Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

My Mate's Solution To Boost Employment...


PopGun
 Share

Recommended Posts

Thought I might hedge some of your ideas on this one.

Whilst discussing the inevitable pension crisis. I said that state retirement age must go up, but had huge misgivings about the knock on effects of such a policy (ie people still being an office junior at 30 due to lack of opportunities for career progression).

Then it came: "Then, why don't we reduce the state retirement age to a voluntary 55 years old?" This was dismissed out of hand, however he went on:

"This would not be mandatory. There's probably plenty of over 50s that are quite comfortable, paid off their houses and only really work so they can afford three holidays a year instead of one. Others would like to give up work, but just can’t afford it just yet. With a little state help, these would probably welcome the idea of not having to wake up to the 9-5 grind anymore....freeing up the career roles/ladders for others".

I asked about the over 50s that are not so lucky, to be replied with: "According to Dispatches, they're all on the scrap heap anyway. What's the difference in paying them state pension as opposed to income support and the dole?!?"

Well, I couldn't really answer that one. No doubt others on here will have their opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 54
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

retire at 55 and get their pension at 80 would solve a lot of problems...

That's the real solution.

Your mate's problem has the major problem of how do you pay for all the pensions? There is a huge pension blackhole before you even start to reduce retirement age, if anything retirement age needs to be increasing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's the real solution.

Your mate's problem has the major problem of how do you pay for all the pensions? There is a huge pension blackhole before you even start to reduce retirement age, if anything retirement age needs to be increasing.

Yeah, let's all live to work! Hoorah!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thought I might hedge some of your ideas on this one.

Whilst discussing the inevitable pension crisis. I said that state retirement age must go up, but had huge misgivings about the knock on effects of such a policy (ie people still being an office junior at 30 due to lack of opportunities for career progression).

Then it came: "Then, why don't we reduce the state retirement age to a voluntary 55 years old?" This was dismissed out of hand, however he went on:

"This would not be mandatory. There's probably plenty of over 50s that are quite comfortable, paid off their houses and only really work so they can afford three holidays a year instead of one. Others would like to give up work, but just can’t afford it just yet. With a little state help, these would probably welcome the idea of not having to wake up to the 9-5 grind anymore....freeing up the career roles/ladders for others".

I asked about the over 50s that are not so lucky, to be replied with: "According to Dispatches, they're all on the scrap heap anyway. What's the difference in paying them state pension as opposed to income support and the dole?!?"

Well, I couldn't really answer that one. No doubt others on here will have their opinion.

The over 50s are discriminated against enough anyway when it comes to obtaining work, without the need for this kind of suggestion. Many, many people of over 50 and 60 still need (and want) to work, yet cannot find work though they have years of the right kind of experience and qualifications behind them, and sufficient energy to carry on working for years. The state pension is inadequate to support anyone except at the bare minimum of existence, and many people have seen savings that they have patiently accumulated over many years drastically eroded because of this government's appalling management of the economy and the country in general.

One solution is to create more jobs in this country – to bring back businesses here instead of farming everything out to the developing (and developed) world, so that everyone can be gainfully employed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In order to fund re-establishing the link with average earnings it's going the other way:

For women it will rise gradually from age 60 to 65 from 2010 to 2020, making it equal to that of men. So from 6 April 2020, the State Pension age for both men and women will be 65.

The State Pension age for both men and women is then set to increase from 65 to 68 between 2024 and 2046, with each change phased in over two consecutive years in each decade.

Women born since 1950 will now not receive their pension till after 60.

The no. years of NI contributions required is going down though. So, anyone with over 30 years NI contributions (i.e.paid ther 'stamp') will get a full state pension (at the moment it's 44 years for men and 39 years for women).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your mate's problem has the major problem of how do you pay for all the pensions? There is a huge pension blackhole before you even start to reduce retirement age, if anything retirement age needs to be increasing.

As in the original post, this would be apparently paid for via the tax income from the freed up jobs, and the fact that some would be on dole anyway. :blink:

Not sure it would balance itself out so well myself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest absolutezero
The no. years of NI contributions required is going down though. So, anyone with over 30 years NI contributions (i.e.paid ther 'stamp') will get a full state pension (at the moment it's 44 years for men and 39 years for women).

If the state pension still exists by then....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The over 50s are discriminated against enough anyway when it comes to obtaining work, without the need for this kind of suggestion. Many, many people of over 50 and 60 still need (and want) to work, yet cannot find work though they have years of the right kind of experience and qualifications behind them, and sufficient energy to carry on working for years. The state pension is inadequate to support anyone except at the bare minimum of existence, and many people have seen savings that they have patiently accumulated over many years drastically eroded because of this government's appalling management of the economy and the country in general.

He did say it wasn't mandatory, but yes I shared similar concerns.

One solution is to create more jobs in this country – to bring back businesses here instead of farming everything out to the developing (and developed) world, so that everyone can be gainfully employed.

Without rampant protectionisim, this can't be achieved. I agree that the market is unbalanced against the British worker, however where do you draw the line? The same can be said of globalisation. A race to the bottom is against everyones interest.

Edit: left out above

Edited by bloodsucked
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's the real solution.

Your mate's problem has the major problem of how do you pay for all the pensions? There is a huge pension blackhole before you even start to reduce retirement age, if anything retirement age needs to be increasing.

It could be said that pensions should be abolished for all...we should be responsible for saving and investing from our working life income to prepare and support our own retirement, income support should still be available to those that need it means tested.

Property and rents should be kept low enough to allow people to save more for their futures.... ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the state pension still exists by then....

Oh please!! That's been the bulls*** put out for years by 'advisors' encouraging people to buy their financial 'products' and 'instruments.' It is a fact that pensioners have the highest proportion of those who actually vote so unless all the political parties hav a consensus to scrap it, there will always be a state pension. It may become means-tested though. That went down like a lead fart when proposed in , Canada (I Think?).

All parties chase the 'grey' or 'blue rinse' vote and will continue to do so.

Edited by deflation
Link to comment
Share on other sites

He did say it was mandatory, but yes I shared similar concerns.

Without rampant protectionisim, this can't be achieved. I agree that the market is unbalanced against the British worker, however where do you draw the line? The same can be said of globalisation. A race to the bottom is against everyones interest.

In the end, if that is what it takes, perhaps we won't be able to do without protectionism? The fact is, taxpayers cannot support an ever-growing number of unemployed people who are more than capable of working productively. And it's not just a financial thing – people need to work in order to be useful citizens in this country. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the end, if that is what it takes, perhaps we won't be able to do without protectionism? The fact is, taxpayers cannot support an ever-growing number of unemployed people who are more than capable of working productively. And it's not just a financial thing – people need to work in order to be useful citizens in this country. ;)

Aye. I suppose it should always be down to choice. If you want to make way for others then you should be helped to do so. If you want to be working full time after 65, then again you should be allowed to do so.

Personally, I'd love to be in a financial position to only have work part time from 55, yet still carry on for as long as I physically/mentally can.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It could be said that pensions should be abolished for all...we should be responsible for saving and investing from our working life income to prepare and support our own retirement, income support should still be available to those that need it means tested.

Property and rents should be kept low enough to allow people to save more for their futures.... ;)

The catch 22 is that the market demands high returns above inflation. This means you can never keep costs low and sustainable, the pressure is always on to increase returns.

People did decide to be responsible for saving and investing for their futures it was called Buy to let? Or haven't you been paying attention? :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The catch 22 is that the market demands high returns above inflation. This means you can never keep costs low and sustainable, the pressure is always on to increase returns.

People did decide to be responsible for saving and investing for their futures it was called Buy to let? Or haven't you been paying attention? :P

High Inflation of the past does not mean high inflation in the future a nice 2% Pa no problems...low taxes for all, higher taxes to make BTL not so beneficial to partake in. Money made from nothing is one of the reasons we are where we are today.

People can then invest their savings into real profitable companies that create real jobs and growth...if their choices have done well that income can then pay for their retirement....low costs/fees to invest, and make it easier and clearer for people to participate.

If you see sid tell him. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:lol:

Evil, but I like it.

Well, that is obvious ageism.

The funny thing about ageism is that its proponents are ever heading towards being in the very group that they discriminate against.

There have, I believe, been one or two Science Fiction films about young people who come to power and enact laws for involuntary euthanasia for all who reach a certain age. Time flies and then that same group find themselves targetted by the very laws that they brought in, which is the fun part. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.