We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
Debate House Prices
In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
The Forum now has a brand new text editor, adding a bunch of handy features to use when creating posts. Read more in our how-to guide
Current a level students won't get a pension till 77... Lets cut boomers pensions NOW
Comments
-
sabretoothtigger wrote: »
Didnt pensions start off with many dying before they ever got to 65. So 77 is probably par for the course with people now being very privileged, doesnt mean it can always be
Can you give me irrefutable evidence that life expectancy will continue to rise? I remember having the same argument about that silly house price graph, the one that he said "prices only ever go up" back in 2005.
Life expectancy is a lady far in excess of the state pension age, so why not raise the NPA NOW rather than delaying it to miss the big demographic bulge? The government could save a fortune at the same time and cause far less angst between generations.0 -
I've no objection to rising retirement age personally, but I still get the feeling that many employers are still less than keen to employ people into their 60s. We need a shift in attitude to employment for the elderly.
(unless you are a judge of course, where being old and possibly decrepit is seen as par for the course!)0 -
The irony is, you don't see there is no difference between someone who doesn't pay enough into the system and expects benefits and private healthcare levels of care, and someone who is a serial benefits claimant.
From someone who has always paid into the system far more than they will ever get out, I find I have a damned righ to complain that my taxes will be frittered away because the boomers didn't, and still don't have the gall to accept what is right for us all and not just ok for them
What good do you think all this B/S will do, other than allow you to let off steam ? The points made are facile and simplistic. Nothing remotely as radical as you promote is ever going to happen anytime soon. And anyway life is not fair --get over it.No-one would remember the Good Samaritan if he'd only had good intentions. He had money as well.
The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money.
Margaret Thatcher0 -
I've no objection to rising retirement age personally, but I still get the feeling that many employers are still less than keen to employ people into their 60s. We need a shift in attitude to employment for the elderly.
(unless you are a judge of course, where being old and possibly decrepit is seen as par for the course!)
That is a very good point. There are going to be many professions that are simply impossible for a 77 year old to do, unless they are super-fit and even then it could be risky. How will they fare?0 -
That is a very good point. There are going to be many professions that are simply impossible for a 77 year old to do, unless they are super-fit and even then it could be risky. How will they fare?
By then 77 will be the new 65.No-one would remember the Good Samaritan if he'd only had good intentions. He had money as well.
The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money.
Margaret Thatcher0 -
Another thread pitting the young against the old.:eek:
I've no objection to rising retirement age personally, but I still get the feeling that many employers are still less than keen to employ people into their 60s. We need a shift in attitude to employment for the elderly.
(unless you are a judge of course, where being old and possibly decrepit is seen as par for the course!)
Yes. My mother-in-law wanted to work still but she couldn't get anyone to hire her. My father-in-law still has his own business and they are both 70+.0 -
Can you give me irrefutable evidence that life expectancy will continue to rise? I remember having the same argument about that silly house price graph, the one that he said "prices only ever go up" back in 2005.
Life expectancy is a lady far in excess of the state pension age, so why not raise the NPA NOW rather than delaying it to miss the big demographic bulge? The government could save a fortune at the same time and cause far less angst between generations.
The article said the increase in pension age will be linked to life expectancy so if that doesn't rise the pension age won't.0 -
GeorgeHowell wrote: »By then 77 will be the new 65.
Will it?? And presumably 40 will be the new 25, 30 will be the new 15 and A-level students will be babes in arms.
They'll have to wait even longer for their pensions then! :rotfl:0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 354.6K Banking & Borrowing
- 254.5K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 455.5K Spending & Discounts
- 247.5K Work, Benefits & Business
- 604.4K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 178.6K Life & Family
- 262K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards