How stupid is my plan?

atush

Have you read what you have written? If so, and I was so p'd off, i'd move.

The govt doesn't want you to work til you drop.

The whole point is, those in your job used to drop either before they took their pension, or shortly after, But recently, they have been living longer and more healthy. So it costs more. So you'we have to pay more. For a little less (but not as little as everyone else gets for their money,

Southend1

atush wrote: »

Have you read what you have written? If so, and I was so p'd off, i'd move.

The govt doesn't want you to work til you drop.

The whole point is, those in your job used to drop either before they took their pension, or shortly after, But recently, they have been living longer and more healthy. So it costs more. So you'we have to pay more. For a little less (but not as little as everyone else gets for their money,

I wouldn't mind if it was a case of paying more. That was what the cost sharing agreement was about. Now there's talk of further reductions in benefits in USS, however. For the employers it's all about cost reduction so they can have bigger surpluses. I can't quite work out what motivates the government but their pensions policies seem to be aimed at making older people work until they drop while leaving no jobs for the young.

atush

you are still on thr work til you drop thing. It isn't planned or wanted but will be the fate of those who dont save.

As people are living longer, thru better health. Unless you propose the govt start a euthanasia lottery?

Southend1

atush wrote: »

you are still on thr work til you drop thing. It isn't planned or wanted but will be the fate of those who dont save.

As people are living longer, thru better health. Unless you propose the govt start a euthanasia lottery?

You are ignoring the increased wealth produced compared to years gone by. A conscious decision seems to have been made to increase the gap between rich and poor rather than allow people to continue to retire at 60 or 65. As a nation, or you could even say as the western world, we need to reconsider the balance between wages and company profits and the distribution of earnings between higher and lower paid jobs. When politicians tell us pensions are unaffordable, that's simply a lie. It's all about how wealth is distributed.

kidmugsy

Southend1 wrote: »

You are ignoring the increased wealth produced compared to years gone by. A conscious decision seems to have been made to increase the gap between rich and poor rather than allow people to continue to retire at 60 or 65. As a nation, or you could even say as the western world, we need to reconsider the balance between wages and company profits and the distribution of earnings between higher and lower paid jobs. When politicians tell us pensions are unaffordable, that's simply a lie. It's all about how wealth is distributed.

Look, if you want to steal other people's money, why not just say so? Why all this rubbish about distribution?

Southend1

kidmugsy wrote: »

Look, if you want to steal other people's money, why not just say so? Why all this rubbish about distribution?

Don't be ridiculous.

The people at the top decide how much they earn and how much the rest of us earn too. If anything, it's them stealing from us.

mgdavid

Southend1 wrote: »

Don't be ridiculous.

The people at the top decide how much they earn and how much the rest of us earn too. If anything, it's them stealing from us.

This thread's degenerated to the point that I'm calling out Southend as a troll.

DO NOT FEED THE TROLL

Southend1

mgdavid wrote: »

This thread's degenerated to the point that I'm calling out Southend as a troll.

DO NOT FEED THE TROLL

If you read back you will see that it was atush and kidmugsy that steered the discussion away from potential devaluing of USS benefits already accrued. There's nothing wrong with that. This is a discussion forum isn't it? Or are we only allowed to express opinions that don't challenge the status quo?

Puddylove

Get orrrrfffff my thread or I'll set the dogs on you!

jamesd

Southend1 wrote: »

A conscious decision seems to have been made to increase the gap between rich and poor rather than allow people to continue to retire at 60 or 65.

Not so, for one of the key points about the flat rate state pension is it takes money from average and above working people and gives it instead to people who don't work much or at all. A similar greater benefit for the poor happens with the increased personal allowance. There has been a small increase in the difference between rich and poor in the last few years but that's likely to be temporary given the changes being made.

Southend1 wrote: »

When politicians tell us pensions are unaffordable, that's simply a lie. It's all about how wealth is distributed.

Pensions aren't unaffordable. All it takes to get to the median average pensioner income today is putting away £59* net a month. That doesn't take action by politicians or wealth redistribution, it just takes people not ignoring their futures and doing something active about it themselves. The government is even helping with that, via the auto-enrolment system, so people have to actively sabotage their futures by opting out to avoid doing a lot better than the state pension.

Forget USS changes. Do something about your future and encourage others to do something about their as well. That'll make a much bigger difference to your future and that of anyone else you explain the real facts to than any amount of griping here.

You might also consider that there is nowhere near as much wealth inequality as seems to be the case. That's because a large part of it is the difference between young people who have a working life of potential earnings ahead and those nearing retirement or retired who have spent their youth to accumulate the assets that they will live off in retirement. Those future earnings are usually completely ignored in wealth inequality numbers. So is the difference in living costs for the same lifestyle in the north and south. One effect of that and the difference in property between north and south is that about 30% of the UK population have assets of at least £1 million. An 18 year old just starting out after years of free education and health care plus a living costs subsidy from child benefit might think that a million is a fortune and unequal, while a person looking at retirement with it will not feel anything close to rich, with good reason.

*median is about £18,000. Flat rate state pension about £8,000 leaving £10,000 to find. Pension pot size at 4% drawing to achieve that is £250,000. Gross cost of that with the 5% long term historic UK stock market return over a 50 year working life is £94 a month. With auto-enrolment and final rules 5/8 of that is net cost to the employee leaving a net cost to the employee of £58.75. All numbers are in today's money.