Pension Age Going Up and Strikes Public Sector

Ladywriter1968

Of course at my age now and husband, and because of the year we were born, we wont be able to draw our pension until we are 66/67 age. I already had a pension forecast as so did my husband, that's providing it will still exist then, since I heard of them making all benefits unison eventually.

I assume they just put it up so high in the end that they hope that people will drop before they can claim it. Thus then it not being paid out to that person that worked all their life.

There has been lots of strikes about the pension situation on the public sector yesterday with schools closed etc.

I wondered what people feel and thought about this, about the pensions being put up to a higher age and the general treatment of the working popularity now compared to some other countries with pensions etc? Plus do you think people have a right to strike to put their point across or do you think they are wasting their time as in the end nothing ever changes anyway?

Ilya_Ilyich

As a society we're transferring a higher share of wealth over time to those who are already wealthy. This leaves a smaller share for the workers. The vast majority of workers in the private sector have given away their wealth already in the name of 'helping the economy' and 'helping to create wealth for everyone' and so are fighting with the public-sector workers to determine how we allocate the ever-dwindling share of wealth that goes to those who do work.

If we accept that transferring wealth to the wealthy is a necessary and proper part of society then yes it's inevitable that life must become a lot tougher for the remainder (which of course constitutes the vast majority of individuals).

kidmugsy

It's a response to two things. (i) People are living much longer - blame prosperity, blame God, blame antibiotics, blame anti-smoking propaganda, blame whatever you like. (ii) The public finances are in ruins and there's no doubt about the blame - it was the Labour Party that did it.

System

At the end of the day I dont think there is a lot we can do about it.
I work in the NHS. I did not go on strike and wont in the future. One day strikes are pointless anyway.

I do not agree with what the government are doing, but do agree changes in the scheme need to be made. Otherwise we will be part of a scheme where existing members are on generous pensions and new starters are on much poorer pensions. To me this is no fairer than changing our scheme.

For me, the reason there is a lot of anger regarding this is that the government are not being open and honest. Before they take the axe to public sector pensions, they need to do so to their own pensions (which are public sector after all). They are far more generous 1/40th and 1/50th schemes than the offer on the table to the public sector.

If the government were to stand up and say all MPs will go onto the same scheme as other public sector workers, I would support this as it is a 'we are all in this together scenario'.

Unfortunately it is not.

There is a lot wrong with this country and public sector pensions are a very small issue in the grand scheme. Benefits are a huge problem area with lots of lazy individuals who never work a day in their life living off the working population. Our country gives millions in foreign aid and spends even more millions in wars we have no business fighting (more importantly costing lives). Im sure if a political party actually set their stall out to tackle these issues they would win by a landslide.

treliac

payvpac wrote: »

Im sure if a political party actually set their stall out to tackle these issues they would win by a landslide.

Trouble is, they all say one thing to attract voters but don't follow through when they get elected.

BobQ

Maybe the best option is to give everyone a pension of £100000 at 65 and invite them to enjoy their retirement for 5 years. On the fifth anniversary they can be humanely killed and rid society of the problems of looking after them

dunstonh

I assume they just put it up so high in the end that they hope that people will drop before they can claim it.

When the state pension was introduced, you were expected to live for around 2 years after. Now its more like 20. So, yes you are right in a roundabout way.

System

Life expectancy goes up so obviously pension age has to rise too.

It's silly to relate pensions to age anyway, and then to have to keep adjusting it. It should simply be specified as a certain % of average life expectancy, so that the average person has a fixed proportion of working/retired life.

Ilya_Ilyich

Life expectancy for those with physical jobs or who've grown up in poorer areas/families etc is significantly lower than for those with better working conditions and who're born wealthier. If pension age is a proportion of average life expectancy then we're ensuring short retirements for the poor/physical labourers and long retirements for the better-off and non-physical workers. Is that cool?

Gracchus_Babeuf

Ladywriter1968 wrote: »

I wondered what people feel and thought about this, about the pensions being put up to a higher age and the general treatment of the working popularity now compared to some other countries with pensions etc? Plus do you think people have a right to strike to put their point across or do you think they are wasting their time as in the end nothing ever changes anyway?

I was born in 1967 and my wife in 1970. How do we feel? Hopping mad, that's how we feel!! :mad:

What can we do, other than attempting to blow up parliament and murder the entire government and risk life imprisonment? Not a sausage. I don't even have a relative high up in the military who could start a coup - shame.

The trouble is that in this country we are not proper 'citizens' - we are merely 'subjects'. That means we have no genuine rights. The government can deprive us of our pensions, benefits, etc, without any legal challenge that can work. Other countries, like France, Germany, Holland, etc are different in the sense than not even right wing capitalist parties would dare to tinker with the state pension and benefits systems because they would simply not get away with it.

In this thread you will read the usual ridiculous nonsense about rising life expectancy etc as if this was all hot news. It isn't - it has been happening since the 1940s, when antibiotics became widely available and poverty started to fall. There is no reason why the state pension needs to be moved to 67 as the UK already has the lowest state pension in Europe! This is just the government tinkering in order to recoup money to reduce the deficit. The truth is that the deficit cannot reasonably be reduced without causing massive damage to the country, it can only be managed, and that is what the government should be aiming to do instead. But we have a government of capitalist fanatics who a string-pulled by big business and the City of London. These people would happily starve you, your children and your parents in order to have their way - I'm not joking.

My advice: move abroad and start a new life there. This country is falling into a pit of hell and it will stay there for a very long time.

Linton

Gracchus_Babeuf wrote: »

....
Other countries, like France, Germany, Holland, etc are different in the sense than not even right wing capitalist parties would dare to tinker with the state pension and benefits systems because they would simply not get away with it.
....

Err, France, Germany and Holland HAVE increased their state retiement pension age!