Derek Hatton Speaks

ILW

shortchanged wrote: »

Well if that's the case there's no point in living. We only live once and to spend all your life working yourself to death isn't particularly appealing.

Does this mean that society as we know it has failed?

It's all a matter of choices.

If one decided to put 50% of their income into a pension or some sort of savings scheme from the day they started working, there is a pretty good chance that a comfortable retirement at 55 would be viable. Most chose not to.

Bear in mond that with current life expectency, most will spend more years not working than working.

shortchanged_2

ILW wrote: »

It's all a matter of choices.

If one decided to put 50% of their income into a pension or some sort of savings scheme from the day they started working, there is a pretty good chance that a comfortable retirement at 55 would be viable. Most chose not to.

Bear in mond that with current life expectency, most will spend more years not working than working.

I would never argue for retirement at 55 ILW. But I do think people being expected to work to 70 - 75 is just a step (probably zimmer frame aided) too far.

Wookster

shortchanged wrote: »

Well if that's the case there's no point in living. We only live once and to spend all your life working yourself to death isn't particularly appealing.

Does this mean that society as we know it has failed?

I think you're missing the point.

You might think you have paid for a pension but the reality is you've paid a government who have not really done any maths/ planning or actuarial valuations to support what a fair price for that pension actually is.

They have taken your money and spent it on other things, together with a whole packet of money they don't have, spurred on by people (like you and much of the rest of the UK) who expect all these things for free and won't tolerate spending cuts.

Then you wander why there's nothing left in the larder.

Generali

StevieJ wrote: »

'If everyone smoked and drank a lot we probably wouldn't have to mess about with the retirement age, catch 22 or a case for regionalised retirement age, after all the annuity providers make allowances.

In theory it's a great idea, in practice I suspect it's too difficult politically to 'reward people for [drinking/smoking/eating Maccas/being working class]'.

Personally I reckon us Spurs fans should get an extra pension for all the suffering down the years.

Road_Hog

FTBFun wrote: »

Utter rubbish. There is no way Ed Miliband is going to win an election.

They chose the wrong brother.

RedEd has got that sort of look, the lights are on but no one's home.

RenovationMan

ILW wrote: »

It's all a matter of choices.

If one decided to put 50% of their income into a pension or some sort of savings scheme from the day they started working, there is a pretty good chance that a comfortable retirement at 55 would be viable. Most chose not to.

Bear in mond that with current life expectency, most will spend more years not working than working.

Just making this same point to Rochdale on another thread.

It seems that people like the idea of retiring early but don't want the financial sacrifices to make it happen. Well, unless it involves in other people making those financial sacrifices for them, like the taxpayer.

shortchanged_2

So what's your solution Wookster?

ILW

shortchanged wrote: »

I would never argue for retirement at 55 ILW. But I do think people being expected to work to 70 - 75 is just a step (probably zimmer frame aided) too far.

I sort of agree, but how would you suggest paying for 25 plus years of retirement?

When the 65 state pension age was originally set, the average life exptancy was 67.

kabayiri

Generali wrote: »

You've earned it, the problem is paying for it. Even Deggsy can see that.

The problem is wider. It's about resetting expectations of what people expect from retirement, and what people will actually get in retirement.

We need an open honest debate, free of this public-private bickering you always see.

Nobody trusts anything anyone in power says on pensions now.

Generali

shortchanged wrote: »

I would never argue for retirement at 55 ILW. But I do think people being expected to work to 70 - 75 is just a step (probably zimmer frame aided) too far.

Unfortunately you and everyone else have been lied to. You've been told you can work for 35-40 years and then retire for 20-40 years. (IIRC life expectancy at 60 is about over 25 years for a woman, over 20 for a man). Add to that the period when, as a child, we don't work that means that in a life of perhaps 80 years we will be living largely off the state for the majority of the time, even if we remain employed for most of the time from 22 (leaving uni) to 60.

Wookster wrote: »

I think you're missing the point.

You might think you have paid for a pension but the reality is you've paid a government who have not really done any maths/ planning or actuarial valuations to support what a fair price for that pension actually is.

They have taken your money and spent it on other things, together with a whole packet of money they don't have....

The morality of it is completely immaterial. The fact is that the money isn't there to pay the pensions which means they won't be paid.

Don't forget this is before we get started on the cost of health treatment/personal care/nursing care.