Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
FreeTrader

Millions To Work Longer For A Pension As Life Expectancy Rises

Recommended Posts

As posted in the middle income households thread.

No surprise, we knew this was coming.

051213-papers-daily-telegraph-1-329x437.jpg

051213-papers-independent-1-329x437.jpg

051213-papers-the-guardian-1-329x437.jpg

051213-papers-the-times-1-329x437.jpg

While austerity measures to clear the deficit will extend towards 2018, the pension reforms will have much longer-lasting consequences.

Under a rule unveiled on Thursday, the state pension age will vary according to average life expectancy. It will be set with the aim of ensuring that people spend no more than a third of their expected lifespan drawing a pension. The rule is the latest move to make the state pension affordable as life expectancy rises. Paying today’s pensioners currently costs taxpayers almost £100 billion a year.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/pensions/10496149/Autumn-Statement-2013-millions-to-work-longer-for-a-pension-as-life-expectancy-rises.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just goes to show that the ONS 'Middle Income Households' statistical release was carefully timed.

Everything is stage managed these days.

Its been like that for a few years now, look how they managed to reduce the higher rate of tax, look how they managed to change social rents etc....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Scrap tax credits they could lower the pension age to 57.Scrap tax credits and housing benefit they could lower it to 53.

69 year old forced to work after 50 years at it,,20 year old cant get a job so sat at home.

Conservatives writing their suicide note.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Scrap tax credits they could lower the pension age to 57.Scrap tax credits and housing benefit they could lower it to 53.

69 year old forced to work after 50 years at it,,20 year old cant get a job so sat at home.

Conservatives writing their suicide note.

It's a problem for sure.

We have people working longer, labour arbitrage via globalisation, significant net inward migration, and we're on the cusp of explosive improvements in robotics and computational AI systems.

I'll repeat my view that the optimal solution is gradual population decline in the UK (which would be natural rather than enforced under projected fertility rates and in the absence of further immigration), but at present such an outlook has no political traction whatsoever.

In time I believe mainstream thinking will change to embrace this idea.

Edit: missed word.

Edited by FreeTrader

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So on the one hand, they expect young people to retire at 70+ whereas they expect the under 25s to not get any help with benefits but then they are expected to pay towards those gold plated pensions where people retired at 55, and will remain retired for perhaps 30 years or more....

Moreover, how are people in the late fifties and sixties expect to get a job with rampant ageism in the workplace? I do expect a change in thinking is coming...I see the nordic countries lead on this sort of thing...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When is Osborne proposing to start working.

Last time I checked he had never had a full time job outside of politics.

Strange how everyone hooted at the fact that the Rev Flowers was made Chairman of the Coop bank when his only experience of the financial sector was working as a bank clerk as a teenager. Yet no one ever questions the fact that the government finances are in the hands of a man whose only business experience was a part time post folding towels in Selfridges.

It is a mad world my masters.

Edited by stormymonday_2011

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The chancellor is expected to stress that the latest changes will not have any impact on people currently in their 40s and above. Nobody over the age of 50 will have a retirement age of 68 or more.

Interesting that they feel the need to stress this.

They know which voting block wins them power.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

40 year mortgage anyone ?

I aint working till i'm 70 to pay for those thieving bankers.

There's a lot of trouble coming.....

Edited by TheCountOfNowhere

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Boomers win again.

"The young are being squeezed by the old"

http://m.ft.com/cms/s/0/d3b8fc0e-5c54-11e3-931e-00144feabdc0.html

The research is best for workers still in final salary pension plans and pensioners already enjoying the fruits of these schemes. For them, the good news does not stop coming. Even though this older-generation workforce had no idea how much its gold-plated final salary pensions would cost at the time, it insists these promises are met in full. They are paid by younger generations of employees, who have no such rights or expectations and will face a higher state pension age.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Boomers win again.

That is my initial thoughts, but wouldn't this raise an issue of fairness? There was a thread the other day on btl which placed the average age of a btl'er at 51, this same age bracket that will not face the work till you drop treatment. Is it not looking like the idea of means testing for the state pension will be around the corner now at the next sign of deteriorating public finances or is the boomer bloc too powerful to confront with regard to public spending.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"The young are being squeezed by the old"

http://m.ft.com/cms/s/0/d3b8fc0e-5c54-11e3-931e-00144feabdc0.html

So the older voters can now expect a long retirement and longer lifer expectancy by hoovering up a greater share of the productivity of a younger and less numerous generation, the justification? Life expectancy has increased and we can't have people retiring for such a long stretch.

So what happens when life expectancy starts decreasing?

So it's now acceptable to very probably decrease life expectancy for the young to keep boomers retired at 65 ish enjoying the full trappings of a welfare state and now it seems the wider economy designed to cosset them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When is Osborne proposing to start working.

Last time I checked he had never had a full time job outside of politics.

Strange how everyone hooted at the fact that the Rev Flowers was made Chairman of the Coop bank when his only experience of the financial sector was working as a bank clerk as a teenager. Yet no one ever questions the fact that the government finances are in the hands of a man whose only business experience was a part time post folding towels in Selfridges.

It is a mad world my masters.

+1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now that Alan Milburn's report has basically accepted that the living standards of people born in the 1980s-2000s will be lower than those of the Boomers, is it still valid to assume that life expectancy will increase with each generation?

I doubt that decades of living in a state of continuous economic stress will do anything good for a person's cardiovascular system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It will almost be year since both my Father and Father in Law died, 64 and 62 respectfully.

If they're going to peddle the life expectancy myth as the reason, then workers in the South East should indeed retire at 70, however those in Glasgow should be getting their pensions at 55.

Not that it really matters what the pension age is as many are thrown on the scrap heap before sixty regardless, and the under 25s aren't getting on the job ladder anyway.

If you're under 40 you're probably best off forgetting about retiring and slowly work towards part time hours, taking yourself out of income tax altogether.

The Bankers their government cronies and sycophants have killed the host. There's no point in trying to deny this any more, and to think it could have all been so different. Yet this is what happens when legions of loons worship false idols such as crony capitalism or corporate socialism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now that Alan Milburn's report has basically accepted that the living standards of people born in the 1980s-2000s will be lower than those of the Boomers, is it still valid to assume that life expectancy will increase with each generation?

I doubt that decades of living in a state of continuous economic stress will do anything good for a person's cardiovascular system.

+1 Good post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"The young are being squeezed by the old"

Yes, but that is only the part of the big picture which is: "The young are being squeezed by the old who are squeezed by the very rich old." Those rich old are the ones that are constantly vacuuming the money out of the society and in the process they squeezed both young and old people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not only do the boomers get good pensions, houses etc....by the time anyone who is 45 now and buying a house, gets to 65, his house will have been falling in value for 20 years. :lol::lol::lol::lol::blink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Scrap tax credits they could lower the pension age to 57.Scrap tax credits and housing benefit they could lower it to 53.

69 year old forced to work after 50 years at it,,20 year old cant get a job so sat at home.

Conservatives writing their suicide note.

My thoughts exactly, working age benefits mean that the retirement age is moving as fast as the years that go by and many of us wont ever get there. Work til you drop to pay for working age welfare and triple locks for existing pensioners.

We are also paying the price for the late entry into the workforce of University grads, many of whom do not need the qualification for the job they eventually get and could have started work at 16.

Also the price we pay for the early retirement of previous generations from the age of 60 after a career of say 39 years. School leavers who don't go to university will have to do 52 years today, and 70 will probably not get them there.

Of course those that went at 60, had 'worked all their lives', and it was paid for. The magic money tree would pay for up to forty years in retirement for a 39 year career.

Nope they stripped the fruit bare,. left a two trillion debt to boot and retirement may soon be a thing of the past.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't actually expect to be able to retire... I think the goal posts will be moved further and further away.

What they say now probably still doesn't make any financial sense for the country.

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:   211 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.