Raising the pension age in order to pay for pensions

StevieJ

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

But I do not like the concept of government 'telling' us when to retire. I have no problems with a "Normal Retirement Date" against which the amount is benchmarked. I would, however, strongly recommend government to introduce flexibility such that you can retire, by default, at age 68 with £9,000. Or, if you wish, at age 65 with £7,500 [or whatever is calculated as cost neutral to the taxpayer].

They have introduced flexibility one way [i.e. we can defer and get higher amount]. So why not the other way?

I thought that was how it currently works? or have I misunderstood you?

If you put off claiming your State Pension for at least 5 weeks you may earn extra State Pension. Your State Pension will increase by 1% for every 5 weeks you put off claiming. This is the same as 10.4% for every full year you put off claiming.

https://www.gov.uk/deferring-state-pension

BobQ

StevieJ wrote: »

I thought that was how it currently works? or have I misunderstood you?


https://www.gov.uk/deferring-state-pension

It does if you work longer than the defined date but there is no option if you want to retire earlier with a lower pension which is I think the point being made?

BobQ

CLAPTON wrote: »

Yes, so it would be a tax that is given to private pension funds to 'look' after:


so in the end it all depends upon what the benefits of funded schemes are :

I agree that its a form of taxation, but with individuals having a nominated pot. Obviously it involves trusting financial institutions which of itself is a concern whatever level of regulation is applied.


My concern is that under any system there will be those who refuse to participate when they could afford to do so, but when they retire they expect to rely on the state. Many retiring today never had the opportunity of a gaining much of a pension for all sorts of reasons, but there are those who made an active decision not to have one and instead chose to spend their income which means they are now reliant on benefits. How do we stop this sort of thing happening in future? Or do we just cut benefits and say tough! Fair to some but not to those who never earn enough to fund a pension.

CLAPTON

BobQ wrote: »

I agree that its a form of taxation, but with individuals having a nominated pot. Obviously it involves trusting financial institutions which of itself is a concern whatever level of regulation is applied.


My concern is that under any system there will be those who refuse to participate when they could afford to do so, but when they retire they expect to rely on the state. Many retiring today never had the opportunity of a gaining much of a pension for all sorts of reasons, but there are those who made an active decision not to have one and instead chose to spend their income which means they are now reliant on benefits. How do we stop this sort of thing happening in future? Or do we just cut benefits and say tough! Fair to some but not to those who never earn enough to fund a pension.

my point is that having a 'funded' pot is not different to having an unfunded pot.

either can be the same for all or based on individual circumstance (like the existing state system.l.

What reasons were there in the past that prevented people from saving that don't still apply?
sickness, unemployment, disability? Have these been abolished?

Loughton_Monkey

StevieJ wrote: »

I thought that was how it currently works? or have I misunderstood you?

If you put off claiming your State Pension for at least 5 weeks you may earn extra State Pension. Your State Pension will increase by 1% for every 5 weeks you put off claiming. This is the same as 10.4% for every full year you put off claiming.

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

They have introduced flexibility one way [i.e. we can defer and get higher amount]. So why not the other way?

Only you can state whether or not you are confused, although you sound like you are.

I'm not.

You have merely confirmed what I said.

Loughton_Monkey

CLAPTON wrote: »

my point is that having a 'funded' pot is not different to having an unfunded pot.

You keep insisting on this point. You are wrong, wrong, wrong......

CLAPTON wrote: »

either can be the same for all or based on individual circumstance (like the existing state system.l.

.... which is why you keep quoting gibberish sentences (like the above) that do not make sense, mean nothing, convey nothing, but consist of a random set of words......

CLAPTON wrote: »

What reasons were there in the past that prevented people from saving that don't still apply?
sickness, unemployment, disability? Have these been abolished?

..... and what, pray, do you mean here? Sickness, unemployment, and disability have nothing whatsoever to do with it.

Many countries don't even have a state pension scheme. They don't understand the burden put on working people to support the spending of and ever growing number of people no longer active. The people no longer active support themselves perfectly well because they paid for their own support years ago.

CLAPTON

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

You keep insisting on this point. You are wrong, wrong, wrong......



.... which is why you keep quoting gibberish sentences (like the above) that do not make sense, mean nothing, convey nothing, but consist of a random set of words......



..... and what, pray, do you mean here? Sickness, unemployment, and disability have nothing whatsoever to do with it.

Many countries don't even have a state pension scheme. They don't understand the burden put on working people to support the spending of and ever growing number of people no longer active. The people no longer active support themselves perfectly well because they paid for their own support years ago.

sadly the following shows you have insufficient knowledge or understanding of (relatively) recent economic history to debate meaningfully.

Loughton_Monkey wrote:

I am no Keynseyan, and so I pay little regard to him.

The paradox, even if true, was developed and promulgated as appropriate during times of recession. Since throughout a person's active adult life he sees possibly <10% of time in recession, it would be perverse to act on it throughout life merely because of it being marginally "bad" for the community 10% of the time!

As for every paradox, there is usually a 'mirror' that would say [in this case] during times of "boom" lack of saving is damaging to the economy as a whole?

Besides, his paradox was developed at a time when 'savings' meant cash under the mattress rather than deposits in the bank or in shares [thus fuelling borrowing and investment]. Also, it assumed an economy was an "island" so savings outside the UK economy wouldn't have the same effect anyway.

Keynes did not know of, or understand a global economy. Why should he?

Sounds like you want (like Keynes) some sort of "Socialist Idyllic Paradise" in which the whole economy is controlled centrally by the government. We would all work where we were sent, earn what we were given, buy what was supplied to us, and generally do what we are told. I seem to recall a couple of large economies who tried this. Didn't work. Complete disaster.

So in short, I reject this paradox completely and utterly.

best to stick to the G&Ts

Loughton_Monkey

CLAPTON wrote: »

sadly the following shows you have insufficient knowledge or understanding of (relatively) recent economic history to debate meaningfully.

best to stick to the G&Ts

I'll take that answer as a "don't know" or "can't explain" then.

BobQ

CLAPTON wrote: »

my point is that having a 'funded' pot is not different to having an unfunded pot.

either can be the same for all or based on individual circumstance (like the existing state system.l.

What reasons were there in the past that prevented people from saving that don't still apply?
sickness, unemployment, disability? Have these been abolished?

Technically you are right about funded/unfunded, but as we have seen with the debate over public sector pensions, its far easier to attack unfunded pensions as being unaffordable than those that are based on a fund. If individuals knew they had a personal fund then Governments would find it politically more difficult to mess with them.

CLAPTON

BobQ wrote: »

Technically you are right about funded/unfunded, but as we have seen with the debate over public sector pensions, its far easier to attack unfunded pensions as being unaffordable than those that are based on a fund. If individuals knew they had a personal fund then Governments would find it politically more difficult to mess with them.

I doubt there is any evidence for that.

I'm sure in any case there would be lots for technical ways of reducing the value of the pot or of the payout (if fact just like private pension funds).