Retired people could work for pensions..

BobQ

PaulF81 wrote: »

. I still maintain for this reason, that OAPs are the biggest Benefits scammers going! not their fault but no-one should be able to rely on the state for their retirement, in the same way no one should be able to rely on the state during thir working years!

OAPs are not benefit scammers. Most have worked all of their lives and paid taxes and NI on the basis that successive Governments assured them that they would retire on a decent income. That these Governments reneged on the deal and instead has chosen to make OAPs subsist on incomes that are insufficient and need to be suppllemented by benefits is not their fault. You may find it acceptable for a Government to retrospectively renege on promises but I do not.

Those of us who have made our own arrangements for personal and occupational pensions are not relying on the state and to call us benefits scammers is grossly insulting.

Sure there are universal benefits that OAPs get but these are only necessary due to the low level of the state pension and the fact that its uneconomic to means test them. But as with other universal benefits (including those paid to younger people) these can be removed from those who do not need them through other measures like taxation and capping.

I have no objections if you want to impose different pension conditions on future generations and tell them that they will not be allowed to retire ever and that their state pension is in fact a benefit that can be withdrawn at the whim of politicians. (Although I find it deeply immoral that you think such a system is fine). But I do not agree its fair to impose it on those who have already earned their pensions.

Solution? Quite simple really. Stop spending thousands on life prolonging treatments (a recent trip to papworth saw 70% of its inpatients of OAP age). Give everything you need to assist comfort, but whilst we have a system that is prolonging the unproductive sector of our population, we will go bust. Those are the facts. They are unpleasant, but unless something drastic is done in terms of cost, we will go bust. The other option is to raise the OAP age for ALL to 75 with 5 years grace, pensioners are enjoying the same life expectancy that I can expect, so why should they get more years work free? If that includes free community work so be it. For those that already contribute, they wont have to do any more. for those that dont, they need to start. We are all in this together. allegedly.

The Government is already increasing the pension age and will no doubt do so again based on longevity. So I really do not see what the problem is. I can accept that you cannot allow the proportion of pensioners to grow beyond an acceptable limit but surely that is what the increasing retirememt age is about. What I find offensive about BIchard's views and yours is you both appear to think that beyond retirement age (whatever age that is) a pension is a benefit that you have to do things to receive.

What will eventually happen with such a policy is that people who can retire will just carry on working and get paid for it. Meanwhile they will take jobs away from the younger generation.

The first option sounds too cruel in my opinion. But you may live to see the day that enough people vote for a system in which people work till whatever age they can manage before being carted off to the gas chamber.

BobQ

PaulF81 wrote: »

The point is, despite how nice it would be to give everyone a decent pension, it just isnt possible without sacrificing the quality of life and more importantly the future prospects of earlier generations.

That, to me, is a completely unacceptable state of affairs.

And the evidence for this is what?

El-Jay

Regardless of all that has been said before, some are pensioners and wish tto live in reasonable comfort. The remainder hope to be pensioners and presumably also wish to live in reasonable comfort.

Which ever you are, consider your position before you impose restrictions on each other.

BobQ

PaulF81 wrote: »

as a 40% taxpayer with a private pension and not due to retire due to previous generations greed until probably 75.

How is it the fault of previous generations that you will have to work until you are 75?

The retirement age is progressively increasing for reasons that you appear to agree is necessary. Those under 35 can certainly expect to work that long and live a couple of decades beyond it. Are you blaming previous generations to yours for increasing longevity through medical advances?

All generations have some of their number who are greedy but what this is not the reason that the retirement age has increased. You clearly earn enough to pay into a pension its your choice what you invest but you will have much longer than previous generations to build up your pension fund. So what are you really complaining about?

givememoney

I must say I am not as clever with statistics as other on here, but looking at the pie chart at the top of the page, it appears that pensions equal 1/3 and everything 2/3rds approx. so in my book they cost more.

I retired recently, I bought up a family and when they were old enough went out to work part time, my husband who has been retired three years worked a physically hard job all his life up to the age of 65. As it is we have to now live on less than we were earning so to suggest we have to work for our pension in old age I find totally disgusting.

I can think of others who should be working before pensioners for their benefits e.g. all long term unemployed and benefit cheats.

What more do they want out of us, we don't have the benefit of good looks and in lots of cases good health to get us by anymore.

PaulF81

BobQ wrote: »

And the evidence for this is what?

erm, the stats on expenditure that show that pensioners never paid in enough to cover the current nhs and dwp pensions bill we currently have due to their demographic, never mind all the other services and infrastructure they enjoyed during their lifetimes?

The retirement age is progressively increasing for reasons that you appear to agree is necessary. Those under 35 can certainly expect to work that long and live a couple of decades beyond it. Are you blaming previous generations to yours for increasing longevity through medical advances?

in which case, raise the pension age for all, not just those years away from the pension age. i think 5 years grandather rights would be plenty to allow transition.

PaulF81

givememoney wrote: »

I must say I am not as clever with statistics as other on here, but looking at the pie chart at the top of the page, it appears that pensions equal 1/3 and everything 2/3rds approx. so in my book they cost more.

I retired recently, I bought up a family and when they were old enough went out to work part time, my husband who has been retired three years worked a physically hard job all his life up to the age of 65. As it is we have to now live on less than we were earning so to suggest we have to work for our pension in old age I find totally disgusting.

I can think of others who should be working before pensioners for their benefits e.g. all long term unemployed and benefit cheats.

What more do they want out of us, we don't have the benefit of good looks and in lots of cases good health to get us by anymore.

more palliative care and less whining when NICE say "we cant afford it" would be a good start. and how about pensionsers due to retire in the next year or so have to either continue work or do community based work to recieve the basic state pension would be step 2.

the fact that pensions is the single biggest benfit, multiple times other forms of benefit, says a lot.

Loughton_Monkey

givememoney wrote: »

.....I retired recently, I bought up a family and when they were old enough went out to work part time, my husband who has been retired three years worked a physically hard job all his life up to the age of 65. As it is we have to now live on less than we were earning so to suggest we have to work for our pension in old age I find totally disgusting.......

Why do you find this "disgusting"?

Did you wait until you retired to learn that a state pension is in the order of £7K a year (depending upon SERPS)?

I'll let you into a secret. Only 2 things can apply:

1. You have always earned about £7K. In this case, you will not have to live on less than you were earning.

2. You earned more than £7K, but spent every penny of it until you got to 65, and then realised that state pension is less than your salary.

It is fairly obvious to anyone, I would have thought, that the only way of maintaining spending (note: not earnings) after retirement is to spend less than you earn by the 'correct' amount.

It is generally percieved that the 'correct' amount is in the order of 20% to 25%

Even those on cast-iron, gold-plated, rolls-royce pensions throughout the whole of their working life get 'only' 66.7% of their final salary. With state pension, unless they earned less than around £21K then even their earnings would reduce in retirement.

So how on earth did you expect the state to guarantee your earnings after retirement if you didn't save anything (or nowhere near the required amount)?

BobQ

PaulF81 wrote: »

erm, the stats on expenditure that show that pensioners never paid in enough to cover the current nhs and dwp pensions bill we currently have due to their demographic, never mind all the other services and infrastructure they enjoyed during their lifetimes?

The assertion that OAPs have not paid their fair share is bogus and you have given no evidence that actually proves what you say. All generations pay what they are asked to pay and rely on governments to use the money wisely. Those currently retired also had to pay off the debts arising from WWII.

While I do not accept your assertions, even if true, you could equally argue that many of those people left school at 16 and have paid more than their fair share towards the higher education that the younger generation almost take for granted.

in which case, raise the pension age for all, not just those years away from the pension age. i think 5 years grandather rights would be plenty to allow transition.

Its hardly fair that those with 10 years to retire are suddenly asked to work another 10 years on top when they have paid NI (most of them since they were 18). How would you feel when you are 65 to be told you should work until 85? Differently I suggest!

PaulF81

No different than being told you will work till 75 when you are 32.