Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
RufflesTheGuineaPig

Public Sector Retirement Age To Rise To 66

Recommended Posts

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-13800573

The government is to say for the first time that it plans to link the public sector retirement age to the state pension age, which is to rise to 66.

Chief Secretary to the Treasury Danny Alexander is also due to confirm public sector pensions will be based on workers' average salaries.

~

He is expected to say most public sector workers - bar the army, police and fire service - will see their retirement age linked to the state pension age.

~

"That case is simple. People are living much longer - the average 60 year old is living ten years longer now than they did in the 70s. This advance comes at a price. It is unjustifiable to ask the taxpayer to work longer and pay more so that public sector workers can retire earlier and receive more themselves."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's perfectly fair; the average public sector retirement age should match the private. They wanted/got/exceeded private sector salaries, so no reason they should get to sit reading the Guardian while the rest of the country toils to pay for their bloated 'entitlements'.

However, if you expected to retire at 60 and now are retiring at 66, you have effectively had your pension slashed by about a quarter or more! Unimaginable*.

* Unless you have a private sector pension decimated by the Maximum Imbecile.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's perfectly fair...

+1

I really don't know how anyone can justify the continuation of current pension policy and keep a straight face.

It is so simple... people are living longer so they must either a) contribute a higher percentage whilst working, or B) retire later, or c) a combination of those two. The only grey area I can see is when this should be phased in. It is probably unfair to do this to a 59 year old who has little time to make alternative provisions, so there must be a reasonable transition period.

As someone pointed out on another thread, if they don't like the option presented give them the option to draw their current pension entitlement until they reach the average life expectancy that occurred when they started working, then stop it totally.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If they want to retire early pay more into the pension.

...or take a reduced pension and start a new and better life doing something completely different. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

+1

I really don't know how anyone can justify the continuation of current pension policy and keep a straight face.

It is so simple... people are living longer so they must either a) contribute a higher percentage whilst working, or B) retire later, or c) a combination of those two. The only grey area I can see is when this should be phased in. It is probably unfair to do this to a 59 year old who has little time to make alternative provisions, so there must be a reasonable transition period.

The article states that the changes apply to future pension rights so a 59 year old would still be entitled to retire at 60 with all the pensionable years accrued upto the age of 59. It would be any future years that would be impacted. The government are not being altruistic here it is just that they dont want the senior teachers, firemen, senior nurses etc stampeding for early retirement before the rule changes arrive. In fact in the civil service the retirement age for civil servants had already been raised to 65 before this proposal so they are in effect adding one more year to their term not six years.

Like all public pension reductions it will save the public purse but the lower payouts to employees and higher contributions required from them will inevitably reduce the amount of cash that people have to spend on other things. As a consequence you can add it to higher fuel costs, food prices, cost of education etc etc as a factor that will suppress economic demand going forward. There is also the point that the lowest paid public workers might decide that joining the pension schemes is simply not worth the cost and they would be better off relying on the basic state pension topped up with means tested benefits particularly as the two retirement ages now coincide. This might explain why the government appear to have capped employee contributions for low paid workers. The fact is the benefits system as currently configured does not really encourage any form of modest pension savings as all it does is exclude you from the perks that those who can not be bothered to save receive.

Edited by stormymonday_2011

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The bits that too often seem to get left out of the equation are:

a) how many of these people will actually have jobs between the ages of 60 and 66?

B) to what extent will those who do have jobs hanging on to them create unemployment in younger age groups?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

+1

I really don't know how anyone can justify the continuation of current pension policy and keep a straight face.

It is so simple... people are living longer so they must either a) contribute a higher percentage whilst working, or B) retire later, or c) a combination of those two. The only grey area I can see is when this should be phased in. It is probably unfair to do this to a 59 year old who has little time to make alternative provisions, so there must be a reasonable transition period.

As someone pointed out on another thread, if they don't like the option presented give them the option to draw their current pension entitlement until they reach the average life expectancy that occurred when they started working, then stop it totally.

Nah….this has nothing to do with affordability, but more to do with governments raiding the pension pot to fund their wasteful expenditure.

Folk should retire at 60 and enjoy life while still fit enough to do so. But, like slaves, they are being forced to work longer and receive less from taxation. I don’t understand why you guys support this and knock pensions. It’s as if you spend your time looking with envy.

If this gets pushed through, then there will be unintended consequences, such as more people going into BTL, making houses even more out of reach.

Look - if public pension funds had been invested, rather than going into government coffers to be wasted, the fund now would be so massive, that members wouldn’t have to contribute. Instead, public workers have had their contributions nicked every month, in return for a promise. The notional fund is a con. Now the posts are being moved.

Remember - debt is the currency of slaves, and you’re being robbed.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nah….this has nothing to do with affordability, but more to do with governments raiding the pension pot to fund their wasteful expenditure.

Folk should retire at 60 and enjoy life while still fit enough to do so. But, like slaves, they are being forced to work longer and receive less from taxation. I don’t understand why you guys support this and knock pensions. It’s as if you spend your time looking with envy.

If this gets pushed through, then there will be unintended consequences, such as more people going into BTL, making houses even more out of reach.

Look - if public pension funds had been invested, rather than going into government coffers to be wasted, the fund now would be so massive, that members wouldn’t have to contribute. Instead, public workers have had their contributions nicked every month, in return for a promise. The notional fund is a con. Now the posts are being moved.

Remember - debt is the currency of slaves, and you’re being robbed. 

OK, but if you accept that people are living longer, then what gives ? Either pension payouts are reduced, or to keep pensions at the same levels either the contributions must increase or the retirement age must be pushed back.

Even assuming that cutting back on "wasteful expenditure" would enable funding of such pensions, why should only public sector workers benefit from these savings ?

Edited by ScrewsNutsandBolts

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nah….this has nothing to do with affordability, but more to do with governments raiding the pension pot to fund their wasteful expenditure.

Folk should retire at 60 and enjoy life while still fit enough to do so. But, like slaves, they are being forced to work longer and receive less from taxation. I don’t understand why you guys support this and knock pensions. It’s as if you spend your time looking with envy.

If this gets pushed through, then there will be unintended consequences, such as more people going into BTL, making houses even more out of reach.

Look - if public pension funds had been invested, rather than going into government coffers to be wasted, the fund now would be so massive, that members wouldn’t have to contribute. Instead, public workers have had their contributions nicked every month, in return for a promise. The notional fund is a con. Now the posts are being moved.

Remember - debt is the currency of slaves, and you’re being robbed.

 

That makes no sense, i imagine some people dont like it because as it comes from others in tax in the first place then those others probably perceive to fund them they will have to work longer and receive less from increased taxation, the exact point you are saying shouldnt be accepted,

you are effectively saying people shouldnt accept it unless you are generating the initial wealth to be taxed then its ok to accept it

Edited by georgia o'keeffe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, but if you accept that people are living longer, then what gives ? Either pension payouts are reduced, or to keep pensions at the same levels either the contributions must increase or the retirement age must be pushed back.

Even assuming that cutting back on "wasteful expenditure" would enable funding of such pensions, why should only public sector workers benefit from these savings ?

I'm not convinced they are living longer..or if so, you are looking at perhaps 3 - 6 months average.

The statistics are made up.

(I don't believe anything anymore)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even assuming that cutting back on "wasteful expenditure" would enable funding of such pensions, why should only public sector workers benefit from these savings ?

But the private sector have had their money tied up in complex inancial instruments, that are designed to maximize the propfits of theose baaastards who designed them in the first place. Just another form of theft, hidden in buy/offer spreads and fees etc.

Hence the drive to BTL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The bits that too often seem to get left out of the equation are:

a) how many of these people will actually have jobs between the ages of 60 and 66?

B) to what extent will those who do have jobs hanging on to them create unemployment in younger age groups?

Yes. As I mentioned above the benefit system comes into play here and it does not just apply after people retire.

Currently, workers retired at 60 with a small pension are not entitled to unemployment benefit. However, in future as they dont get the pension until the age of 66 workers dumped on the scrap heap at 60 will qualify for this payout plus other means tested benefits if they have no other savings apart from their accrued pension rights. The vast majority of public sector workers receive quite modest pensions (ie less than £5000 per annum or a £100 a week). It does not take a mathematical genius to see that JSA at £60 per week plus other benefits and freebies (ie Council Tax Benefit, Mortgage Interest paid etc) might work out at more than that amount. In fact the sums only add up for the government if the employees stay at work paying tax and contributing to the pension scheme.

Edited by stormymonday_2011

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But the private sector have had their money tied up in complex inancial instruments, that are designed to maximize the propfits of theose baaastards who designed them in the first place. Just another form of theft, hidden in buy/offer spreads and fees etc.

Hence the drive to BTL

The drive to buy to let is simply a function of houseprices going up in the noughties whilst stockmarkets have gone nowhere, its the same drive that took place into stockmarkets in the 90s, endowments and all that piffle which were using exactly the same financial instruments of destruction and leverage but people ignored it coz they were going up, if house prices dont go up or fall there will be a new thing that will get latched onto in another drive. Its a simple function of bull market or bear market, everyone rushes towards the bull market and runs away from the bear market

Edited by georgia o'keeffe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nah….this has nothing to do with affordability, but more to do with governments raiding the pension pot to fund their wasteful expenditure.

Folk should retire at 60 and enjoy life while still fit enough to do so. But, like slaves, they are being forced to work longer and receive less from taxation. I don’t understand why you guys support this and knock pensions. It’s as if you spend your time looking with envy.

If this gets pushed through, then there will be unintended consequences, such as more people going into BTL, making houses even more out of reach.

Look - if public pension funds had been invested, rather than going into government coffers to be wasted, the fund now would be so massive, that members wouldn’t have to contribute. Instead, public workers have had their contributions nicked every month, in return for a promise. The notional fund is a con. Now the posts are being moved.

Remember - debt is the currency of slaves, and you’re being robbed.

 

Some good points here. But what about the costs?

I'm taking early retirement next year at 55, that additional ten years of retirement will be the most expensive thing I've ever bought in my entire life by a country mile. Way more expensive than any car I've ever owned, and even more expensive than the house I'll live in.

Retiring early is a fantastic idea, but it's bloody expensive, who'll pay?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not convinced they are living longer..or if so, you are looking at perhaps 3 - 6 months average.

The statistics are made up.

(I don't believe anything anymore)

Part of my job involves looking at data on pensioner life expectancy. People are indeed living longer.

Although I guess you probably won't believe me either.

So why not have a look at the ages people are dying at in newspaper obituaries today, then have a look how long they lived in obituaries back in newspaper archives eg from the 1950s/60s. Bet you find more people dying in their 90s now than then.

Obviously not everyone is going to live to 100, but even if someone who might have lived to 63 in the 1960s now lives to 64, that increases his pension payments by 33% (4 years in retirement instead of 3).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But the private sector have had their money tied up in complex inancial instruments, that are designed to maximize the propfits of theose baaastards who designed them in the first place. Just another form of theft, hidden in buy/offer spreads and fees etc.

Hence the drive to BTL

...the btl is the pension of choice for those who do not have access to a pension....some have access to both. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That makes no sense, i imagine some people dont like it because as it comes from others in tax in the first place then those others probably perceive to fund them they will have to work longer and receive less from increased taxation, the exact point you are saying shouldnt be accepted,

you are effectively saying people shouldnt accept it unless they are in the private sector then its ok to accept it

If you think that your taxes are ever coming down then a pension won't be a problem for you, death from a crack overdose is much more likely to be an issue.

Given the tax and spend paradigm isn't going anywhere anytime soon, there are two basic scenarios

1) You are taxed and the money is spent on stuff you might want or need such as hospitals or diversity co ordinators

2) You are taxed and the money is kept by massively rich bankers to cover the losses they created by trying to defraud half the western hemisphere, you get no public services at all.

No one who isn't a massively wealthy banker should be in favour of scenario two, it's quite simply mental to be in favour of it.

Ideally many of us would like

3) The state shrinks, the bankers take their losses (and go to jail) the public sector workers are weaned off their entitlements etc etc

but 3) is never, ever going to happen this side of a complete collapse. The PTB will keep the taxes on you until your eyes bleed and use them to feather their own nests. The whole public/private debate needs having but to be in favour of receiving less back for the cash that will inevitably be taken from you is madness. "No hospitals for me Guv, you just make sure than fred and bob and sundry chums don't lose anything."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That makes no sense, i imagine some people dont like it because as it comes from others in tax in the first place then those others probably perceive to fund them they will have to work longer and receive less from increased taxation, the exact point you are saying shouldnt be accepted,

you are effectively saying people shouldnt accept it unless you are generating the initial wealth to be taxed then its ok to accept it

Sorry...you've lost me there.

The general theme in these threads is envy......private don't get final salary, so why should public..blah, blah,blah.

Why were the private final salary schemes closed down in the first place? Could it be to benefit share holders and business owners, at the expense of the workers? Why did the slaves just accept this....I don't remember a fight, but I do remember the advertising suggesting they would be better off investing differently for their retirement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's going to lose them the battle with the voting public is the fact they are striking whilst negotiations haven't even properly begun. Unions trying the flex muscle far too early.

For an educated bunch you might think that they should know talking is the only way to solve it.

Though a teacher commented that "you try teaching teenagers when you are in your 60's"

Really? You try doing a physical job, or being self employed in your 60's then trot back to me and tell me how hard your job is. Teaching in your 60's would be one of the easiest jobs to choose. Friggin lame. That's the best you can come up with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some good points here. But what about the costs?

I'm taking early retirement next year at 55, that additional ten years of retirement will be the most expensive thing I've ever bought in my entire life by a country mile. Way more expensive than any car I've ever owned, and even more expensive than the house I'll live in.

Retiring early is a fantastic idea, but it's bloody expensive, who'll pay?

But mate, this is your opportunity to do something you want, and earn a bit extra with your hobby/business. If it fails....so what, you ain't gonna starve.

Good luck and enjoy it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry...you've lost me there.

The general theme in these threads is envy......private don't get final salary, so why should public..blah, blah,blah.

Why were the private final salary schemes closed down in the first place? Could it be to benefit share holders and business owners, at the expense of the workers? Why did the slaves just accept this....I don't remember a fight, but I do remember the advertising suggesting they would be better off investing differently for their retirement.

Psychologically, facing up to the fact that the taxman is an unbeatable extortionist who can shake you down anytime he likes and you can do nothing about it is humiliating, so the anger gets denied and then displaced to the people said taxman spends his cash on.

The argument such as it is, runs that if the public sector workers got less, then taxes would come down. Which is ofc, completely ridiculous. Taxes only go up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you think that your taxes are ever coming down then a pension won't be a problem for you, death from a crack overdose is much more likely to be an issue.

Given the tax and spend paradigm isn't going anywhere anytime soon, there are two basic scenarios

1) You are taxed and the money is spent on stuff you might want or need such as hospitals or diversity co ordinators

2) You are taxed and the money is kept by massively rich bankers to cover the losses they created by trying to defraud half the western hemisphere, you get no public services at all.

No one who isn't a massively wealthy banker should be in favour of scenario two, it's quite simply mental to be in favour of it.

Ideally many of us would like

3) The state shrinks, the bankers take their losses (and go to jail) the public sector workers are weaned off their entitlements etc etc

but 3) is never, ever going to happen this side of a complete collapse. The PTB will keep the taxes on you until your eyes bleed and use them to feather their own nests. The whole public/private debate needs having but to be in favour of receiving less back for the cash that will inevitably be taken from you is madness. "No hospitals for me Guv, you just make sure than fred and bob and sundry chums don't lose anything."

perhaps you should actually read what you are replying to, theres no mention of decreased taxes only increased, the rate of increase in taxation clearly is not fixed

Share this post


Link to post
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...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 312 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • 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.