Pension at 70? Throw a party.

michaels

I agree with Clapton - how we fund pensions is only about 'sharing' output between generations, the real issue is hwo much output there is to share and perhaps it is better to look at services rather than goods.

Suppose each child and retired person requires on average 0.5 working age people to look after them (teachers, nannies, nurses, doctors etc) If people spend on average half their life working and half being a child/pensioner then by definiton half of the working time available will be spent doing the caring leaving only 50% of output time for personal earnings and all other tax expenditure. Now if increasing longevity increases the proportion of life spent 'not working' the amount of caring time increases relative to the available working hours and so now a smaller proportion of working time is left for the workers personal earnings.

tomterm8

Masomnia wrote: »

I don't particularly resent having to work till I'm 69.*
.

I'm not going to make it to 70. I was lucky enough to get to my thirties - after two pulmonary embolisms and a DVT caused by factor v leiden - and I think the chances of me living that long and not i.e. dying of stroke, p.e. or a heart attack by the age of 60 are about the same as leyton orient winning the champions league.

There are a lot of people who aren't going to make it to 70. Statistical averages are just that, average.

TruckerT

TruckerT wrote: »

I have the impression that China does very little for her unemployed, or for her elderly. China is also widening her empire, just as European countries widened their empires in earlier times (using force rather than funds).

What goes around, comes around. If and when China adopts the principles of democracy, then they will be at the top of a slippery slope towards unaffordability.

TruckerT

vivatifosi wrote: »

China has a very different culture, irrespective of politics. The Chinese respect and care for their elderly and respect the knowledge that they have built up over the course of their lifetimes. This is an oriental cultural model and is not unique to China.

The UK/US model is very much built on individualism, which is why multi-generational households are seen more as a burden and trade-off of freedoms. In other words, people here do it because circumstances mean they have to, or it is the least bad option, whereas in China it is more of a norm.

In more general terms, China has far more to deal with first. I wouldn't want to live there but can see it has done a phenomenal job in releasing people from grinding poverty bordering at times on famine.

In your final paragraph, I would replace the phrase 'done a phenomenal job' with the phrase 'made an unavoidable start'.

Your first two paragraphs provide an illustration of what I was trying to say - the social and family values of the Chinese are still based in a pre-democratic society. As capitalism continues to take hold, it will get harder for the Chinese ruling class to maintain their dictatorship. And, as has happened in the West, social and family values will change.

At the moment, the UK's much heralded recovery seems to be based on a swing back to a widening gap in the opportunities of the different economic classes (beginning in the primary school, or even earlier).

Maybe the West's final contribution to the well-being of the human race will be that the Chinese will learn from our experiences, and avoid some of the pitfalls of an unfettered race towards material 'wealth'.

TruckerT

Loughton_Monkey

TruckerT wrote: »

In your final paragraph, I would replace the phrase 'done a phenomenal job' with the phrase 'made an unavoidable start'.

Your first two paragraphs provide an illustration of what I was trying to say - the social and family values of the Chinese are still based in a pre-democratic society. As capitalism continues to take hold, it will get harder for the Chinese ruling class to maintain their dictatorship. And, as has happened in the West, social and family values will change.

At the moment, the UK's much heralded recovery seems to be based on a swing back to a widening gap in the opportunities of the different economic classes (beginning in the primary school, or even earlier).

Maybe the West's final contribution to the well-being of the human race will be that the Chinese will learn from our experiences, and avoid some of the pitfalls of an unfettered race towards material 'wealth'.

TruckerT

China is a Communist dictatorship.

Despite that, it is about the most aggressive "capitalist" country you can imagine. It is not run by any "ruling class" but by a bunch of people who are extremely clever in pretending that Mao's communist ideals are being carried out, while becoming more 'capitalist' than any other country in the West.

The population, mainly very well educated, are generally happy. Not least because of a phenomenal increase in standard of living. Whilst living there, I got the impression that the natives were far from restless.

They do have a social security system, but a very unofficial one based upon "there is work if you want it, but if you don't then please starve." I saw, amongst the whole range of [semi] educated office staff a selfishness that would never condone any form of state handouts.... but rather perversely an unwavering belief in their 100% devotion to looking after their own.

They are, as you say on "an unfettered race towards material 'wealth'." But where I question things is the degree to which they believe they can 'learn' from the West. I think they have already 'learned' what they need. They will carry on getting wealthier without any lip service to democracy, welfare, or emulating the West.

Democracy is completely out. I mean how would you attempt to make a nation of 1.4 billion people democratic? It just wouldn't work.

In my view, it is now the Obamas and Camerons of this world doing the 'learning'. Just don't expect either of these individuals (or their successors) to continue mentioning anything to do with 'Human Rights' or Tibet. Or (as we have seen) do anything to Syria or any other country if China says "no".

I think the only potential barriers to continued wealth and more power in China are (a) WW3, or (b) the most awesome internal revolution. I can see neither of these happening in my lifetime. The outcomes of either would be unpredictable.

Just sit back and think about being the 'boss' of a country. You want to change something. Or develop something. Or build a couple more cities and power stations..... Would you rather be (a) David Cameron, or (b) Xi Jingping?

TruckerT

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

China is a Communist dictatorship.

Despite that, it is about the most aggressive "capitalist" country you can imagine. It is not run by any "ruling class" but by a bunch of people who are extremely clever in pretending that Mao's communist ideals are being carried out, while becoming more 'capitalist' than any other country in the West.

The population, mainly very well educated, are generally happy. Not least because of a phenomenal increase in standard of living. Whilst living there, I got the impression that the natives were far from restless.

They do have a social security system, but a very unofficial one based upon "there is work if you want it, but if you don't then please starve." I saw, amongst the whole range of [semi] educated office staff a selfishness that would never condone any form of state handouts.... but rather perversely an unwavering belief in their 100% devotion to looking after their own.

They are, as you say on "an unfettered race towards material 'wealth'." But where I question things is the degree to which they believe they can 'learn' from the West. I think they have already 'learned' what they need. They will carry on getting wealthier without any lip service to democracy, welfare, or emulating the West.

Democracy is completely out. I mean how would you attempt to make a nation of 1.4 billion people democratic? It just wouldn't work.

In my view, it is now the Obamas and Camerons of this world doing the 'learning'. Just don't expect either of these individuals (or their successors) to continue mentioning anything to do with 'Human Rights' or Tibet. Or (as we have seen) do anything to Syria or any other country if China says "no".

I think the only potential barriers to continued wealth and more power in China are (a) WW3, or (b) the most awesome internal revolution. I can see neither of these happening in my lifetime. The outcomes of either would be unpredictable.

Just sit back and think about being the 'boss' of a country. You want to change something. Or develop something. Or build a couple more cities and power stations..... Would you rather be (a) David Cameron, or (b) Xi Jingping?

I think the prosperous bits of China are highly localised.

TruckerT

ruggedtoast

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

China is a Communist dictatorship.

Despite that, it is about the most aggressive "capitalist" country you can imagine. It is not run by any "ruling class" but by a bunch of people who are extremely clever in pretending that Mao's communist ideals are being carried out, while becoming more 'capitalist' than any other country in the West.

The population, mainly very well educated, are generally happy. Not least because of a phenomenal increase in standard of living. Whilst living there, I got the impression that the natives were far from restless.

They do have a social security system, but a very unofficial one based upon "there is work if you want it, but if you don't then please starve." I saw, amongst the whole range of [semi] educated office staff a selfishness that would never condone any form of state handouts.... but rather perversely an unwavering belief in their 100% devotion to looking after their own.

They are, as you say on "an unfettered race towards material 'wealth'." But where I question things is the degree to which they believe they can 'learn' from the West. I think they have already 'learned' what they need. They will carry on getting wealthier without any lip service to democracy, welfare, or emulating the West.

Democracy is completely out. I mean how would you attempt to make a nation of 1.4 billion people democratic? It just wouldn't work.

In my view, it is now the Obamas and Camerons of this world doing the 'learning'. Just don't expect either of these individuals (or their successors) to continue mentioning anything to do with 'Human Rights' or Tibet. Or (as we have seen) do anything to Syria or any other country if China says "no".

I think the only potential barriers to continued wealth and more power in China are (a) WW3, or (b) the most awesome internal revolution. I can see neither of these happening in my lifetime. The outcomes of either would be unpredictable.

Just sit back and think about being the 'boss' of a country. You want to change something. Or develop something. Or build a couple more cities and power stations..... Would you rather be (a) David Cameron, or (b) Xi Jingping?

Have you been there recently?

They are certainly richer but I would not call China in any way happy. They have oppressive, interminably dull but spangly new cities where the location of every tree, shop and poster is dictated by the CCP, iPhones that they can barely use because the web is censored and if you do something the government doesn't like they will take you away and shoot you in the back of the head.

35% of working class boys will never marry or have a girlfriend. You have to get permission from the government to move house or change job and if provincial governors treat local people like medieval slaves.

100% of middle class kids are crushed under exam hell before they are 20.

Furthermore most of the country is under a giant cloud of smog all summer.

N1AK

lostinrates wrote: »

Its a small amount, but its a small amount EXTRA to budget. Obviously, I think people should do this, but I also think to suggest its going to be easy for all is over positive.

It's not even that small of an amount for people on modest incomes. Add in that people aren't saving for retirement already and changes like this hardly encourage those who aren't to start.

I'm all for decreasing pension provision; as long as it is done universally. In other words I'll take a less favourable pension if everyone else does. Except that isn't what is happening. The government is changing the system to make give current and soon to be pensioners better off while making everyone else work longer for less.

I appreciate that someone who is currently retired or about to begin retiring won't be able to make up a decrease in pension funding. So in order to be fair I'd accept taking difference from their remaining estate on their death instead; it is after all their children and grandchildren who will be paying for it anyway.

CLAPTON

N1AK wrote: »

It's not even that small of an amount for people on modest incomes. Add in that people aren't saving for retirement already and changes like this hardly encourage those who aren't to start.

I'm all for decreasing pension provision; as long as it is done universally. In other words I'll take a less favourable pension if everyone else does. Except that isn't what is happening. The government is changing the system to make give current and soon to be pensioners better off while making everyone else work longer for less.

I appreciate that someone who is currently retired or about to begin retiring won't be able to make up a decrease in pension funding. So in order to be fair I'd accept taking difference from their remaining estate on their death instead; it is after all their children and grandchildren who will be paying for it anyway.

Today, to within a very small margin, all the products and services used by the the young, the old, the sick the unemployed and the employed (i.e. everybody) are produced by the people who 'work'.

That has always been the case and will probably always be the case.

The fact that some are too young to work, some have savings, some have pensions, some cheat the taxpayer etc. does affect 'who get what' but doesn't change the fact that today it is the people who work that provide the goods and services we all use.


If, in the future we produce sufficient for all then happiness will result, if we don't then some will have a miserable existence.

Tancred

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

There will doubtless be a myriad of press opinions on Georgie-boy's rantings. But the Independent tells us we should be throwing a party - rather than bemoaning Osborne's pension reforms.

Full article here:

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/editorials/a-longer-working-life-is-to-be-celebrated-not-deplored-8983271.html


We are told:

• The logic is impeccable
• We get plenty of notice
• A burst of resentment from the young will follow, but
• The Economic argument is overwhelming
• A third of our life in retirement is luxurious
• Large Gin & Tonics all round......

I like the prediction of "another burst of resentment from a younger generation". Indie's editor clearly reads this forum.....

My own party has started!

Total BS. The only ones throwing a party are those who don't need the state pension at all - like Osborne and his toff mates.
And what is this rubbish about a third of your life? Do you expect to live to 105? What is the evidence for this? Most of us will die in our 70s or 80s - just as now. Besides, what kind of a 'life' can you expect when you are bedridden, senile and probably suffering from Alzheimer's?

Tancred

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

You can take a pension from age 55. It's the law.

So what? If your pension isn't big enough you won't be able to live on it. And many people still have mortgages to pay at 55.
What planet are you from? The planet of the apes, judging by your name!