Pension Age Going Up and Strikes Public Sector

lilac_lady

With youth unemplyment so high the Government has picked a funny time to keep older people working.

dasherman

Gracchus_Babeuf wrote: »

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.

You could always stop relying on the state and make sure your retirement pot is big enough to pack up work earlier!

Ladywriter1968

Gracchus_Babeuf wrote: »

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.

I was born in 1968 and husband 1965. So we in same boat as you.

Ladywriter1968

What is also important is that someone 65 years old upwards is not always in full health and cant work. Plus would an employer want to employ someone past this age. I say it does not matter what age you are if you can do your job well you should be there, but I am just thinking about from employers point of view really. I will be honest to say my Mother died in her 50's she was very ill. My Dad is now 81 years old but in a care facility as he has dementia, heart disease and many other problems. My Sister In laws company stated she had to retire at a certain age. But she could not get her pension until the following year though to do with her birthday and age I think, But companies policy was set at a certain age for retirement. So that year she have to live off her savings basically.

It could be in the company contract that person must retire at 65 regardless of what government say. So if they cant get their pension until they are 67, what do they live on those two years. Just going by my sister in laws previous company.

I do feel though that if they keep rising the pension age that there could be a lot of older people dying before they even get their pension. or no disrespect here to older people, but my Dad started to get dementia I believe 10 years before hand and some times it can go further back, what if a person working in a company past 65 starts to get dementia, its a very hard illness to spot at first, depending on where that person works it could be chaos.

A company I worked at when I left College years back now, I worked with this other lady, or girl then, there was two bosses. One boss accused her of taking the money from the drawer but it turned out his colleague had taken the money and had forgotten he had taken it, because he was getting dementia and once turned up to work in his slippers, and stuff like that. But she was that upset that she walked out of the company.

I know an 85 year old lady that can do dancing and she is fit. Good for her I say, but unfortunately not everyone is this healthy and fit when they get past a certain age. When my Dad was in his 60's he had numerous heart attacks, mini strokes, started to forget stuff. Imagine if he was working for a bank say. or any place really involving money or emergency services. He was actually a long distance truck driver in his younger days, but just imagine him working past 65 years old, early stages of dementia in a 40 tonne truck. Previous heart problems etc. Just a thought.

If people want to work past 65 as their choice then its up to them. Some get bored when retired, but for people to be forced to do it. Or maybe the case of work until you drop. I mean how higher is it going to go in years to come, 70 maybe, or even higher then that as the years go on. Maybe they should put it up to 100 and then they wont have to worry about anyone getting any pension. Only the odd few that make it past 100.

sandsy

Ladywriter1968 wrote: »

It could be in the company contract that person must retire at 65 regardless of what government say.

This is now unlawful.

Ladywriter1968 wrote: »

Only the odd few that make it past 100.

Around a quarter of 16yos will see their 100th birthday. Rising to nearly a third of babies born this year.

kidmugsy

sandsy wrote: »

This is now unlawful.



Around a quarter of 16yos will see their 100th birthday. Rising to nearly a third of babies born this year.

Not if the problem of antibiotic-resistant bacteria goes unsolved.

Kew2u

To strike or not to strike....That is one heck of a question which brings to the fore many other questions.
We're told to save for our retirement, great, providing we earn enough to do that! and that is really the crux of the matter. Not everyone gets the chance to earn a decent wage. Is the guy who unblocks the drains not worth a decent income and pension? Where would we be without him? My first weekly wage was £3-10shillings (50p). I was 43 years old before I hit the £100 a week mark. Yes, costs were lower but there was never money left over for holidays, nights out, a car a new suit a computer etc. Savings and bank accounts were not the norm for most workers. So saving towards a pension was out of the question.
While I would support action for a better deal, I would be more supportive if 'action' first covered the basic needs of people who are destined to retire on the pittance of a State pension. Starting with the lowest paid and working up the income ladder has got to be a more acceptable proposition.
The public sector workers are united through their single paymaster, but heaven help us all if the private sector ever manage to galvanise themselves into united industial action. We can talk about the disgraceful and greedy fat cats in many cases justifiably, but there are many more people on the bread line that are seldom mentioned.
I don't consider that the strikers are greedy in their demands at all, we all wish for a decent affordable lifestyle, but I'd prefer to see the less well off in the pension stakes being brought up to a decent level first. The pot is only so big, 'Who should, at this moment in time dip into the pot?' We all have to share rising prices, schools, civil rights etc; Why not a fairer deal for those less well of and a fairer share of the pension pot?
Last thought...while we all accept %'s as the norm...how about we all pay for our 'loaves of bread' as a % of our income? Nah, that would never do, if we did that we would all break even!

Aberdeenangarse

Gracchus_Babeuf wrote: »

My advice: move abroad and start a new life there.

My advice to you is hurry up

gadgetmind

Ladywriter1968 wrote: »

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.

Is it really your intention to rely 100% on state pension?

Kew2u

gadgetmind wrote: »

Is it really your intention to rely 100% on state pension?

You claim to give advice, gadget, so as well as asking your question, how about a offering a few pension savings options to those people without the money to do it?