MSE News: Pension age rise 'a bitter blow'

Gracchus_Babeuf

roddydogs wrote: »

Arnt you forgetting that the Basic OAP will rise to £155 by 2015?

Yes, and I also remember that the government is jettisoning S2P.

dodger1

Gracchus_Babeuf wrote: »

Absolutely disgraceful from this awful government, but not unexpected. This country devotes less of its GDP to state pensions than any other civilised country on the planet, and we are still asked to retire later. In a normal country there would be violent revolt, but we are a brain dead bunch.

And that's one of the main reasons many EU countries are in a far worse financial situation than we are and are having to make far bigger cuts than we are.

Gracchus_Babeuf

dodger1 wrote: »

And that's one of the main reasons many EU countries are in a far worse financial situation than we are and are having to make far bigger cuts than we are.

No, this is a very simplistic view. Other countries also have far more generous unemployment benefits, tax credits, etc. Pensions can be quite comfortably managed by ensuring that both government and citizens share the costs.

treliac

MSE_Guy wrote: »

This is the discussion thread for the following MSE News Story:

"Government plans to bring forward an increase in the state pension age have been met with dismay by elderly groups ..."

Read the full story:
Pension age rise 'a bitter blow'

52 hardly qualifies as elderly !!

It's going to be a tough end to many a working life. Who will be wanting to give jobs to people in their 60s? It's hard enough to get a new job in your 50s and even 40s for some.

How will the gap be financed for those not qualifying for state pension but seen as being past it by lots of employers?

Gracchus_Babeuf

treliac wrote: »

52 hardly qualifies as elderly !!

It's going to be a tough end to many a working life. Who will be wanting to give jobs to people in their 60s? It's hard enough to get a new job in your 50s and even 40s for some.

How will the gap be financed for those not qualifying for state pension but seen as being past it by lots of employers?

Nobody will offer jobs to people in their 60s - that's a fact. Many will be forced to take out their private pensions early even when they can't afford it and only a minority people will have big enough inheritances to live on for years.

antrobus

Gracchus_Babeuf wrote: »

Absolutely disgraceful from this awful government, but not unexpected. This country devotes less of its GDP to state pensions than any other civilised country on the planet, and we are still asked to retire later. In a normal country there would be violent revolt, but we are a brain dead bunch.

Well I don't know about the 'civilised' bit, but the UK certainly devotes less of it's GDP to state pensions that some of its European neighbours. This article here - http://www.economist.com/node/387618 - from The Economist has a neat little table showing some comparative figures with the likes of Denmark etc. However the fact that this article dates back to 2000 tells you one very important thing; that this present government is no more disgraceful or awful than the last one.

Besides, it used to be the case that this did not matter that much, because we had big well funded pension schemes that weren't part of the state. Unfortunately That Man Brown effed that up good and proper, so now we are similarly effed no matter which way we turn.

bigheadxx

MacMickster wrote: »

Another way of looking at this is that the government has decided to take a £5000+ windfall from every man, woman and child in the country currently aged under 52. This tax wil be collected between the ages of 66 and 67.

They could put a penny on the rate of national insurance and collect this throughout people's working lives without the need to raise the retirement age, but this government dogmatically does not believe in raising taxes.

The truth is that this HAS been known about all through their working lives but they have never been prepared to pay for it. We have known about the baby boomers and we knew exactly when they were all born and exactly when the figure peaks and falls.

The BB generation, even with these changes will still collectively take out 130% more than they actually put in. It is their own fault that they will pay in their later years what they could have paid throughout their working lives.

antrobus

Gracchus_Babeuf wrote: »

....
Tough! Pensions are important and have to be paid for. I would rather pay higher NI in return for the certainty of a state pension ...

Ah, but a state pension isn't 'certain'. It's dependent on the goodwill and agreement of a government that will be elected by an electorate at some distant point in the future, which will be operating in financial circumstances that can today only be guessed at. Just because a government goes around promising to pay this and that at some point in future, it doesn't mean to say that they'll actually do so when the time comes. Just think Greece.

ViolaLass

jno wrote: »

To find out your approximate retirement date, 67 years after you were born (no quotes required around italicised values):

=EDATE(DATE(your birth year,your birth month,your birth day no),12*67)

By the time I've put all that into Excel, couldn't I just add 67 to my birth year?

chris_m

ViolaLass wrote: »

By the time I've put all that into Excel, couldn't I just add 67 to my birth year?

PSML - everyone loves a smart alec :T:T:T

Have you worked with project managers too ?