Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
AvidFan

Imf To Britain: Raise Retirement Age And...

Recommended Posts

Guest DissipatedYouthIsValuable

Ah well, at least we have expensive houses, eh?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/pensions/article.html?in_article_id=491405&in_page_id=6&ct=5

Raise retirement age, IMF tells Britain

Alex Brummer in Istanbul, Daily Mail

2 October 2009

Gordon Brown was warned last night to raise the retirement age above 65 and introduce NHS charges to tackle the soaring state deficit.

In a devastating intervention, the International Monetary Fund called for radical changes to the pension system and spending cuts that go far beyond the plans outlined by the Prime Minister this week.

The global watchdog said root and branch changes to public sector spending would be necessary to 'help keep a lid on the debt' and restore financial stability.

The IMF's broadside is highly unusual ahead of an election and reflects grave concern at the debt mountain built up by the Brown government.

The public reprimand will rekindle memories of the humiliation of the Callaghan government in 1976 when the IMF forced massive budget cuts on Britain to deal with the collapse of the pound.

Treasury ministers privately admit that the budget deficit is expected to rise to £ 200bn this year - £25bn more than the Chancellor predicted in the Budget.

That is the equivalent of £3,257 of debt for every man, woman and child, or £9,457 for the average family. Olivier Blanchard, the IMF's top economist, told a press conference at a joint annual meeting with the World Bank that the next British government will 'have to take measures that improve the medium-term debt outlook'. He added: 'That means reforms of the retirement system, that means reform of the healthcare system.' The IMF said that radical reform of pensions should lead to a rise in the national retirement age from 65 and save billions of pounds.

And it called for politicians to target 'unfunded' final salary public-sector pension schemes which will potentially cost the Exchequer up to £1 trillion.

Mr Blanchard said reform was vital, adding that it would be 'a joke' if the Government settled instead for new fiscal rules that might be torn up at times of crisis.

The IMF estimated that by next year Britain's debt will represent 81.7% of output. Even with planned cuts and tax increases, it predicted a figure of 98.3% by 2014.

There was a glimmer of hope for Alistair Darling in that the IMF raised Britain's growth forecast for next year to 0.9% from 0.2%.

The Chancellor's March budget went for a more optimistic 1.25%. The upgraded UK forecast was accompanied by caution that unemployment will continue to rise from 7.6% of the workforce this year to 9.3% next year. That would see three million without jobs.

The IMF also warned that Britain risks a new house price slump, despite an apparent recent market upturn. Their global outlook pointed to ' further large declines'.

In a bid to ease public concerns, senior Cabinet sources have revealed that Labour plans to make spending cuts and asset sales worth £ 75bn, taking an axe to major defence projects and the pay of judges, top civil servants and NHS managers.

Asked yesterday whether his spending plans were credible, Mr Brown told Five News: 'Absolutely. I've offered a deficit reduction plan. We've raised the top rate of tax. National insurance will rise by half of 1 per cent and we'll be cutting costs.

'There will be further announcements about how we sell off more than £16bn of assets. I have been absolutely straight with the British people.'

But Philip Hammond, Tory Treasury spokesman, said: 'It is increasingly clear that Labour have no plan to tackle the debt crisis they created.

'At their conference this week they showed absolutely no recognition of the size of the problem, and refused to be straight with people about the fact that their own Treasury documents show they are planning cuts to spending on public services.

'Labour still won't come clean with the British people.'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds good. Increase employment at the top end of the scale when youth unemployment is a major problem. It seems even more sensible in the context of them saying that unemployment is going to rise.

Increase the size of the labour force when the job market is contracting.

The logicless recovereh?

p-o-p

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:lol::lol::lol: Give me a second ! :lol::lol::lol:

Dont the IMF realise that there are three types of people in the UK and 2/3 of these types stopped work below 60 years old.

1. We have the by far the largest group. Men & Women who had lost their job sometimes up to 20 before the state retirement age and are claiming long term incapacity benefit until they retire.

2. The better off, with their private pension plans and gold plated public pensions who casually retire at 60 or even earlier.

3. Then theres the small group, hard working people working on into old age. If they had any sense they would be in the first or second group.

Therefore why not raise retirement age to 85 years old. It would matter a jot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont see the point why don't the government just be truthful , and say right here is the cut off age anybody below this age by 2010 gets no pension,

I hate the way people think NIC is for their pension when it is just a tax by another name.....

Hell I'm getting NIC demands even though I am unemployed and for periods when I was unemployed... :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:lol::lol::lol: Give me a second ! :lol::lol::lol:

Dont the IMF realise that there are three types of people in the UK and 2/3 of these types stopped work below 60 years old.

1. We have the by far the largest group. Men & Women who had lost their job sometimes up to 20 before the state retirement age and are claiming long term incapacity benefit until they retire.

2. The better off, with their private pension plans and gold plated public pensions who casually retire at 60 or even earlier.

3. Then theres the small group, hard working people working on into old age. If they had any sense they would be in the first or second group.

Therefore why not raise retirement age to 85 years old. It would matter a jot.

Lets look at what will happen post 2010:

1. Incapacity benefit and the number claiming it is going to be cut one way or the other

2. Private sector defined benefit schemes are on their last legs, public sector ones wont be far behind

3. That group will grow to everyone under the age of 50 pretty shortly

I would be surprised if it doesnt go up to 70 in the life of the next parliament <_<

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont see the point why don't the government just be truthful , and say right here is the cut off age anybody below this age by 2010 gets no pension,

I hate the way people think NIC is for their pension when it is just a tax by another name.....

Hell I'm getting NIC demands even though I am unemployed and for periods when I was unemployed... :(

Its called Social Compliance. It is just a tax by any other name, but the ramifications of paying the full contributuion means that you will receive payments until you die. The ramifications of not paying the full contribution is you receive exactly the same in payments until the day you dies because it is topped up.

So why pay the full contribution. The clue is in the name : Insurance.

If this was called stamp duty see how many people would not pay it or have to be dragged through the courts to pay.

After all community charge sounds better than poll tax and although they are different, one is per house the per person, they add up to the same amount, but one caused riots and the other is paid quite by direct debit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its called Social Compliance. It is just a tax by any other name, but the ramifications of paying the full contributuion means that you will receive payments until you die. The ramifications of not paying the full contribution is you receive exactly the same in payments until the day you dies because it is topped up.

So why pay the full contribution. The clue is in the name : Insurance.

If this was called stamp duty see how many people would not pay it or have to be dragged through the courts to pay.

After all community charge sounds better than poll tax and although they are different, one is per house the per person, they add up to the same amount, but one caused riots and the other is paid quite by direct debit.

So in effect I should toss away the demand letters I recieved for 2004/05 saying I have until 2013 to pay up , and probably the demand letter I get for 2009/10 due to current unemployment?.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So in effect I should toss away the demand letters I recieved for 2004/05 saying I have until 2013 to pay up , and probably the demand letter I get for 2009/10 due to current unemployment?.

If you have until 2013 to pay. Then why not save up some money in a savings account, and then in 2013 a few weeks before it falls due. Pay the amount in full.

They have given you the option, take it.

The Social Compliance aspect of National Insurance Contributions is people feel (not just this poster) but me as well, we feel good paying this tax because we feel we contributing and in return we will be looked after. Afterall it true.

There is no bonus or gold star or positive credit rating point when you pay your taxes early, so why do it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But I thought that the whole point of importing huge numbers of people into this country was so that they would work to pay for the pension of the elderly. If elderly people are funding their own pension (or not getting a pension), why do we need all these extra non-workers adding to the population?

Comrade, you have just asked and answered the question that our Government would need to spend millions of pounds on focus groups, public consultations and commitees to come up with the simply answer.

We didnt need them, when they were here it cost us more than they contributed, some of them wont leave now they are here and we'll have support them too. What are going to do to stop this from happening again seeing as we lost control of our borders to Brussels.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But I thought that the whole point of importing huge numbers of people into this country was so that they would work to pay for the pension of the elderly. If elderly people are funding their own pension (or not getting a pension), why do we need all these extra non-workers adding to the population?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you have until 2013 to pay. Then why not save up some money in a savings account, and then in 2013 a few weeks before it falls due. Pay the amount in full.

They have given you the option, take it.

The Social Compliance aspect of National Insurance Contributions is people feel (not just this poster) but me as well, we feel good paying this tax because we feel we contributing and in return we will be looked after. Afterall it true.

There is no bonus or gold star or positive credit rating point when you pay your taxes early, so why do it.

TBH I'm not that sure I will spend the rest of my days here (there are many pull factors in Asia) , and with Injin's constant state failure in post after post it makes you think but will they really look after me ?.

In 2003 I thought of a get around ie declare yourself self employed and pay the tiny amount of class 2 NIC while you are overseas (it was something like £1.80 a week) and thus if there is ever a need to come back there isnt a gaping massive hole in your NIC record.

I dunno the future seems so uncertain... but I was just going to ignore it till 2013 anywaythen revisit it, heh if the hyperinflationistas are correct the £300ish or was it £800 they want will be pocket change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TBH I'm not that sure I will spend the rest of my days here (there are many pull factors in Asia) , and with Injin's constant state failure in post after post it makes you think but will they really look after me ?.

In 2003 I thought of a get around ie declare yourself self employed and pay the tiny amount of class 2 NIC while you are overseas (it was something like £1.80 a week) and thus if there is ever a need to come back there isnt a gaping massive hole in your NIC record.

I dunno the future seems so uncertain... but I was just going to ignore it till 2013 anywaythen revisit it, heh if the hyperinflationistas are correct the £300ish or was it £800 they want will be pocket change.

Let me put it to you like this.

If your going to cross a road blindfolded would you rather cross by yourself or with a group of blinded folded people.

For £1.80 a week (your figures) even if you move to Asia, then keep paying it, where else are you going get £185 a week for life, when/if you reach retirement for an investment of £1.80 a week.

The alternative is not pay the £1.80 a week and definitly not be entitled much when you retire.

Who knows what the future will bring, maybe nothing but your not going to miss £1.80 a week either way.

Edited by Rt. Hon. Lord Mandelson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought that was so worth knowing it was worth repeating!

You forgot to add in caveat IF government policy remains the same, in that all these means tested benefits maynot exist in 2050 (the age which I will probably retire). In that government policy can change markedly especially with the inability to pay for everything , ie the universal child benefit thing is to be changed.

Although Russia and China are extreme examples , over night they changed over and left many people in the lurch , where socialist china used to provide most things in life its no longer the case, places in Siberia are hugely depopulated as people move to western Russia.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its called Social Compliance. It is just a tax by any other name, but the ramifications of paying the full contributuion means that you will receive payments until you die. The ramifications of not paying the full contribution is you receive exactly the same in payments until the day you dies because it is topped up.

I thought that was so worth knowing it was worth repeating!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TBH I'm not that sure I will spend the rest of my days here (there are many pull factors in Asia) , and with Injin's constant state failure in post after post it makes you think but will they really look after me ?.

In 2003 I thought of a get around ie declare yourself self employed and pay the tiny amount of class 2 NIC while you are overseas (it was something like £1.80 a week) and thus if there is ever a need to come back there isnt a gaping massive hole in your NIC record.

I dunno the future seems so uncertain... but I was just going to ignore it till 2013 anywaythen revisit it, heh if the hyperinflationistas are correct the £300ish or was it £800 they want will be pocket change.

I think you only need 30 years of NI payments to get the full pension, if you have less it can be topped up with pension credits.

Just make sure you have no more than 6k savings when you retire.

On the other hand, Nijin maybe right and no one will get anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But I thought that the whole point of importing huge numbers of people into this country was so that they would work to pay for the pension of the elderly. If elderly people are funding their own pension (or not getting a pension), why do we need all these extra non-workers adding to the population?

To keep down wages.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I dont see the point why don't the government just be truthful , and say right here is the cut off age anybody below this age by 2010 gets no pension,

I hate the way people think NIC is for their pension when it is just a tax by another name.....

This is already the case, based on the date you were born. I think the cutoff is some time in 1969.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

clearly, our money given to the IMF is being put to good use, employing many thousands to produce daily reports that conflict with each other on the state of nation economies.

one day Uk is saved, next it is doomed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

50% of the money Labour put into the NHS has gone on wage increases, particularly at managerial level and above. Those salaries should not be frozen they should be cut. If normal families have to start paying for the NHS it is solely to maintain higher end salaries.

The retirement age will go up to 80 because people will need 50 year mortgages to pay for our ridiculous house prices. Servicing all the extra debt will just put more money in the pockets of bankers who will be retiring to their mansions younger than ever.

The public have been conned into thinking owning 60% of a house valued at £250k (£150k) is better than owning 100% of the same house valued at £100k (£100k). They don't get it that the extra £50k isn't theirs it is debt. It is eaten away by longer mortgages so more interest, higher stamp duty, higher legal fees, etc. In second income families one person is working just to pay the mortgage. Older generation women typically stayed at home because they didn't have as much debt to service. Normal families now will have less and less disposable income.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

with Injin's constant state failure in post after post it makes you think but will they really look after me ?.

Nijin maybe right and no one will get anything.

Injin is obviously having some influence!!

Personally I can't see all of the promised unfunded public sector pensions being paid in full - there just isn't going to be the money to pay for them. However, I also can't see a world in which there is NO State pension at all, especially when you consider what a large proportion of the electorate are elderly. Any party abolishing State pensions would soon be voted out by the grey vote to be replaced by one who re-instated it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds good. Increase employment at the top end of the scale when youth unemployment is a major problem. It seems even more sensible in the context of them saying that unemployment is going to rise.

Increase the size of the labour force when the job market is contracting.

The logicless recovereh?

p-o-p

Its logical alright - you just don't understand politicianspeak.

"Increase retirement age" is and means the same as "default on pensions" for 65 year olds. A sizeable proportion will die and never draw their pension at all and I don't see the paragraph where it says that those who do draw their pensions at 70 will have them increased to make up for the pension they lost.

We have all been predicting the UK government would default on pensions. They are, only doing it in stages so that no one notices.

Whether these folk find any meaningful work or not is immaterial

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The public have been conned into thinking owning 60% of a house valued at £250k (£150k) is better than owning 100% of the same house valued at £100k (£100k).

It's only worse if you end up paying more that 50k in mortgage interest or if house prices go down. And in example one you could STR with £150k in the bank, whereas in example two you could only STR with £100k in the bank.

On balance I'd rather be in example two world, but it isn't totally clear cut.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   295 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

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.