying for the pensioners 40 years ago (who were smaller in number and also didn't live anywhere near as long), is way cheaper than the amount of money that would need to be saved to pay for a much larger and longer lived number of current pensioners.

The way the pension system is set up is exactly the same as a pyramid scheme with those who get in early receiving much more out than they put in. An apparently successful pyramid scheme depends on getting ever increasing numbers in at the bottom and it is debatable how long we can continue to do that.

Not really much point in getting angry about it, most people in their 50s, 60s and 70s will be getting more than their money's worth out of pensions.

ukcarper

irenee wrote: »

Because these were COMPULSORY pension contributions - we had no choice if we wished to be employed

Most employer-based pension funds were until a particular Government changed things - funny that they are contemplating changing things back again :whistle:

I’m surprised because I’ve had pension contributions taken from my salary since 1970 and tax was calculated on what was left after pension had been taken..

blueboy43

ultrawomble wrote: »

That may be so, but it will be restricted to a small minority of lucky individuals who actually managed to get to 65 given that average life expectancy for a person born in 1840 was about 40 years, and a 65 year average wasn't reached until the mind 1940s.

Look, walk round any old graveyard in England and look at the headstones.

Infant mortality in 1840 would have been about 20-25%.

For arguments sake I'll use 25%.

That means if 4 people were born and one died at birth, the other 3 would have to live to 53 years, to get a life expectancy of 40 years (159 years divided by 4 people).

Trust me, you would have to go way, way back in history, before 40 would be considered old.

treliac

ninky wrote: »

not necessarily. it may seem a nightmare to some of us because it is so different to our reality. the thought of living forever is scary if you assume everyone else continues to die but assuming it is the norm around you then you are more likely to develop pity for earlier human generations who were not so fortunate.

Can't quite see it like that ninky. In such a 'reality' we would either have to stop bringing new life into the world or start falling off the edge of it. Without renewal and new energy the world would go stale.

irenee

ukcarper wrote: »

I’m surprised because I’ve had pension contributions taken from my salary since 1970 and tax was calculated on what was left after pension had been taken..

We both had been paying towards pension funds for a substantial number of years prior to the 1970s !!!!