Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Pensioners '£20 a week better off' on average than workers


Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, CunningPlan said:

We can only judge by what we see. Round my way, the btl farmers are the pensioners. The only people in the gastropubs are the pensioners. The ones slagging off the kids for having an end of school party are the pensioners (despite having very late, loud barn dances themselves). The ones that think it is fine for their kids to move 100 miles away as 'they have no right to live where they grew up' are the pensioners. The ones that block a skate park but authorise a (never used) petanq pitch are the pensioners. The ones that thwart every single planning application, even the reasonable ones, are the pensioners. The ones that moan that someone mowing their lawn should be grateful for £7 per hour are the pensioners. The ones that campaign that the local woods are for dog walkers, not kids on bmx bikes, are the pensioners. The ones that have the parish clerk on speed dial in case of kids having fun in the park are pensioners.  

The ones that wanted a local cafe, but don't want it to open before 9am, in case van drivers use, it are pensioners. The ones that moan about mess kids leave in the park, despite the worst mess being dog poo, are pensioners. The ones that approve tens of thousands being spent on the village hall, yet nothing on the knackered scout hut, are pensioners. 

Join your local facebook page or streetlife. It is like the daily mail in microcosm. They may not be to blame for every ill but where I am at least, they really do make every effort to feather their own nest at the expense of the rest.

Epic rant, love it

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 105
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

3 hours ago, CunningPlan said:

We can only judge by what we see. Round my way, the btl farmers are the pensioners. The only people in the gastropubs are the pensioners. The ones slagging off the kids for having an end of school party are the pensioners (despite having very late, loud barn dances themselves). The ones that think it is fine for their kids to move 100 miles away as 'they have no right to live where they grew up' are the pensioners. The ones that block a skate park but authorise a (never used) petanq pitch are the pensioners. The ones that thwart every single planning application, even the reasonable ones, are the pensioners. The ones that moan that someone mowing their lawn should be grateful for £7 per hour are the pensioners. The ones that campaign that the local woods are for dog walkers, not kids on bmx bikes, are the pensioners. The ones that have the parish clerk on speed dial in case of kids having fun in the park are pensioners.  

The ones that wanted a local cafe, but don't want it to open before 9am, in case van drivers use, it are pensioners. The ones that moan about mess kids leave in the park, despite the worst mess being dog poo, are pensioners. The ones that approve tens of thousands being spent on the village hall, yet nothing on the knackered scout hut, are pensioners. 

Join your local facebook page or streetlife. It is like the daily mail in microcosm. They may not be to blame for every ill but where I am at least, they really do make every effort to feather their own nest at the expense of the rest.

Are they the ones that marched for better conditions when they were young or did they just reap the benefits of that era.  Probably the latter? although it sounds like they might have been up for some protest way back then?

Edited by billybong
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Sancho Panza said:

Sky 13/2/17

'Pensioner households are now earning more than their working age equivalents, according to a new study.

Low income growth for working age households has coincided with a new generation of pensioners who tend to still be in work, own a home and receive generous pensions, analysis by the Resolution Foundation for the Intergenerational Commission shows.

The As Time Goes By study states that after housing costs, typical pensioner households are now £20 a week better off than typical working age ones.

The story is quite different from that of 2001, when pensioner incomes were £70 a week lower than working age ones.

The biggest reason for the growing wealth for older people were their occupational pensions, which account for over a third of gross pensioner income growth since 2001.

Also, 73% of pensioners now own their own homes, up from 64% 16 years ago.

However, there is still a big gap between the richest and poorest pensioners.

The top fifth of pensioner households account for 74% of employment income, 66% of investment income and 52% of occupational pension income.

But the bottom fifth are almost completely reliant on benefits.

Meanwhile, millennials' income growth is at a much lower rate, home ownership levels are falling and their access to defined benefit pension schemes is limited.'

...this is a non story by Sky as usual...retired pensioners from the public sector still get final salary pensions which have all but disappeared in the private sector ....and they usually take out their mortgage term to tie in with their retirement date ...no big deal here ...this has been the case for a long time ....due to people living longer they often take on another job after retirement ....however many pensioners do not have this security and are a lot worse off than people who are in work and not retired....this is all known but the news writers design a cheap headline for a non news issue to create 'click bait'...attracting people to their site and advertisements as they spread stories of doom....it's all about earning streams for them.....:rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Little Frank said:

For the simple reason pensioners aren't sacked when there's a recession.

This is precisely what you would expect to happen when unemployment rises after the worst recession in a century. 

Perhaps 'Lord' Willetts could help by not taking his generous MPs pension and Lords kickbacks.

...employment is at an all time high..but a high proportion of jobs are part time, zero hours contracts and low paid while self employment is growing also.....the type of career jobs which people entered 40 years ago rarely exist now...the changes has been epic in a relatively short time...Willets and his kind don't observe or understand these changes and therefore their report has little substance ....an analysis of the changes in employment over the last 20 years should be key in any such report....and of course salaries and wages have declined which they have not mentioned...:rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, billybong said:

^

With some of the companies it very much depended on the fund and when you left the fund.  If you stayed until retirement (most likely early retirement) then you might get a very good deal - otherwise not so much and contractor employees who worked on/off for companies like that would most likely have had to make their own arrangements.

School headteachers would most likely be public sector so that's another ball game again.

The point being that like everyone else the guardian shouldn't generalise and shouldn't use the expression baby boomers as an excuse all to cover every problem either.

The unfair tax system is something that you can generalise on. It's ridiculous the mess that is NI and the lack of funding for anything like bus passes for people on JSA. I'd rather use the bus but it's more expensive than a car and a vast number of people that use the busses are the affluent boomers on nice day trips out, my parents included.

NI is a con and people are being lied to about it. Should all be rolled into one.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, One-percent said:

Nope, I have a USS pension, for university staff and a few, couple? Of years ago the rules were changed to bring the age it can be claimed in line with the state pension age.  So, at the moment 67 but I'm not holding out any hope that it will stay at that.  We all joke at work about pushing each other round in wheelchairs and sharing Zimmer frames.  You might be in line for 55, but it does depend on the rules of your particular scheme.

im 55 this year and when I started paying in, it was 55 too.  Bitter? Me? No of course not. :) the bar stewards 

The normal pension age in USS is still 65. It's going up to 67 in 2020.

As far as I can see, at the current time (up until 2020) members can still retire at 55 with an actuarial reduction in the payout for each year they're short of 65. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, SpectrumFX said:

The normal pension age in USS is still 65. It's going up to 67 in 2020.

As far as I can see, at the current time (up until 2020) members can still retire at 55 with an actuarial reduction in the payout for each year they're short of 65. 

I need to have a closer look.  My impression when I started was that I could take the full pension at 60, acturarially reduced from 55.  The literature I have seen, and a talk I went to last term from USS to explain the new pension arrangement we had all been moved over to, state that the age that which the full pension can be taken is now the same as the state pension age.  For me, this is 67.  I believe that my interpretation is correct as we are all fuming about it at work.  

Im lucky in a way as I kind of subconsciously saw this coming and so when moving to a university that uses USS, I also kept working a day a week in an old poly.  I'm still paying into, so keeping alive my old teachers pension. I'm a few weeks, literally, the right side of the new changes with this one and so can take the full pension at 60.  Six's weeks younger and this too would be linked to the state pension age.

so the financial plan, for what it's worth, is to go to maybe 57.  live off savings for three years (actuarial reduction is brutal), take the teachers pension at sixty and use this to eek out the savings until 67 and hope that I'm still around to collect.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, One-percent said:

I need to have a closer look.  My impression when I started was that I could take the full pension at 60, acturarially reduced from 55.  The literature I have seen, and a talk I went to last term from USS to explain the new pension arrangement we had all been moved over to, state that the age that which the full pension can be taken is now the same as the state pension age.  For me, this is 67.  I believe that my interpretation is correct as we are all fuming about it at work.  

Im lucky in a way as I kind of subconsciously saw this coming and so when moving to a university that uses USS, I also kept working a day a week in an old poly.  I'm still paying into, so keeping alive my old teachers pension. I'm a few weeks, literally, the right side of the new changes with this one and so can take the full pension at 60.  Six's weeks younger and this too would be linked to the state pension age.

so the financial plan, for what it's worth, is to go to maybe 57.  live off savings for three years (actuarial reduction is brutal), take the teachers pension at sixty and use this to eek out the savings until 67 and hope that I'm still around to collect.  

The trouble with the link to state pension age is that you get your pension at the same time as the state pension, so what's the point? You might as well not bother.

Personally I'll be taking the hit in actuarial reduction as soon as the resultant pension is enough to see me through to state pension age. At that point I'll make an assessment as to whether the state pension will still exist when I get to the requisite age.

The worst outcome is to spend decades funding your own provision only to find that they make the state pension means tested just before you retire. I think that for younger people, that is quite a risk.

Edit to add: my understanding is that if you retire at 57, you'll be out before the pension age is elevated, and your pension will be payable without actuarial reduction from 65. Have a word with the pensions people in your institution and ask for an illustration. My last USS statement included the following blurb on retirement age, the last sentence is pretty important:

The normal pension age in USS is currently age 65. If you retire before normal pension age, early retirement reductions apply unless you are retiring due to incapacity. State pension ages for men and women are due to increase incrementally between November 2018 and October 2020 to age 66. USS rules provide for the normal pension age to be changed in light of any change to state pension age. Any change to your normal pension age from USS would only apply to service built up after the date of the change.

Edited by SpectrumFX
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, SpectrumFX said:

The trouble with the link to state pension age is that you get your pension at the same time as the state pension, so what's the point? You might as well not bother.

Personally I'll be taking the hit in actuarial reduction as soon as the resultant pension is enough to see me through to state pension age. At that point I'll make an assessment as to whether the state pension will still exist when I get to the requisite age.

The worst outcome is to spend decades funding your own provision only to find that they make the state pension means tested just before you retire. I think that for younger people, that is quite a risk.

The argument there is that the state pension isn't supposed to be enough to support you. I actually find that very insulting, £160 per week  with a partner on the same and no mortgage isn't such a bad place to be imo. The people that come out with that clearly are boasting about their spending prowess. And, of course, it is beyond the Establishment's comprehension, most especially MPs who make the rules, that you could live comfortably on that. They live in an environment of spend and waste after all.

Meanwhile, I packed in the job last May and what I have has to see me through the next fourteen years, or where ever the moving goal posts end up. Meanwhile because it is a cash pot it will become increasingly difficult to not touch the capital under a zirp environment. Indeed i am going to have to drip a bit more into Equity even at today's ludicrous valuations as hedge against zirp forever. I'm hoping to keep it intact, means tested or not.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, crashmonitor said:

The argument there is that the state pension isn't supposed to be enough to support you. I actually find that very insulting, £160 per week  with a partner on the same and no mortgage isn't such a bad place to be imo. The people that come out with that clearly are boasting about their spending prowess. And, of course, it is beyond the Establishment's comprehension, most especially MPs who make the rules, that you could live comfortably on that. They live in an environment of spend and waste after all.

Meanwhile, I packed in the job last May and what I have has to see me through the next fourteen years, or where ever the moving goal posts end up. Meanwhile because it is a cash pot it will become increasingly difficult to not touch the capital under a zirp environment. Indeed i am going to have to drip a bit more into Equity even at today's ludicrous valuations as hedge against zirp forever. I'm hoping to keep it intact, means tested or not.

If I and my wife were both drawing the state pensons at the level they currently are promised to be, then I could live on that quite comfortably. I am a man of small needs. All I want is some books, a guitar, and a place to play it :)

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yesterday I managed to get hold of the paperwork for my mum's pension income and it's shockingly high yet seen is still burning through capital with nothing to show for it. 

My father's annuity paid out at 15% linked to the CPI and halved to a widowers pension that my mum received, combined with her teachers pension and state pension she gets £3,600 a month net (house owned outright). Her capital (270,000) has been invested in Nationwide and it's return over the last 3 years has been 4.97% yet she has withdrawn £88,000 in that time frame and it now stands at £194,000. 

I haven't got the foggiest what she is spending  £6,000 a month on. In September she started an art degree to keep her occupied so that must be £9k per annum of it.

I'll be happy with £600 a month (SIPP income which looks baked in) from 58 and a part-time job until I'm 68. Yet my mother still (genuinely) considers herself a poor pensioner!

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, longtomsilver said:

Yesterday I managed to get hold of the paperwork for my mum's pension income and it's shockingly high yet seen is still burning through capital with nothing to show for it. 

My father's annuity paid out at 15% linked to the CPI and halved to a widowers pension that my mum received, combined with her teachers pension and state pension she gets £3,600 a month net (house owned outright). Her capital (270,000) has been invested in Nationwide and it's return over the last 3 years has been 4.97% yet she has withdrawn £88,000 in that time frame and it now stands at £194,000. 

I haven't got the foggiest what she is spending  £6,000 a month on. In September she started an art degree to keep her occupied so that must be £9k per annum of it.

I'll be happy with £600 a month (SIPP income which looks baked in) from 58 and a part-time job until I'm 68. Yet my mother still (genuinely) considers herself a poor pensioner!

No wonder some pensioners see the state pension as a bit of pocket money that couldn't possibly be lived on.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, longtomsilver said:

Yesterday I managed to get hold of the paperwork for my mum's pension income and it's shockingly high yet seen is still burning through capital with nothing to show for it. 

My father's annuity paid out at 15% linked to the CPI and halved to a widowers pension that my mum received, combined with her teachers pension and state pension she gets £3,600 a month net (house owned outright). Her capital (270,000) has been invested in Nationwide and it's return over the last 3 years has been 4.97% yet she has withdrawn £88,000 in that time frame and it now stands at £194,000. 

I haven't got the foggiest what she is spending  £6,000 a month on. In September she started an art degree to keep her occupied so that must be £9k per annum of it.

I'll be happy with £600 a month (SIPP income which looks baked in) from 58 and a part-time job until I'm 68. Yet my mother still (genuinely) considers herself a poor pensioner!

How she can discribe herself as a poor pensioner is ridiculous, is that what old age can do to the mind?......To be honest very many people live in a cocoon, they do not know or are not interested what goes on further down the road, it doesn't affect them.....Beyond the realm of reality.;)

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, winkie said:

How she can discribe herself as a poor pensioner is ridiculous, is that what old age can do to the mind?......To be honest very many people live in a cocoon, they do not know or are not interested what goes on further down the road, it doesn't affect them.....Beyond the realm of reality.;)

All their life pensioners were poor.  And for a large part of it they were poor, especially if they relied on the state pension (which was originally it was sold as being a proper pension, so they couldn't be blamed too much for thinking they could rely on it). 

So, they're now pensioners, ergo, they're poor.

And, as I mentioned up thread, if you point out to them that pensioners are now better off than workers, it is always other pensioners, not them.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Travisher said:

Definitely fake news. I've been paying in about a third of my gross earnings for over ten years to a private pension. Projected income if I keep this up is around a third of my current income with nearly  decade more work and inflation before then. I can only do this because Mum left enough to pay off the mortgage. Most are not so lucky. Returns on investment at the moment mean I'd be better off shoving it under the mattress.

Agree with this completely. My last annual pensions projection reckons i will get out less a month than ive paid in each month. At age 40 currently projecting paying out £6k a year for a projected accumulated pension pot of just over £250k at 65.

Mention pensions and older people go misty eyed and speak about the 'magic of compounding', suggesting that allowing cumulative saving to build on itself produces an output many times the amount paid in but its all ********. As long as govt is commited to supressing interest rates then pensions are worthless...and while rates are low they seem to dismantle the mechanics of 'normal' pensions. Can i meaningfully plan assuming that annuities will still exist in 25 years?

13 hours ago, CunningPlan said:

We can only judge by what we see. Round my way, the btl farmers are the pensioners. The only people in the gastropubs are the pensioners. The ones slagging off the kids for having an end of school party are the pensioners (despite having very late, loud barn dances themselves). The ones that think it is fine for their kids to move 100 miles away as 'they have no right to live where they grew up' are the pensioners. The ones that block a skate park but authorise a (never used) petanq pitch are the pensioners.

Just been to see my inlaws in oxfordshire. A special kind of hell. An entire weekend filled with stories about petanq, over the weekend it slowly emerges that they got involved in the petanq committee, then they had some kind of major falling out, grown 80 year old men almost coming to blows over a tiny silver ball - catheterbags at dawn. As they wave us off to drive home they assure us theyve put petanq behind them...apparently walking football is the new petanq.

13 hours ago, CunningPlan said:

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SpectrumFX said:

The trouble with the link to state pension age is that you get your pension at the same time as the state pension, so what's the point? You might as well not bother.

Personally I'll be taking the hit in actuarial reduction as soon as the resultant pension is enough to see me through to state pension age. At that point I'll make an assessment as to whether the state pension will still exist when I get to the requisite age.

The worst outcome is to spend decades funding your own provision only to find that they make the state pension means tested just before you retire. I think that for younger people, that is quite a risk.

Edit to add: my understanding is that if you retire at 57, you'll be out before the pension age is elevated, and your pension will be payable without actuarial reduction from 65. Have a word with the pensions people in your institution and ask for an illustration. My last USS statement included the following blurb on retirement age, the last sentence is pretty important:

The normal pension age in USS is currently age 65. If you retire before normal pension age, early retirement reductions apply unless you are retiring due to incapacity. State pension ages for men and women are due to increase incrementally between November 2018 and October 2020 to age 66. USS rules provide for the normal pension age to be changed in light of any change to state pension age. Any change to your normal pension age from USS would only apply to service built up after the date of the change.

Cheers, that's very helpful.  Frankly, and I know it isn't really the position to take, I've really stopped looking at the changes as it depresses me so much.  Once the link was made between state pension and USS in terms of when it could be accessed, I just stopped opening the envelopes. :rolleyes:

my understanding is that of all the private pensions, USS is one of the ones that is actually self funded and is running at a surplus, so no need to introduce these worsened conditions. If so, it tells you all you need to know.  That this is ideologically driven. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, dgul said:

 

So, they're now pensioners, ergo, they're poor.

People act out sterotypes, behaviour becomes anchored.

A bit like people acting and becoming disabled at 60, when that was the retirement age for women or by default for unemployed men at the same age. Future generations probably wont get the option of play acting these stereotypes, especially now retirement equals a higher living standard for most and 60 is no longer considered old and vulnerable. Unless you are a WASPI, women born 1950s, that think they should be compensated for waiting until 66. Trouble is they will just create a new cliff for those born 1960s who don't get special treatment.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, winkie said:

How she can discribe herself as a poor pensioner is ridiculous, is that what old age can do to the mind?......To be honest very many people live in a cocoon, they do not know or are not interested what goes on further down the road, it doesn't affect them.....Beyond the realm of reality.;)

It's that cocoon, her warped reality and sense of entitlement that really winds me up. [She says] She's saved all her life, been very shrewd and helped input into a system that benefited her parents and the next generation  (us lol), yes... boomers credit themselves with everything that's right in this country, ignoring the elephant sanctuary in three room - debt, population growth, cheques the country can't afford securitized against future generations. 

The true reality is she blew her salary on cartier watches/lighters, omega/IWC watches, flash cars and for the past twenty years invested in art (cough cough) and did I mention vaulted wine. 

the boomers saved the world.

Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, dgul said:

All their life pensioners were poor.  And for a large part of it they were poor, especially if they relied on the state pension (which was originally it was sold as being a proper pension, so they couldn't be blamed too much for thinking they could rely on it). 

So, they're now pensioners, ergo, they're poor.

And, as I mentioned up thread, if you point out to them that pensioners are now better off than workers, it is always other pensioners, not them.

There are as many rich pensioners as rich workers.......both poor pensioners and poor workers......Your health is your wealth.;)

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, stuckin2up2down said:

The unfair tax system is something that you can generalise on. It's ridiculous the mess that is NI and the lack of funding for anything like bus passes for people on JSA. I'd rather use the bus but it's more expensive than a car and a vast number of people that use the busses are the affluent boomers on nice day trips out, my parents included.

NI is a con and people are being lied to about it. Should all be rolled into one.

I dare say there are a few poor boomers using the buses as well - perhaps even some that got swindled out of some of their saved up pension etc.

Edited by billybong
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, dgul said:

I found this graph interesting:

resolution-590x426.png?source=Alphaville

If you speak with a pensioner about it the excuse always goes that it is the rich pensioners that are doing well, but that 'they' aren't doing so well.  But this graph shows that the poorer pensioners have been better off than the equivalent sector of the working age population since 2003.

Very much to do with the minimum income guarantee ( £156) plus full housing benefit and free council tax as a minimum without disabilty top ups which tend to go with the territory as well. That makes pensioners in places like Jaywick the new better off and younger people feeling resentful.

Edited by crashmonitor
Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, CunningPlan said:

We can only judge by what we see. Round my way, the btl farmers are the pensioners. The only people in the gastropubs are the pensioners. The ones slagging off the kids for having an end of school party are the pensioners (despite having very late, loud barn dances themselves). The ones that think it is fine for their kids to move 100 miles away as 'they have no right to live where they grew up' are the pensioners. The ones that block a skate park but authorise a (never used) petanq pitch are the pensioners. The ones that thwart every single planning application, even the reasonable ones, are the pensioners. The ones that moan that someone mowing their lawn should be grateful for £7 per hour are the pensioners. The ones that campaign that the local woods are for dog walkers, not kids on bmx bikes, are the pensioners. The ones that have the parish clerk on speed dial in case of kids having fun in the park are pensioners.  

The ones that wanted a local cafe, but don't want it to open before 9am, in case van drivers use, it are pensioners. The ones that moan about mess kids leave in the park, despite the worst mess being dog poo, are pensioners. The ones that approve tens of thousands being spent on the village hall, yet nothing on the knackered scout hut, are pensioners. 

Join your local facebook page or streetlife. It is like the daily mail in microcosm. They may not be to blame for every ill but where I am at least, they really do make every effort to feather their own nest at the expense of the rest.

Oh what a beautiful email. Well said.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
On 14/02/2017 at 10:52 AM, crashmonitor said:

People act out sterotypes, behaviour becomes anchored.

A bit like people acting and becoming disabled at 60, when that was the retirement age for women or by default for unemployed men at the same age. Future generations probably wont get the option of play acting these stereotypes, especially now retirement equals a higher living standard for most and 60 is no longer considered old and vulnerable. Unless you are a WASPI, women born 1950s, that think they should be compensated for waiting until 66. Trouble is they will just create a new cliff for those born 1960s who don't get special treatment.

 Well I despair when I think what future generations will be like when they are late 50's early 60's. I suspect the majority of the masses will be stressed out due to housing and employment problems. 

As the female in the photo says....laugh all you like....at least we're doing something and not just moaning about our predicament.

Im against raising state pension age for all. It's a disaster in the making that we're going to continue to hear plenty about as the years pass.

Edit:

I support the woman in the photo. I don't know her name but I can emphasise. Like her I'm angry that my pension age has been changed. For most of my life it was 60, then it was raised to 65 and then I was given another year to wait. Despite trying hard I failed to adjust for these changes. She's a widow and I'm a single parent. Life in the uk is hard if you're on your own and can't command a living wage. How many like that are there out there? IMO....lots!

If you'd be happy being treated like that CM well fair enough. But I feel like the woman in the photo. Shafted!

 

 

 

IMG_0026.JPG

Edited by Economic Exile
Something to add to comment.
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Economic Exile said:

 Well I despair when I think what future generations will be like when they are late 50's early 60's. I suspect the majority of the masses will be stressed out due to housing and employment problems. 

As the female in the photo says....laugh all you like....at least we're doing something and not just moaning about our predicament.

Im against raising state pension age for all. It's a disaster in the making that we're going to continue to hear plenty about as the years pass.

Edit:

I support the woman in the photo. I don't know her name but I can emphasise. Like her I'm angry that my pension age has been changed. For most of my life it was 60, then it was raised to 65 and then I was given another year to wait. Despite trying hard I failed to adjust for these changes. She's a widow and I'm a single parent. Life in the uk is hard if you're on your own and can't command a living wage. How many like that are there out there? IMO....lots!

If you'd be happy being treated like that CM well fair enough. But I feel like the woman in the photo. Shafted!

 

 

 

IMG_0026.JPG

If the WASPIs win then all you do is create a cliff edge for those born 1960. How can it be fair if you get to retire at 60 if you are born 1959, and 66 1960.

The average WASPI probably has a life expectancy of about 95, sorry but 41 years NI doesn't pay out 35 years.

I've paid 36 years, may not pay that many more as I am semi retired. I accept that the retirement age is 67 and may have to move towards 70 before my first date of 2031 arrives.

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.



×
×
  • 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.