revert the pension age to 60/65

mumps

molerat wrote: »

I notice that the op failed to mention that to get the full sp at 60 a woman had to contribute for 39 years, to get it at 65 only 30 years contributions are needed.

The 2010 changes meant that a person could stop working earlier, from age 46, and still receive a full basic state pension at the appropriate time instead of generally working until at least 55 for women and 60 for men.

I think it is 30 years now but will be changing to 35 years with the new pension rules?

Just checked on gov website and the women who will retire at 65 will need 35 years contributions, it changes in 2016. Doesn't really alter anythng for me as I have nearly 44 years already and 5 years till state pension.

mumps

Clifford_Pope wrote: »

But has glossed over the unwelcome fact that he would now be 67.

I'd trade in all the good points for the chance to be 17 again !

I so agree, I can never understand people who say they wouldn't want to be young again. They must have a more miserable time than we did.

Dunroamin

mumps wrote: »

I so agree, I can never understand people who say they wouldn't want to be young again. They must have a more miserable time than we did.

27, yes - 17, no way!

mumps

Pollycat wrote: »

I agree with these 2 posts about Sunday working.

But why do you think it is OK for some people to do jobs that require Sunday or Christmas Day or whatever and not others? Can you say you would never go to a hospital on a Sunday, never be taken seriously ill at Christmas. If the power cables come down at the weekend do you expect them to get fixed. If you house catches fire on Christmas morning would you dial 999? If you are burlged on a Sunday do you say, "Oh no the poor policeman needs a day off I will call on Monday." and if those workers expect to be able to go shopping or to the cinema or swimming pool when they have a Sunday off occasionally why shouldn't they. If people don't want to work Sundays they need to look for a job where it isn't required.

I grew up with parents running their own business, Sunday was a busy day, my husband worked Sundays, two of my kids do jobs where they work Sundays. No big deal as far as I am concenred, I don't think me shopping on a Sunday is a problem, at my local supermarket there are lots of students working on a Sunday and also alot of the older staff seem to work Sundays. Maybe they don't see family on a Sunday and prefer to work.

Some people think Sunday trading is the end of life as we know it, I am more concerned that internet shopping is ruining the High St. We all have opinions.

mumps

Dunroamin wrote: »

27, yes - 17, no way!

Can I ask why, I genuinely never understand that. I loved being 17. Mind you I loved being 27, 37, 47 and 57 so I guess I am easily pleased.

mumps

Pollycat wrote: »

That's a good point.

Just goes to show that the OP's post was an ill-informed and poorly worded rant.

No, it is 30 years now and in 2016 it will be 35 years so women retiring at 65 when the changes reach that will need 35 years contributions. Some women in the change over between 2010 and 2016 have benefitted from the change to 30 years but not the women who will have to wait till 65 or close to it. I think women born in early 1954 will be the first to qualify for SRP at 65 but it could be late 1953, so they won't get pension until 2019 so will definitely need 35 years unless it changes again.

mumps

rpc wrote: »

What about the money that you will receive between age ~70 (when you were meant to die) and 89 (when you are likely to die [2010 based cohort life expectancy for a 60 year old efmale]). A lot more years have been added on the end of the state pension than are being chopped off the start.

If you promise promise promise with no fingers crossed to knock yourself off aged 70 then perhaps you can have your pension at 60.

None of the older generation ever seem to complain about living longer than they thought and us younger folk are just meant to quietly pay for the promises that your generation collectively made themselves. At the time, it seemed perfectly reasonable but things have changed.

My great grandparents lived into their 80s so I never intended to die at 70. Sorry to disappoint you.

Pollycat

Clifford_Pope wrote: »

But has glossed over the unwelcome fact that he would now be 67.

I'd trade in all the good points for the chance to be 17 again !

mumps wrote: »

I so agree, I can never understand people who say they wouldn't want to be young again. They must have a more miserable time than we did.

I had a great time when I was 17.
But then again I had a good job with equal pay, decent holiday allowance, Mon-Fri working etc etc.

I am pretty sure that if I were 17 again, I wouldn't have the same opportunity.

I just have the common sense to realise it rather than looking back with rose-tinted spectacles. :cool:

Pollycat

mumps wrote: »

But why do you think it is OK for some people to do jobs that require Sunday or Christmas Day or whatever and not others? Can you say you would never go to a hospital on a Sunday, never be taken seriously ill at Christmas. If the power cables come down at the weekend do you expect them to get fixed. If you house catches fire on Christmas morning would you dial 999? If you are burlged on a Sunday do you say, "Oh no the poor policeman needs a day off I will call on Monday." and if those workers expect to be able to go shopping or to the cinema or swimming pool when they have a Sunday off occasionally why shouldn't they. If people don't want to work Sundays they need to look for a job where it isn't required.

I grew up with parents running their own business, Sunday was a busy day, my husband worked Sundays, two of my kids do jobs where they work Sundays. No big deal as far as I am concenred, I don't think me shopping on a Sunday is a problem, at my local supermarket there are lots of students working on a Sunday and also alot of the older staff seem to work Sundays. Maybe they don't see family on a Sunday and prefer to work.

Some people think Sunday trading is the end of life as we know it, I am more concerned that internet shopping is ruining the High St. We all have opinions.

Most of the jobs you mentioned (e.g. nurses, police, fire) are all jobs that always came with a non Monday to Friday working week.
They knew that when they went into the profession.

Not many kids when I was growing up had parents who ran their own business.
My Mum & Dad worked Monday to Friday, as did all the parents of my close friends.

Many students probably work Sundays as they now have tuition fees to think about (if they are lucky enough to ever get a job that pays enough to make it necessary for them to repay the fees) plus it's much more expensive for a student to live nowadays than 30 or 40 years ago.
Additionally, going to university was much less common then. People left school and got a job.

Maybe the older people you see working on a Sunday have no choice financially or (as someone mentioned up-thread) they know if they say 'no' they are looking for another job.

mumps wrote: »

No, it is 30 years now and in 2016 it will be 35 years so women retiring at 65 when the changes reach that will need 35 years contributions. Some women in the change over between 2010 and 2016 have benefitted from the change to 30 years but not the women who will have to wait till 65 or close to it. I think women born in early 1954 will be the first to qualify for SRP at 65 but it could be late 1953, so they won't get pension until 2019 so will definitely need 35 years unless it changes again.

"No" what?

"No" it's not a good point that someone has pointed out the difference that the qualifying years has been reduced to - currently - 30 years?

Or "No" that the OP's post was an ill-informed and poorly worded rant?

I'm a couple of years short of the 35 years but I've made sufficient provision for my retirement that I can live with that.

I still don't feel that 'the Government has stolen money from me'.

Jennifer_Jane

Freecall wrote: »

If one could choose their own birth date then in my view the best time to have been born would have without question been immediately post the second world war.

Yes you would have been born into rationing but you would have been too young to know about it. With the NHS ensuring your health in the years that would lie ahead, things would look good.

You would have had a solid education followed by readily available employment in the early 1960’s.

You would probably have got married and bought your own home around the mid 60’s on the basis of a single income. A couple of children would have followed shortly afterwards.

The house you had purchased with an affordable mortgage would have been your home. You would not be on the ‘housing ladder’ because it had not been invented yet. The idea that you would need to borrow more and more money every few years just to try and find a reasonable place to live would have been laughable.

By the time that high inflation kicked in during the 1970’s you would have been well established in your career and likely to be receiving regular pay increases to ride out the storm. As a bonus this would have inflated away most of your already affordable mortgage.

The children would leave home in the mid eighties to lucrative jobs or proper universities while you enjoyed the spoils of the privatisation issues. Interest rates would hit record highs but by now you were a net saver in a strong position to take advantage and to start thinking about retirement.

Although during the 1990’s it was decided that the state pension age was to rise from the long established 60/65, you were luckily of an age which would avoid any of these changes. Not that it really mattered anyway, your final salary scheme was due to kick in at 60 and offered a number of early retirement options.

So by the early to mid naughties you would be able to start your retirement in a position of good finance and health.

The growth in budget airlines had meant that for some time you had started to enjoy a kind of jet-set lifestyle and the purchase of a second home on the Med seemed only natural.

Now, after a decade of that, you are starting to slow down a bit. That nasty Mr Cameron is threatening to take away your bus pass and if you moved permanently to your villa you might lose your winter fuel allowance.

But wait a minute, it looks as though at your age you are probably in the group that will be exempted from these changes so things should work out ok again.

Happy days.



Anybody born around 1945 care to comment?[/QUOTE]

Are you male or female? My guess is male.

White? Heterosexual? A 'WASP' (white, Anglo-Saxon protestant)?