Retired people could work for pensions..

PaulF81

GeorgeHowell wrote: »

Twaddle.

You don't target reductions in government expenditure based on what is the biggest item. You target it on what society's priorities are. There may be a few loony-tunes on the fringes of political sanity who want to see state pensions severely reduced or done away with. But there is no doubt that society as a whole would identify many other areas of spending as less beneficial and ripe for cuts. That's why all the major political parties are agreed that state pensions should increase in real terms.

by cutting the largest item, you can achieve similar savings with a much smaller % reduction in that item compared to others.

PaulF81

ukcarper wrote: »

Not only that but the millions if not billions they have tied up in property will have been passed down to younger generation.

or mew'ed and downsized to death during the past 5 years to pay for back to back saga holidays and comsumerist junk, paid for in extortionate mortgages by younger generations.

ash28

PaulF81 wrote: »

i dont really care. In 20 years roles will be reversed and it will be patently evident what this country has been left with to pay for real term rises in nhs pension and gold plated pensions for boomers.

i love the double standards about how its abhorrent to suggest a rise in pension age for the boomers, but the minute it is suggested for those say in their fiftys, its all fine and dandy.

your figures on current life expectancy are wrong. my sums were much closer to the mark.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-19410699

How old do you think the boomers are - the eldest reached 65 last year (so have only just started to retire) and youngest are 47 - boomers encompass everyone in their 50s and late 40s.

I'm in my mid 50s and I'm a boomer and my pension age has risen to 66. I'm not moaning and never have - I did have a bit of whinge when it went from 60 to 65 but not from 65 to 66.

ukcarper

PaulF81 wrote: »

or mew'ed and downsized to death during the past 5 years to pay for back to back saga holidays and comsumerist junk, paid for in extortionate mortgages by younger generations.

That's the same old rubbish that is always trotted out but in reality the vast majority don't do this.

PaulF81

ash28 wrote: »

How old do you think the boomers are - the eldest reached 65 last year (so have only just started to retire) and youngest are 47 - boomers encompass everyone in their 50s and late 40s.

I'm in my mid 50s and I'm a boomer and my pension age has risen to 66. I'm not moaning and never have - I did have a bit of whinge when it went from 60 to 65 but not from 65 to 66.

out of interest, where do you think the state retirement age will be realistically. for someone in their 30s? do you honestly believe its not going to go up further with the foreward forecast in growth and the structural deficit?
do you hand on heart expect longetivity to remain on its current track?

JanCee

PaulF81 wrote: »

i love the double standards about how its abhorrent to suggest a rise in pension age for the boomers, but the minute it is suggested for those say in their fiftys, its all fine and dandy.

.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-19410699

The majority of the boomers are in their fifties.

Frogletina

Angry_Bear wrote: »

I'm not sure what you mean here (although I freely admit I'm not really in touch with the details of the current state pension), is it possible to only get 60% of the state pension?

60% is what a woman can get if she doesn't have enough qualifying years for a full pension but her husband has. I believe it is possible to get a much lower pension that this if you have only a few qualifying years and are single.

The minimum guranteed pension is £142.70 for a single person and £217.90 for a couple. So it doesn't seem to matter to anyone who doesn't also have a private pension what percentage of a full state pension they get as whatever they do get is topped up to the minimum anyway.

There have been discussions about a flat rate pension for all pensioners (presumably at the minimum guaranteed level) from 2015, but whether this will come in has not yet been decided. If it does come in, there are no plans for it to be backdated therefore it would appear that current pensioners will lose out from the increase (at least those who currently are not entitled to pension credit because of other pensions)

PaulF81

JanCee wrote: »

The majority of the boomers are in their fifties.

soz, meant thirties. long crew day again today...

ash28

PaulF81 wrote: »

out of interest, where do you think the state retirement age will be realistically. for someone in their 30s? do you honestly believe its not going to go up further with the foreward forecast in growth and the structural deficit?
do you hand on heart expect longetivity to remain on its current track?

I have no idea where the state pension age will be for someone in their 30s - currently the under 32s is 68 and the over 32s is 67 - this affects all of my children - 30, 32 and 33. And my grandson (11) who we are bring up and the rest of my grandchildren.

I certainly wouldn't want to think anyone would be forced to work beyond 67/8. For younger people retirement probably seems so far away that's it's not worth thinking about.

I don't expect life expectancy to remain on it's current track, making assumptions on projections so far out has a fair chance of being incorrect.

The fiscal deficit should start to shrink when we come out of recession and the income tax receipts increase and the benefits bill starts to fall. (I know technically we're supposed to be out of recession).

If that doesn't happen when we come out of recession then we are either spending too much or not paying enough in income tax.

So I guess there's a choice if that happens - cut spending or increase income tax.

Personally I think we should do something along the lines of Australian model for funding future pensions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superannuation_in_Australia

ash28

PaulF81 wrote: »

or mew'ed and downsized to death during the past 5 years to pay for back to back saga holidays and comsumerist junk, paid for in extortionate mortgages by younger generations.

If only............we upsized when we took early retirement - I knew we must have done something wrong.

Consumerist junk sounds intriguing - care to elaborate

And I wouldn't touch Saga Holidays with your bargepole let alone mine.