MSE News: Pension age rise bought forward

atush

Gracchus_Babeuf wrote: »

If you look at it purely from a statistical viewpoint then yes - it makes sense. But from a social and political point of view it does not make sense at all. Many people on modest incomes of say, £25k a year or less, cannot afford to build up sufficiently high private pensions to give them decent standards of living in old age. So what is an insignificant change for high earners makes a lot of difference for the worse off. And what is being ignored is that the UK pays a lower state pension than almost any other European nation - this is a disgrace. I would accept a higher state pension age only if the pension was to be increased substantially.

Other european countries do pay more and at an earier age. But like Greece it is bankrupting them and they now have downgraded ratings and have to pay higher interest. They need to raise their age of retirement as well.

Gracchus_Babeuf

gadgetmind wrote: »

If that's the case, why does most pension provision (private and public sector) aim to provide people with an income of roughly 2/3rds their final salary?

Your proposals (as vague and unworkable as they are) seem designed to ensure that everyones income falls in retirement and that we all have a thoroughly miserable time.

Most people are no longer in final salary schemes. Only a tiny number of such schemes are still open to new members, and a lot have frozen benefits for existing members.

My proposals are designed to ensure that a minority receives less or no state pension to ensure that the majority are protected. The government's proposals ensure that everyone loses, by constantly increasing the pension age. What's more is that most employers have no desire to keep 65+ staff around when there are younger, fitter and more dyanmic people around. This will lead to many sixtysomethings having to sign on for JSA or sickness benefits and the government will save precious little money as a result.

Gracchus_Babeuf

atush wrote: »

Other european countries do pay more and at an earier age. But like Greece it is bankrupting them and they now have downgraded ratings and have to pay higher interest. They need to raise their age of retirement as well.

France and Germany are far from bankrupt, not to mention Netherlands, Belgium, Norway, etc.

gadgetmind

Gracchus_Babeuf wrote: »

those who can afford not to have a state pension do not have one

Who gets to choose who does/doesn't get a pension? You? And if it's clear that someone will be robbed of their pension, will they be allowed to opt out of paying NI?

what is better, to take a little money from a wealthy minority or force the majority to work longer?

How many of "the rich" do you intend to punish in this way? How much money will you potentially raise? How much of this potential gain do you think you'd actually manage to reap? Where is in the tax system would you be likely to lose if you went ahead with this?

We face very real and very serious problems, and simply lashing out at anyone who you regards as being "the rich" really will solve nothing.

Now, can we get back to the real issue?

The_Angry_Jock

Gracchus_Babeuf wrote: »

The government's proposals ensure that everyone loses,

Apart from the rich, who will continue to have something to light their cigars with.

gadgetmind

Gracchus_Babeuf wrote: »

Most people are no longer in final salary schemes.

I didn't say they were so you're attacking a straw man.

My proposals are designed to ensure that a minority receives less or no state pension

They will achieve that, but I question your motives because ...

to ensure that the majority are protected

Because it will not deliver this.

Gracchus_Babeuf

atush wrote: »

Here we go again, the M25 communist raises his head ;-)

I am very surprised that the pension age isn't scheduled to move up to age 7 as leading economists suggest that it should..

So be glad the move to 67 is only being pushed forwards instead of increased. I agree that perhaps more should be done to give people time to prepare and I get that you think that 20 years isn't enough time. To me, 5-10 years is enough time, and 2 years isn't.

Economists are not politicians. I am not disagreeing that pension payments need to be controlled more carefully, but there are other ways of doing this, and I don't see any option but to devote a bigger share of GDP towards the state pension, while introducing the limited means testing I outlined previously. In the long term this would deliver a more stable situation that would solve the problem for decades to come.

By the way, I am not a communist by any manner of means. Communism believes in no private ownership and I absolutely disagree with this. I believe in a mixed economy with adequate checks and controls to ensure that the capitalist system is not abused.

gadgetmind

atush wrote: »

Here we go again, the M25 communist raises his head ;-)

Oh, is Gracchus well known in these parts? My first encounter, I'm glad to say.

Gracchus_Babeuf

gadgetmind wrote: »

Who gets to choose who does/doesn't get a pension? You? And if it's clear that someone will be robbed of their pension, will they be allowed to opt out of paying NI?

How many of "the rich" do you intend to punish in this way? How much money will you potentially raise? How much of this potential gain do you think you'd actually manage to reap? Where is in the tax system would you be likely to lose if you went ahead with this?

We face very real and very serious problems, and simply lashing out at anyone who you regards as being "the rich" really will solve nothing.

Now, can we get back to the real issue?

All these questions could only be answered by a detailed study. I'm not saying these are 'set in stone' policies but areas worth looking into. What I'm trying to do is come up with alternatives to the government's unimaginative solution.
As for being 'robbed' this is nonsense. Of course they wouldn't be allowed to opt out of NI, why should they? If you have earnings they are NICable - simple as that.

gadgetmind

Gracchus_Babeuf wrote: »

I'm not saying these are 'set in stone' policies but areas worth looking into.

No, I really don't think they are, and I really don't think anyone will.

What I'm trying to do is come up with alternatives to the government's unimaginative solution.

So far you have failed.

As for being 'robbed' this is nonsense. Of course they wouldn't be allowed to opt out of NI, why should they? If you have earnings they are NICable - simple as that.

So, you intend to charge someone for a pension and then refuse to give it to them? Your morals may allow you to do that, mine don't.