Thursday, Jun 24, 2010
Longer working lives = longer mortgages = higher house prices
BBC News: Pension age raise plans to be outlined
The government is to confirm plans to raise the state pension age for men to 66 from 2016. Ministers will also raise the possibility of extending it further, perhaps to 70 and beyond in the following decades. Plans to scrap the default retirement age will also be announced.
[This means a 26 year old could take out a 40-year mortgage. More FTBs could enter the market. House prices will be saved. Hallelujah!]
Posted by drewster @ 12:59 AM (974 views) Add Comment
10 Comments
- If you do not have an admin password leave the password field blank.
- If you would like to request a password allowing you to add comments and blog news articles without needing each one approved manually, send an e-mail to the webmaster.
- Your email address is required so we can verify that the comment is genuine. It will not be posted anywhere on the site, will be stored confidentially by us and never given out to any third party.
- Please note that any viewpoints published here as comments are user's views and not the views of HousePriceCrash.co.uk.
- Please adhere to the Guidelines
1. simon68 said...
Longer working lives mean shorter after retirement lives. If the average lifespan of UK citizen is 85 then the government only needs to pay 15 years of pension if retirement age is 70. If you die at 70 or before the government can save everything.
Longer retirement age mean less job opportunities for young people, then less FTB. See what happened in France couple years ago when the government relaxed the employment law to enable dismissal of young people finally led to riot.
2. simon68 said...
Longer AFTER retirement lives is good for economy since old people is supposed to use up their life time savings in spending before they pass away, not to carry the money into the next world. More spending means more consumption and demands for goods and services.
3. simon68 said...
If Gordon B changed the PM term to 20 years, then Cameron can only take up PM post when he is 63 years of age!
4. simon68 said...
Perhaps the situation in UK is different from Asia countries.
Here the best way to eliminate your debts is dieing, thereafter the lender will suffer total loss.
5. Rebullish said...
Perhaps if we stopped allowing the police and fire services to retire at 50 and the public sector generally way before the private sector, it wouldnt feel like we have a have and have not pension split in this country now.
6. Enough Already said...
Simon68 @ 2 - All the old people I know hang on to their money. Very 'ordinary' pensioners have got fortunes tucked away! (Why do you think criminals target the old? It's not because they don't have money - it's because they DO!)
The boomers scream for the young to pay more in NI contributions so they don't have to touch their hoarded dosh! While the retired pay no NI at all! (No other 'insurance' pays out after you've stopped contributing!) Free bus travel and discouts at stores for the over 60s all help towards this goal.
Didn't you realise that the young are merely drones working to continue the lavish lifestyle the boomers expect? And, please don't expect over 60's to comply with any plan to 'save the country' After all "...I've worked all me life...!" Well lucky bl00dy you then!
7. Goldbug9999 said...
The flawed logic in some of these comments is astounding. The higher proportion of the population that are economically active the healthier the economy is. period.
"Longer AFTER retirement lives is good for economy since old people is supposed to use up their life time savings in spending before they pass away"
If people work longer they earn more money during their life and therefore create more demand both in their longer working life and consequently increased retirement savings (and therefore spending ultimately).
In fact ideally people would never retire - this would maximize their contribution to the economy both through their productivity and the demand they created from their maximized earnings. Oh then their the tax take increase - basically EVERYONE gains from longer working lives, yes even the people having to work longer, due to the improved productivity in the economy and consequent raise in standard of living.
8. mark wadsworth said...
I like the Mick Taylor period best, but let's not forget that Ron Wood made some excellent solo albums ("Now Look", "1234", "I've got my own album to do" and "Gimme some neck"). And I feel terribly sorry for the poor bugger still being referred to as 'the new one' after thirty five years.
But serve him right for paying £7 million quid for a stupid house like that. He should have rented.
9. mark wadsworth said...
My previous comment was supposed to be on a different thread.
Part from that, I agree with Goldbug9999. It's as simple as that. But soften the blow by having a Citizen's Pension for older people so that it is easier for them to pack up working should they so wish.
10. simon68 said...
“In fact ideally people would never retire - this would maximize their contribution to the economy both through their productivity and the demand they created from their maximized earnings……………………………productivity in the economy and consequent raise in standard of living.”
From a fiscal perspective it lowers pension liabilities and increases the tax base. But increasing the retirement age will not be costless on a micro level, particularly to employers. Older employees cost more than younger workers so keeping them around adds to labour costs. There is evidence that, from a productivity standpoint, firms get less value from older workers. Your wages increase over your life-time even as your productivity declines past middle-age and companies must allow for sickness absence due to health issues for employees over 50.
The society can then treat every elders as sponge and drain them to the last drop…………to provide improved productivity, raise standard of living for others (but not himself/herself) and grind tax until dead. It’s better for them to work all weekdays, thus no time off to travel abroad & shopping leaving wealth for sharing between children and inheritance tax.
It is double head snake to OBJECT increasing the quotas for immigrants in profession of shortage of skilled labours whereas CONCUR to force people to work longer than their usual retirement age saying it won’t take away the job opportunities for young people.