Thursday, Nov 23, 2006

Pension ages to rise to 68

BBC News: Hutton says pension age must rise

The state pension age has to be raised to 68 to avoid shifting the tax burden onto younger people, Work and Pensions Secretary John Hutton has warned.

Posted by scumbag @ 12:08 PM (466 views)
Add Comment
Report Article

14 Comments

1. paul said...

We hear this a lot - contributions must rise, _future_ pension age must rise, but very little to place the burden onto the generation that created the problem. It seems nothing can touch them in terms of taking responsibility for the current mess with pensions and housing.

I have little doubt that this report will be filed for the cleaners' express attention all over Westminster.

Because of course, it won't be their problem.

Thursday, November 23, 2006 12:39PM Report Comment
 

2. japanese uncle said...

If the pension age of those fat cats, city bosses, the MP's, and the PM's indeed will be raised to 68, people may accept this.
What we are observing is the shift of tremendous wealth redistributed from the poor to the rich, via pension reform, property bubble, introduction of ID cards, etc all based on cons and spins, in associated with the collaboration of major media.

Thursday, November 23, 2006 01:26PM Report Comment
 

3. george monsoon said...

68 !!

Can anyone give me the correct reason why there is a pension shortfall?
I have discussed this one with my workmates, and nobody has a clear cut answer, other than, the older generations are squandering the wealth and creating a pit for future generations..

Thursday, November 23, 2006 01:53PM Report Comment
 

4. Retiredbanker said...

Phased in over 40 years= doing nothing.

Thursday, November 23, 2006 02:21PM Report Comment
 

5. inbreda said...

George - is not mostly due to changing demographics?

Thursday, November 23, 2006 02:27PM Report Comment
 

6. monty said...

I love a good conspiracy theory as much as the next man but to blame the pensions crisis on identity cards is really stretching it. I'd always thought that robbing the poor to pay the rich was never really a sustainable model as the poor tend to run out of money sooner. The government has to do something to address the problem in order to prevent pensioners with pitchforks and torches in the not too distant future.

George, both public and private pensions are in a crisis for a number of different reasons, depending on who you speak to.
1.) Gordon's raid 5bn raid on private pensions back in 1997. This wasn't just a once off. Pension funds are still taxed on their dividends which was not the case before this. Recent articles put the cost at 100bn.
2.) The pension contribution holidays taken by industry back in the 90s. Entirely legal but in hindsight somewhat stupid.
3.) Outrageous bonuses paid to fund "managers" who are barely capable of beating the index - these are the people who are entrusted to look after our money.
4.) The fat comissions paid to IFAs for selling you a pension. Depending on the package these can also be paid to the adviser for the lifetime of the contributions!
5.) The shiney new low inflation, low interest rate economy - fund assets have to work harder.
6.) Declining population growth which just shows up most funds to have been little more than Ponzi schemes.

The net result is that companies are either shutting down their pension plans, closing them to new members or switching to defined contribution schemes. The very expensive defined benefit schemes our fathers were on are now mere memories unless, of course, you happen to work in Westminster or Whitehall !!!

Thursday, November 23, 2006 02:42PM Report Comment
 

7. sovietuk said...

It seems that there are so many better places to live than the UK now. Unfair pensions just another example. The whole place is just one big economic and social mess created by knob-head politicians of all parties and idiot civil servants. No wonder there are plane loads of Brits leaving this dump everyday.

Thursday, November 23, 2006 03:05PM Report Comment
 

8. waitingfor hpc said...

Gordon Browns mess and we are left working to 68 and beyond to sort it out! Why not stop taxing pensions if we know that is part of the problem -- no not that - Labour never remove tax instead they will add more tax again!
We need a revolt now to get this pathetic lame duck govt out of office.

Thursday, November 23, 2006 03:06PM Report Comment
 

9. george monsoon said...

I have another 30 years to do, then, and probably more, because this problem will probably just get worse.
You watch in about 10 years, all the low paid, shopping trolley gatherers will all be people over 70, subsidising the tenner they get from the government each week.

Lovely.

I think I will carry on smoking and miss that nice chapter of my life.

Thursday, November 23, 2006 03:36PM Report Comment
 

10. Ticktock said...

monty,

7. Sarb/OX legislation means that future pension liabilities must now be shown on Company balance sheets as a debt. Using extraordanary and spurious longevity calculations (paticularly if you are working class with a life expectancy of 63) this new 'debt' can be made to look rather large.

8. Furthermore, once you close DC pension schemes to new members (as most have, or are doing) you obviously no longer have any income contribution from those new members to fund the promises already made to the old ones. Now you have an unfunded liability. A pension scheme is effectively finished the moment it is closed to new members , creating a funding 'shortfall' for those who are still dependant upon the scheme.

None of the spin about pension shortfalls is genuine. The change is ideological ( 'new economy' replacing old, capital over labour etc.) but being spun as a crisis. This is how The Mckinsey Institute 'consultants' (ie New Labour) Govern Britain unfortunately. Create a problem, then present an 'inevitable' and 'right and proper' solution to it, claiming the 'bi-partisan' consensus of the three neo-liberal capitalist partys as 'proof' of the option being the only sensible one available.

Thursday, November 23, 2006 05:04PM Report Comment
 

11. rich said...

Curiously I haven't heard anyone (here or elsewhere) asking what jobs these would-be pensioners would be doing should the retirement age be raised.

Bearing in mind the smart entrepreneurial types who start businesses and create jobs are more likely to retire earlier, I could well believe this would largely just increase the numbers of people claiming unemployment benefit.

Thursday, November 23, 2006 06:40PM Report Comment
 

12. tyrellcorporation said...

Everyone pile into the Public Sector where the water is warm... Flexi-time, great pay, perks, total job security, zero risk and a gold plated pension paid for by you and I. The fall of the Ottoman empire was largely attributable to the public sector becomming so lavish and popular that no-one wanted to make anything anymore or take any risks... We're heading toward the same fate thanks to Gordon and his 'say one thing but do the opposite' policies.

Thursday, November 23, 2006 07:02PM Report Comment
 

13. Nohpc said...

They can spend billions on going to war, millenium domes etc but they can't afford pensions. How about instead of the hard working people working longer the government hands out less benefits to the chavvy population.

You should check out the pension MPs get themselves. It is by far and away the best pension in the country and they vote for it themselves!!!

Thursday, November 23, 2006 09:14PM Report Comment
 

14. miniftse said...

The pension crisis is nothing new. Its not GB's fault, believe me I dont like the guy and alot is his fault but not the pension crisis. Its because todays workforce pays for todays pensioners, its not as if when you pay your tax is stashed away for 40 years, it's handed over to todays pensioners. This is fair enough. The problem happens when people start to care about money and wealth above all else. Then people stop having children to fund a better quality of life. So the workforce dwindles and there is less tax revenue to pay the pensioners. The government hits the young as they dont vote, its obvious to anyone that the baby boomers should be contributing more, they still feel hard done buy if they have to work past 50! But they vote, and they vote in mass. Ofcourse immigration can help solve the problem as it supports are dwindling population, unfortunately, lots of people read the daily mail and think immigrants are scum of the earth, who uproot the families, travel 5000 miles to sponge off the state. So to keep the daily mail readers happy (they vote on mass too) the government will restrict immigration and up the retirement age for those that dont vote on mass!

Tyrell, if public sector work is really that great and gold laden - go and do it!!!

Friday, November 24, 2006 10:18AM Report Comment
 

Add comment

  • If you do not have an admin password leave the password field blank.
  • If you would like to request a password allowing you to add comments and blog news articles without needing each one approved manually, send an e-mail to the webmaster.
  • Your email address is required so we can verify that the comment is genuine. It will not be posted anywhere on the site, will be stored confidentially by us and never given out to any third party.
  • Please note that any viewpoints published here as comments are user's views and not the views of HousePriceCrash.co.uk.
  • Please adhere to the Guidelines
Username  
Admin Password
Email Address
Comments

Main Blog | Archive | Add Article | Blog Policies