Call to raise retirement age to at least 70

fun4everyone

ruperts wrote: »

Bragging about being a millionaire while sat posting on moneysavingexpert on a Saturday night

Whats worse is I am most definitely not a millionaire yet also still posting here :rotfl:

fun4everyone

economic wrote: »

is that a question for me? if so what other 240k?

Yes I thought I remembered you saying you had 740 or 780k in another thread some time. Can I ask how you made your money at such a young age its a good success.

economic

fun4everyone wrote: »

Yes I thought I remembered you saying you had 740 or 780k in another thread some time. Can I ask how you made your money at such a young age its a good success.

the 500k is only investments and savings. I have around 300k also in my property.


I have been working in banking for 10 years or so. plus received some gifts from parents (about 100k or so).

fun4everyone

Banking thats pretty sick. Must have been in the city I guess. Nice one. Wish someone would give me a 100k gift, I tend to get pairs of socks.

economic

fun4everyone wrote: »

Banking thats pretty sick. Must have been in the city I guess. Nice one. Wish someone would give me a 100k gift, I tend to get pairs of socks.

tbh it was a life sucker. not really the hours but the environment and the type of work. not really satisfying. I guess that's why I got paid what I did.


im lucky to have the family I have not just the money but other forms of support too.


its not so obvious and I am certainly guilty of not being grateful a lot of the time but I know I should be very grateful.

kinger101

wotsthat wrote: »

If your glass if half full yes.

A younger forum member currently in reasonable health can expect to live well into their nineties. If someone is fit enough to work and enjoy a 50 year working life plus a state pension for 20 odd years that sounds like a good option to have available.

Fantastic compounding opportunity too.

Not so many years ago 70 year olds would be pushing up the daisies.

Not quite. Although life expectancy has increased, historically more people met an untimely demise due to war, poor working conditions, infectious disease, deathtrap cars, cancers, smoking 50 a day..........

Life expectancy at birth in 1950 and 2010 was 65.6 (m) / 71.1 (f) and 76.2 (m) / 81.0 (f).

Life expectancy at 65 in 1950 and 2010 was 12.8 (m) / 15.0 (f) and 17.7 (m) / 20.3 (f)

Life expectancy at 75 in 1950 and 2010 was 8.8 (m) / 11.5 (f) and 11.0 (m) / 12.9 (f).

(I used US data from CDC)

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hus/2011/022.pdf

I wouldn't be surprised if both the quality and quantity of life is much better for those retiring today at 65 than for those retiring in say 2050 at 70.

vivatifosi

Tromking wrote: »

There's many ways to alleviate the pain of an extended working life.
My plan is to follow the lead of many in the public sector and go part time in my 50's, take possible partial retirement in and around 60yo and carry on working and adding to my admittedly still generous pension till I hit my SPA, in my case 67yo.
Work is good for you and life extending IMO.

Yes, that's my plan too. I have been saving for retirement since I was 21. My plan is to retire at 65 as that's what I've been expecting since the retirement age for women increased in the 1990s.

My plan is to gradually reduce from ft work once the mortgage is paid off.

When I retire from paid work it is not my intention to give up work completely. I may keep my trusteeship or look for similar as they are interesting.

vivatifosi

Fella wrote: »

The problem is that life expectancy may be getting longer but ability to work isn't really.

IMO most people can do most jobs up until they're 50 as well as they could at any age.

Between 50-60 this becomes steadily less true, partly depending on the type of work.

60-65 this is dramatically less true. Many people would have zero chance of doing a fulltime job & the rest would find it an increasing struggle.

Above 65? There will be some who are still sprightly but most will simply be knackered.

This is an interesting point. I've been doing some research into my family tree. My family, even going back a couple of hundred years, has a history of living into at least late seventies, sometimes significantly older, including nineties.

Before the introduction of the welfare state, they can be traced via the censuses. Essentially the poorer ones just kept working. If they could no longer work, they ended up recorded as paupers in almshouses, or more recently in the union workhouse.

The more wealthy among them (mostly from a trade background), were able to stop work albeit for the most part later than sixty five.

For both the rich and poor grandparents would often take in their grandchildren, not just to look after them while their parents were at work, but to actually take in and raise children that their parents couldn't.

I'm not advocating a return to the workhouse, rather thought it interesting to reflect on what happened before the welfare state.

wotsthat

kinger101 wrote: »

I wouldn't be surprised if both the quality and quantity of life is much better for those retiring today at 65 than for those retiring in say 2050 at 70.

I'd be surprised. I think the improved health outcomes are being dramatically underestimated. It's almost taken for granted that we expect to live well into our '90's but we don't have the imagination to envisage a 70 year old being capable of productive work by 2050?

vivatifosi wrote: »

This is an interesting point. I've been doing some research into my family tree. My family, even going back a couple of hundred years, has a history of living into at least late seventies, sometimes significantly older, including nineties.

Mine's the same. Even in the 1800's I have plenty of ancestors who made it into their '70's. The children that died in childhood - well they don't have any direct descendants to point out how young their ancestors were when they died.

Family trees help to feed a success bias. There's no-one alive today whose parents were infertile or died in childhood. And, if you made it out of childhood, your life expectancy increased dramatically more than it does today.

chucknorris

ruperts wrote: »

Bragging about being a millionaire while sat posting on moneysavingexpert on a Saturday night

His original post wasn't out of context with stating what wealth he had, so he wasn't bragging. He is (if I remember correctly) financially independent and doesn't have to work, so he can (within reason) do what he wants when we wants, it possibly means there isn't particularly anything special about Saturday evenings to him. My wife is retired and I am now down to working one day a week, so there isn't anything special about Saturdays to us, and we don't tend to go out on Saturday evenings, restaurants are usually much more crowded, just our opinion, but we think that it is better to go out midweek. I/we usually only go out on Saturdays when a friend is celebrating something, or we are having friends over or visiting friends.