Millions To Work Longer For A Pension As Life Expectancy Rises

[crashmonitor]

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.

Retirement pensions never made any sense. Taxation barely pays for working age welfare. But you can always pretend the sums add up when you are running a Ponzi scheme and it makes sense for fifty year old plus legislators to keep the Ponzi going as long as possible, just long enough for them to get a draw too.

[Quicken]

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.

Clearly they've already done the maths and realised it's a one term government, so they thought f*ck it - generational warfare.

[feed]

It’s a nonsense. This isn’t about getting people working until they're 70.

It’s about getting the non-working over 55s on JSA and sanctioning / workfaring them.

If you’re under 40 and expecting to work until 70 forget it, I know two people at 45/46 who are already facing serious age discrimination in employment. Add another 20 years of drones/bot improvement, increased low cost automation, wage arbitrage and unpredicted tech changes.

[The Spaniard]

Nigella looks very glamorous, she looks very healthy for her age, just shows that if you look after yourself with, good food and exercise and cocaine anyone can look like this.

Are you Leon from Gogglebox?

[The Knimbies who say No]

The destruction of the will to work.

Removing the carrot of a decent retirement leaves only the stick, and Osborne's stick is the encouragement of crushing debt servitude. Are there enough young masochists willing to take seven figure debts to keep them getting out of bed?

[crashmonitor]

The only good thing about this from my point of view is that 68 years comes in from 2035, too late for me. Though no doubt there will be a transitional period from 2033. So I reckon those born from April 1965 will also be effected. I'd be pretty pissed off if I was born in April 1967 or shortly after. Anybody on here?

Edited December 5, 2013 by crashmonitor

[goldbug9999]

Sorry but I really dont get all this moaning about retire age increases. The same people who accuse the old of milking the young are turning round and complaining their opportunity to do likewise is being removed.

In reality the main losers will be those on public sector pensions which is a good thing.

[crashmonitor]

Sorry but I really dont get all this moaning about retire age increases. The same people who accuse the old of milking the young are turning round and complaining their opportunity to do likewise is being removed.

In reality the main losers will be those on public sector pensions which is a good thing.

Existing rights are protected, so it certainly won't effect current public sector workers that much.

As recently pointed out on this forum the pension rights in the public sector are the priority over everything, people dying for want of drugs etc. We would have to have nuclear wipe out before these promises weren't met.

Edited December 5, 2013 by crashmonitor

[interestrateripoff]

Sorry but I really dont get all this moaning about retire age increases. The same people who accuse the old of milking the young are turning round and complaining their opportunity to do likewise is being removed.

In reality the main losers will be those on public sector pensions which is a good thing.

Put simply if the retirement age is being increased it should be for everyone.

The longer your working life the more jobs are going to have to be created....

[longtomsilver2]

It's a myth life expectancies are increasing, there's more people so naturally a few more will live to the ripe old age of 80, 90 and 100 but the truth is there for all to see in any grave yard and that is people were living to their 80s, 90s xxx (can't see any 100s but I expect they were eagerly moved on with a pillow) hundreds of years ago.

With people getting progressively poorer and the Fukushima incident releasing the most lethal type of short lived radioactive isotopes which unfortunately will carry for the next three hundred years in the most carcinogenic form.

We've been screwed over AGAIN.

[Quicken]

Put simply if the retirement age is being increased it should be for everyone.

+100

Pension changes - can't have them affecting those already retired/close to retirement as they can't adjust their plans so it would be unfair.

Student fee change - apply immediately. The young don't have financial plans yet, and by the time they realise they've been screwed it'll be someone else's problem.

They're treating the young like boiling frogs.

Very cynical use of exponential future reward/penalty discounting.

EDIT: typo

Edited December 5, 2013 by Quicken

[awaytogo]

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.

+1

The life long benefit claimants will have nothing to worry about concerning retirement age.

What a joke working for a living is becoming.

And how many people are going to be able to work at 70, not only physically but the prospect of getting a job at +65.

[winkie]

Incorrect it's work until dead if your a prole!

Yes....lot to be said in that......so they don't want £100k + salaries to pay the interest on their debts they want the money and generous pensions that go with it so that they can educate their children, get them sorted in good jobs, nudge, nudge, wink, wink, then retire early to live it up?

[winkie]

+1

The life long benefit claimants will have nothing to worry about concerning retirement age.

What a joke working for a living is becoming.

And how many people are going to be able to work at 70, not only physically but the prospect of getting a job at +65.

What do they care.....someone else's problem then, let them sort it, who knows what will happen.....they if planned it right will be sailing into the sunset by then.

[crashmonitor]

+1

And how many people are going to be able to work at 70

In the world of politics where you get to be a ski bum until you are nearly thirty and then do forty years in a sedentary job it looks very doable. The reality of a roofer,gardener or builder having started work at 15 I am afraid is very different and it will be crippling arthritis by 70.

50 years nic contributions should get you a pension at 65, this would help manual workers who have done their time.

Edited December 5, 2013 by crashmonitor

[winkie]

In the world of politics where you get to be a ski bum until you are nearly thirty and then do forty years in a sedentary job it looks very doable. The reality of a roofer,gardener or builder having started work at 15 I am afraid is very different and it will be crippling arthritis by 70.

50 years nic contributions should get you a pension at 65, this would help manual workers who have done their time.

Brick layers, roofers, plumbers, gardeners all kinds of manual work would be impossible for most tradesmen or women to do after a certain age, before the age of seventy...they can also be done by imported young labour......many of the non manual office type admin work can be outsourced or automated.......maybe we could all write books and paint for a living.

[Allthatglitters]

Existing rights are protected, so it certainly won't effect current public sector workers that much.

As recently pointed out on this forum the pension rights in the public sector are the priority over everything, people dying for want of drugs etc. We would have to have nuclear wipe out before these promises weren't met.

Not sure where you get that from.

CONDEM and last govt policy is to equalise Civil Serve Pension retirement age with that of the State Pension.

You are correct that entitlement up to 2015 will be protected (so someone who to date has paid in for 20 years for a pension at age 60 will still be able to take that pension at 60 - although it will be pro rated) and the individual will need to reduce their hours in order to take the partial pension.

Once this is implemented, the retirement age for most serving civil servants will have increased by 8 years (which is probably about a 25+% increase in their working life).

[crashmonitor]

Not sure where you get that from.

CONDEM and last govt policy is to equalise Civil Serve Pension retirement age with that of the State Pension.

You are correct that entitlement up to 2015 will be protected (so someone who to date has paid in for 20 years for a pension at age 60 will still be able to take that pension at 60 - although it will be pro rated) and the individual will need to reduce their hours in order to take the partial pension.

Once this is implemented, the retirement age for most serving civil servants will have increased by 8 years (which is probably about a 25+% increase in their working life).

Indeed if existing rights are protected until 2015 then I can't see there being any substantial savings for the exchequer for many years to come or indeed that much difference for many workers especially those who are already at least half way through their careers. There is still the option to take the benefits accrued until 2015 at 60.

Edited December 5, 2013 by crashmonitor

[awaytogo]

I

50 years nic contributions should get you a pension at 65, this would help manual workers who have done their time.

True

And would leave a vacancy for the under 25s.

As it is there are far to many people chasing to few jobs, increasing retirement age are just going to make getting a job more difficult.

[motch]

Nigella looks very glamorous, she looks very healthy for her age, just shows that if you look after yourself with, good food and exercise and cocaine anyone can look like this.

she said she's only done it a couple of times though....

[RentingForever]

The only good thing about this from my point of view is that 68 years comes in from 2035, too late for me. Though no doubt there will be a transitional period from 2033. So I reckon those born from April 1965 will also be effected. I'd be pretty pissed off if I was born in April 1967 or shortly after. Anybody on here?

Yep, me: March 68.

I'm basically resigned to the fact that the rest of my life is going to be this: http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/workers-carrot-to-remain-slightly-out-of-reach-2013120581726

[motch]

born in 71 for me.

[council dweller]

...born in the fifties...just.

My problem is that I have zero income having lost my job (stroke but recovered wonderfully!) and have enough money to scrape an existence until 66.

ho hum.

[crashmonitor]

Yep, me: March 68.

I'm basically resigned to the fact that the rest of my life is going to be this: http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/workers-carrot-to-remain-slightly-out-of-reach-2013120581726

As they keep adding years you tend to take it in your stride because the pain is in the future. However, loss of £7,500 (in today's money) and having to work an extra year in your late sixties or get by on savings like council dweller is a big deal.

Not that anyone starting out to day with a target of 70+ is going to have any sympathy, and why should they.

Edited December 5, 2013 by crashmonitor

[winkie]

...born in the fifties...just.

My problem is that I have zero income having lost my job (stroke but recovered wonderfully!) and have enough money to scrape an existence until 66.

ho hum.

I think you will find there will be more people scraping by an existence...... often due to health reasons, mainly stress.......many will be hoping there will be enough in the kitty spending their homes, their pensions.....when it is gone it is gone.