Timak Posted March 22, 2012 Share Posted March 22, 2012 I wonder what jobs people are expecting these 65+ year olds to do? And with 3m people unemployed, 20% of youth, it seems a bit perverse to force people to keep working. If people can no longer afford a state funded retirement at 65 then either increase the amount put aside to fund the state pension so it can, or work hard to reduce the cost of living. Allowing inflation to rip, savings rates to stay low and unemployment to climb seems stupid to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PopGun Posted March 22, 2012 Share Posted March 22, 2012 5th of poor men die before 65 Even among those who do live long enough to draw their state pension, poorer workers still tend to receive less money than richer ones, as they typically have lower life expectancy. Unfortunately, things like Alzheimer's isn't as selective according to wealth or lifestyle. People are worrying about a future they may not be around or have their marbles for. Sure it's sensible to save/invest for retirement, but only if you can afford it and acknowledge that you could be bus carpet tomorrow. I’m guessing the retirement outlook won’t be painted as bleak after the demographic time bomb. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
easy2012 Posted March 22, 2012 Share Posted March 22, 2012 The older generation's legacy includes developments in health, immunology, surgery, biotechnics, road safety, health & safety legislation, etc. And the older generation has also been paying the pensions of people older still. The younger generation are moaning that they will live longer. Just helping you to complete the list : and also promises that cannot possibly be paid for/funded, high house prices, rigid planning system and the national debt (particularly those off balance sheet items). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OnionTerror Posted March 22, 2012 Author Share Posted March 22, 2012 Just helping you to complete the list : and also promises that cannot possibly be paid for/funded, high house prices, rigid planning system and the national debt (particularly those off balance sheet items). In 20 years time, 40 year mortgages will become the norm... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tinker Posted March 22, 2012 Share Posted March 22, 2012 In 20 years time, 40 year mortgages will become the norm... And we all know what will happen to the average price of a house. Sadly. Madness. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
winkie Posted March 22, 2012 Share Posted March 22, 2012 My experience is the oposite, like the OP I have a while to go however a lot of guys at my work are 55+ some as old as 65, most have no plans to retire until at least 65 as they dont want to end up doing nothing, they can financially retire earlier however they are choosing to work on to get an even bigger pension and live a life of luxury and holidays in retirement. This act of people staying in jobs instead of retiring means jobs are not becoming available as would normally be the case for younger people, I think this has contributed to the high youth unemployment... There is no easy answer. ...End up doing nothing?...they haven't much imagination then have they, I think they are scared of giving up a steady job with a steady income that makes them feel wanted, needed, gives them a purpose to live...noticed with many that the older they get the more they hate change, so less able to change with the times, less able to change direction, more set in their ways....if you can is it not better to go when the going is good, whilst still healthy and active so that you still have a life ahead of you to enjoy the fruits of your labour a new beginning, starting their own business, possibly. I think they should be encouraging the old to make way for the young, after showing them the ropes and trained them up to a high standard in their field of their expertise...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PopGun Posted March 22, 2012 Share Posted March 22, 2012 In 20 years time, 40 year mortgages will become the norm... Check out the havoc which student debt and soaring university costs are causing in America if you want a glimpse of the future... Bubble bobble. In 30 years time, mortgages could be consigned to history. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crashmonitor Posted March 22, 2012 Share Posted March 22, 2012 ...End up doing nothing?...they haven't much imagination then have they, Agree with you there. Older workers think it is a badge of honour if they go on past retirement. But far from showing self-sufficiency, it probably means they are institutionalised in work and are unable to enjoy life beyond work. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starla Posted March 22, 2012 Share Posted March 22, 2012 Maybe the government should just raise retirement age to 250, no need to keep moving the goalposts then and we're all clear on where we stand. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
winkie Posted March 22, 2012 Share Posted March 22, 2012 Maybe the government should just raise retirement age to 250, no need to keep moving the goalposts then and we're all clear on where we stand. ...another promise they will be unable to keep.....I love it the way they say they will be improving the pensions, but can't tell you when you will have access to the improvements. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starla Posted March 22, 2012 Share Posted March 22, 2012 ...another promise they will be unable to keep.....I love it the way they say they will be improving the pensions, but can't tell you when you will have access to the improvements. Most likely. They'll change it to 254 a few years later. I guess it's my flippant way of saying that people need to take responsibility for themeselves and assume the state is giving them a fat zero. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crashmonitor Posted March 22, 2012 Share Posted March 22, 2012 Maybe the government should just raise retirement age to 250, no need to keep moving the goalposts then and we're all clear on where we stand. Faced with these moving goal posts it really beggars belief that pensioners of today are complaining about the freeze in future age allowance, as a generous personal allowance for all catches up with it. The delay in retirement age is a far bigger cut for those still in work, we are talking ten of thousands as opposed to a few quid. About time granny took the rough with the smooth. State pension at 60 was indeed fortunate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Democorruptcy Posted March 22, 2012 Share Posted March 22, 2012 I wonder what jobs people are expecting these 65+ year olds to do? And with 3m people unemployed, 20% of youth, it seems a bit perverse to force people to keep working. If people can no longer afford a state funded retirement at 65 then either increase the amount put aside to fund the state pension so it can, or work hard to reduce the cost of living. Allowing inflation to rip, savings rates to stay low and unemployment to climb seems stupid to me. They aren't expecting them to work. JSA is cheaper than state pension. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crashmonitor Posted March 22, 2012 Share Posted March 22, 2012 They aren't expecting them to work. JSA is cheaper than state pension. Cheaper still if you do not meet the capital requirements for benefit, it will cost zero. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
winkie Posted March 22, 2012 Share Posted March 22, 2012 Cheaper still if you do not meet the capital requirements for benefit, it will cost zero. Wouldn't surprise me if as well as your savings they took into consideration the equity in any property you own...only living costs will be paid for no money left in the pot to pay any interest on debt.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Democorruptcy Posted March 22, 2012 Share Posted March 22, 2012 In 20 years time, 40 year mortgages will become the norm... In 20 years? They started doing them years ago Alliance & Leicester, Nationwide and Halifax can all lend over 40 years – 15 years longer than the traditional 25-year mortgage term. Abbey and Northern Rock will lend over 35 years and specialist lender Mortgage Express, owned by Bradford & Bingley will lend over 45 years in some circumstances. Abbey will lend on a 35-year term but not if that takes the borrower beyond the age of 85 and Mortgage Express will lend on a 45-year term but not if it takes the customer beyond the age of 75 years. http://www.talktalk.co.uk/money/features/mortgages-longer-term-loans.html I posted on here about a Newbuy scheme with a 35 year mortgage http://www.housepricecrash.co.uk/forum/index.php?showtopic=174660 Plus to "help" people struggling banks are extending mortgage terms well into retirement because they know SMI never stops for pensioners. My next-door neighbour said RBS gave him one until he is 73. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the flying pig Posted March 22, 2012 Share Posted March 22, 2012 ...It is likely see today's 33 year-olds wait until 73 before they get their state pension, experts said... yeah, i'm at about that age & feel clapped out already. i cannot imagine what a [physical & mental] wreck I'll be 40 years hence. It's beyond obvious that this could only be a way to get younger septuagenarians onto the dole rather than working in any meaningful numbers. i remember watching episodes of 'the Jetson's 25 years ago & fully believing that George Jetson's '3 days of 3 hours' working week would indeed become the 'full time' norm... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PopGun Posted March 22, 2012 Share Posted March 22, 2012 Perhaps they ought to implement 'local' retirement ages. South East has the longest life expectancy and is another case of the rest of the country cross subsidising it. Glasgow people will be able to retire at about age 38. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Democorruptcy Posted March 22, 2012 Share Posted March 22, 2012 Perhaps they ought to implement 'local' retirement ages. South East has the longest life expectancy and is another case of the rest of the country cross subsidising it. Glasgow people will be able to retire at about age 38. Those Glaswegians are working past the age of 38 just to keep paying for the pensions of Londoners. It's like savers outside London seeing their interest income being stolen to pay mortgages for Londoners as they have the highest priced property so benefit the most from low mortgage rates. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R K Posted March 22, 2012 Share Posted March 22, 2012 Perhaps they ought to implement 'local' retirement ages. South East has the longest life expectancy and is another case of the rest of the country cross subsidising it. Glasgow people will be able to retire at about age 38. Indeed. Better still link it to individual morbidity rates. It doesn't appear to be an issue tracking lifetime earnings/NI contribs or calc individual car insurance premia so ought to be very simple to implement. Perhaps a health screen at 65 (6/7) to assess actuarial death date then calc pension accordingly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nationalist Posted March 22, 2012 Share Posted March 22, 2012 According to Aubrey de Grey the first person to reach the age of 200 was born in in the 1950s. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
awaytogo Posted March 22, 2012 Share Posted March 22, 2012 Err... what's wrong with raising the retirement age? It should be in the 70s already. With the overhaul average life span at 79years you think retirement should be 70, i think there is something wrong there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
longtomsilver Posted March 22, 2012 Share Posted March 22, 2012 I seriously don't understand how the government get it so wrong. My wife pays the full rate of NI so ~£4k per annum over 42 years work (started at 23 after 2nd degree) at 65 all things being equal that's £168k paid in. You could easily park this somewhere safe earning 3% while taking out £15k it'd take 17 years or put another way aged 82 to deplete the account. No it'll be 73 and £140 a week instead. Why bother? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuffy Chuffnell Posted March 22, 2012 Share Posted March 22, 2012 (edited) With the overhaul average life span at 79years you think retirement should be 70, i think there is something wrong there. Yeah, namely your inability to spell... Perhaps you can explain what's wrong with an average 9 years' retirement? Sounds about right. If you work for 50 years or so, then about 10 years of retirement seems fair. (It might also be somewhat more economical than 20, 30 years...) Indeed, just to develop that line further - surely people would rather have a decent, shorter retirement than a long one in poverty?? Edited March 22, 2012 by Chuffy Chuffnell Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PopGun Posted March 22, 2012 Share Posted March 22, 2012 With the overhaul average life span at 79years you think retirement should be 70, i think there is something wrong there. You seem bright enough to realise the flaw in that reasoning. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.