Government wreaks NHS pension

mumps

I saw a programme on the BBC recently, can't remember what it was called but was on at about 9 or 9.30 after the breakfast news, think it was Angela Rippon presenting it. Anyway, they interviewed a nurse in her 80s, still working. She was doing three days a week and I think she was working in outpatient clinics. She was amazing and I would never have thought she was over 80.

BobQ

dunstonh wrote: »

Why do you think the taxpayer should fund someone's early retirement at 55 when most taxpayers cannot retire until their 60s (average retirement age in the UK is 63)

Many nurses reach 55 "retire" and then join an agency and continue working, including for the NHS.

While I am not convinced that nurses are overpaid, I agree with you that change had to happen to public sector pensions, and allowing nurses to retire at 55 when most public servants have to work to 60 and most people have to work to 65+ was unsustainable.

The only arguments as to why 55 is fair for nurses that I have heard relate to back problems from lifting patients. Even if true, that is for employers to deal with as they do everywhere else by providing appropriate equipment.

EdGasketTheSecond

Well neither is it fair that women expecting a full state pension at age 60, now have to wait until age 66 or 67 due to the greed of bankers. Life is not fair, that's how it is. Next

Silvertabby

Well neither is it fair that women expecting a full state pension at age 60, now have to wait until age 66 or 67 due to the greed of bankers. Life is not fair, that's how it is. Next

I haven't been expecting my State pension at 60 since I was 39 (1995).

And the re-equalisation/increase of State pension ages is abslutely nothing to do with the banking industry - re-equalisation is in accordance with sex equality/discrimination laws, and the increases beyond 65 are down to increased longevity.

Seabee42

It is not really the greed of bankers why state pension age is increasing though is it. I am no respector of bankers but it has much more to do with people living longer. This is primarily why this change has occurred in public sector pensions and should have been changed twenty years ago.


This country owes more in public sector pension debt than the national deficit.

dunstonh

EdGasketTheSecond wrote: »

Well neither is it fair that women expecting a full state pension at age 60, now have to wait until age 66 or 67 due to the greed of bankers. Life is not fair, that's how it is. Next

Certain women failing to plan is not unfair. That is just a failure on their part.

Bankers have nothing to do with women living longer or the failure of some 30-40 year olds twenty five years ago not taking any interest in changes in legislation and current affairs.

EdGasketTheSecond

dunstonh wrote: »

Certain women failing to plan is not unfair. That is just a failure on their part.

Bankers have nothing to do with women living longer or the failure of some 30-40 year olds twenty five years ago not taking any interest in changes in legislation and current affairs.

Ah but they did plan. They planned to retire at 60 and have been denied approx £30K of pension they were originally entitled to. See:

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2016/jan/09/state-pension-inequality-cost-women-20000-campaign

Quote: "“Women were given as little as one year’s notice of up to a six-year increase to their state pension age,”

I thought you are an IFA, you should know that these women could not have foreseen and planned for this change.

Ref. the greedy bankers; it was their reckless lending that has caused the government to bail out the banks and the subsequent austerity, part of which is that the government has even less money than before to pay for the pensions that people have contributed to all their working lives.

dunstonh

Ah but they did plan. They planned to retire at 60 and have been denied approx £30K of pension they were originally entitled to.

In 1995, after several years of consultation, legislation was passed to increase the state pension age around 20 years from then.

They were never entitled to that money as state benefits are subject to change.

In the same era, the basic rate of tax fell. Or did those women miss that too and are offering to repay that as they were given insufficient notice they would pay less?

Quote: "“Women were given as little as one year’s notice of up to a six-year increase to their state pension age,”

Which we know is complete rubbish. Legislation was 1995. Clearly a lot more than 1 year.

I thought you are an IFA, you should know that these women could not have foreseen and planned for this change.

You are correct that I am an IFA. I remember all the financial planning leaflets, cards etc that were produced and put into pension statements and handed out at bank counters and the adverts that ran with the providers and the media coverage that occurred.

It was forseen as soon as the EU ruled it unlawful to discriminate and 4 years later it was in legislation to change 20 years later. It was very easy to plan for you. You just needed to do some planning to begin with.

Ref. the greedy bankers; it was their reckless lending that has caused the government to bail out the banks and the subsequent austerity, part of which is that the government has even less money than before to pay for the pensions that people have contributed to all their working lives.

I suggest you go away and learn some more about the global recession.

atush

Mortgagefreeman wrote: »

Is there any chance you can repost in a manner that's not damaging to my eyesight?

Yeah, punctuation and paragraphs are always good

atush

you wreak what you so