Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

The government should raise the pension age to 70, now! Watch

    Offline

    13
    (Original post by Apagg)

    I'm angry that the generation who had their university education and healthcare completely free at our expense (via debt) will also get to retire earlier than we do, and again we will bear the cost, having already paid more than they did for housing, health and education.
    Very few of that generation received a university education - 10% was the norm.

    Cost is relative to incomes...that generation had much lower incomes and less disposal income too. In the main, they couldn't afford to have family holidays, and if they did, it was a week in Clacton or Blackpool.

    They had to support their previous generation as we have to support our previous generation as they supported us whilst we were in compulsory education...and I bet they did it without whinging too, because society was not so self-obsessed then as it is now.

    Anyway, what do you see as an alternative, Mr. Angry? Compulsory euthanasia for anyone not in employment? That would take out most of the population when we factor in children, students, unemployed, the sick, retired...

    My solution would be to remove the mandatory retirement age of 65 years with effect immediately...and also apply it retrospectively so as those who were compulsorily retired because of an arbitrary age of 65 could seek work and not be discriminated against on the basis of their age. Many of that generation is much fitter than their parents were and are perfectly able to hold down a job.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DJKL)
    As I posted, I have set funds aside, I have been making pension contributions since I was 25 my wife since she was 22. However I have no employer scheme (never have) and my wife is now in a low paid job with an employer's scheme. At 60 we might have £400k in funds (in todays terms). That will produce an income of maybe £20,000 p.a @ 5%. That is maybe a little tight to retire on (even though we won't have a mortgage) However if we cannot touch our state pension until 66 we will have to work on until 66. If state retirement age is flexible that is not the case, the extra £9,000 making all the difference.

    Retaining older staff means one position in the business is taken, often at a high salary (seniority and experience tend to lead to higher pay)
    Once I go someone needs to do my job, someone is recruited (even from within promoted) and at the foot of the chain maybe some graduate fills a vacany that previously did not exist whilst I was incumbent. My leaving gives someone else a job, I am not sure why you do not see this.

    Re static employment numbers, no, probably will not be static, however may not be higher could well be lower. As the last few years have been a splurge of consumer spending riding on the false optimism of ever increasing house prices, now credit is tight, (and trust me it is, try talking to banks about funding for a business at present ) and may remain so for years, where is the growth in demand that is going to require employers to take on more staff? And what do you think is going to happen to public sector employee numbers post the election?(The elephant in the room)

    I am glad you think school leaver/ graduate unemployment is not an issue, however from where I am sitting it is. (deja vue pour moi)
    I graduated in 1983, height of graduate unemployment, and did not really get my career going until 1985.We had circa 12% graduate unemployment one year post graduation and that was when there was probably about a 1/4 of the number of graduates every year there are now. Now everyone and their dog seems to go to University.

    Forcing people to work on longer ,solely on the basis of your anger at an older generation you perceive as having had an easier ride ,is not dealing with what is going to be a major issue (A possible lost generation)

    I can also point out that the late 1980s were no picnic if you had a mortgage and my generation is not immune to the current cost of education, as undernoted, and has to pay for private dental care as you cannot find an NHS dentist.

    My son, who is living away from home at University, gets a student loan of £915 and has a bank overdraft facility of £1,750. This is supposed to cover his hall fees (not including meals) of £4,700, food/ books/ transport etc .Given the foregoing where do you think the £5,000 shortfall comes from? My income that has been taxed and suffered NI at a marginal rate of 41%, therefore just over £9,000 of my gross income covers one child. My daughter no doubt will be doing similar in a couple of years so another £9,000 gross gone.

    From a policy point of view enabling those who can afford to retire at 60 to so do is sensible, letting them take a lower state pension to go earlier is sensible, it does mean that younger employees will have an easier time gaining employment and then being promoted faster than might otherwise be the case. (Dead mens' shoes)

    And despite thinking the older generation does not pay its way, the tax and NI I pay brings tears to my eyes every year when I complete my Income Tax Return.

    DJKL
    I didn't say I didn't think graduate unemployment wasn't an issue. What I did say was that kicking a 65 year old out of work won't open up a job for a 21 year old. Employment isn't some club operating a one in, one out policy, and jobs are not perfectly transferable.
    Perhaps a good way for you to look at this, given your arguments against it, would be to consider why we don't drop the retirement age to 50. I mean, every school leaver would get a job then, right?


    Yes, you pay tax, well done. But we're going to be paying a lot more and be getting a lot less in return than you have.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yawn)
    Very few of that generation received a university education - 10% was the norm.

    Cost is relative to incomes...that generation had much lower incomes and less disposal income too. In the main, they couldn't afford to have family holidays, and if they did, it was a week in Clacton or Blackpool.

    They had to support their previous generation as we have to support our previous generation as they supported us whilst we were in compulsory education...and I bet they did it without whinging too, because society was not so self-obsessed then as it is now.

    Anyway, what do you see as an alternative, Mr. Angry? Compulsory euthanasia for anyone not in employment? That would take out most of the population when we factor in children, students, unemployed, the sick, retired...

    My solution would be to remove the mandatory retirement age of 65 years with effect immediately...and also apply it retrospectively so as those who were compulsorily retired because of an arbitrary age of 65 could seek work and not be discriminated against on the basis of their age. Many of that generation is much fitter than their parents were and are perfectly able to hold down a job.

    Uh, if you'd read my post, Ms Condescending, you'd see my recommendation was to raise the state pension age.

    They had to support the elder generation, but rather than it being a 3 -1 ratio of workers to dependents it was ~10-1, so the individual burden was far less.
    The older generation bankrupted the nation and the young are the ones who have to put in the grind to dig it out. I think it's only fair to ask they repay the cost of their profligacy.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Quady)
    tbh it isn't their fault, they didn't set the rules.

    Their healthcare may not be free for the most expensive part of their lives since the younger gen will have control to take it away from them.
    That doesn't mean we shouldn't make it more equitable now, though.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Apagg)
    That doesn't mean we shouldn't make it more equitable now, though.
    Didn't say it was. Just that it wasn't the beneficiaries fault it happened in the most part.
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by Apagg)

    They had to support the elder generation, but rather than it being a 3 -1 ratio of workers to dependents it was ~10-1, so the individual burden was far less.
    The older generation bankrupted the nation and the young are the ones who have to put in the grind to dig it out. I think it's only fair to ask they repay the cost of their profligacy.
    Aside from the fact that the pension age is currently being raised and will stand at 68 for most of the current workforce at present, one can anticipate that it will probably rise further to age 70. When that day comes, there will also be a necessity to raise the age to which one is entitled to Incapacity Benefit to age 70 as well so as there is a seamless transition for the incapacitated to transfer from that benefit to RP.

    What you haven't figured into the equation is the extra costs to the Treasurery of funding Incapacity Benefit to age 70...that benefit being paid at a higher rate than RP!

    I wonder if your accusation of profligacy will still apply when you reach that 'golden age.'
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    The problem is that there isn't an abundance of jobs.

    It's all well and good expecting people to work until 70, but if you're laid off at 50, for example, it might be difficult to compete with younger candidates who are expected to have greater longevity, mroe flexibility and work for less pay. And the longer an older person continues to stay in employment, the harder it will be for younger people to enter employment.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Deadly Lightshade)
    It's all well and good expecting people to work until 70, but if you're laid off at 50, for example, it might be difficult to compete with younger candidates who are expected to have greater longevity, mroe flexibility and work for less pay.

    And the longer an older person continues to stay in employment, the harder it will be for younger people to enter employment.
    Surely they are contradictory statements...?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Quady)
    Surely they are contradictory statements...?
    Not really.

    There is ageism in the workplace, and so older people may not be able to work til 70 even if they wanted to.

    And even if they were able work til 70 (and some may be forced to if the pension age is raised), it would have a negative effect on young people, considering the limited supply of jobs.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Deadly Lightshade)
    Not really.

    There is ageism in the workplace, and so older people may not be able to work til 70 even if they wanted to.

    And even if they were able work til 70 (and some may be forced to if the pension age is raised), it would have a negative effect on young people, considering the limited supply of jobs.
    How is the former any different than it is at present?
    (although I don't see why they wouldn't just take the employer to a tribunal now with the age discrimination laws)

    Is there any actual evidence that would happen? In the last 50 years the proportion of women in employment has soared without any effect on employment.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Quady)
    How is the former any different than it is at present?
    (although I don't see why they wouldn't just take the employer to a tribunal now with the age discrimination laws)

    Is there any actual evidence that would happen? In the last 50 years the proportion of women in employment has soared without any effect on employment.
    I'm talking specifically about raising the age to 70. It is already more difficult for older workers in the recession: "The over-50s not only suffered a quarterly fall in employment but were also the only age group to register a rise in unemployment (up by 15,000)".http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...ent-redundancy

    I'm sure the Age Discrimination Act will help, but younger people have more opportunities to retrain and gain new skills (compare a 50 year old factory worker in a declilning industry to a 20 year old one), as well as expecting lower salaries - these are linked to age, but not technically discrimination based on age.

    We've also had reasonable levels of growth in the last 50 years (I'm not sure how much truth there is to the claim that salaries have depreciated as more women have entered the workforce). We can't on one hand say that people should be working for longer, without acknowledging the current job shortage, and whether it really is possible to work longer. I'm stating the other side of the issue.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Deadly Lightshade)
    We can't on one hand say that people should be working for longer, without acknowledging the current job shortage, and whether it really is possible to work longer. I'm stating the other side of the issue.
    Sure but equally we can't on the one hand say 175bn budget deficit is 'bad' while increasing pension payments above the growth rate. Or can we?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Quady)
    Sure but equally we can't on the one hand say 175bn budget deficit is 'bad' while increasing pension payments above the growth rate. Or can we?
    :dontknow:
    I think we're in a hole with this issue, and future generations will have to rely heavily on our own savings to fund retirement.

    Raising the pension age may save money, but I doubt it'll actually significantly increase the age at which people retire. Since workers are likely to be made redundant well before this age, they will either claim JSA or live off savings which might have supplemented their pension, and have a lower quality of life overall.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Deadly Lightshade)
    :dontknow:
    I think we're in a hole with this issue, and future generations will have to rely heavily on our own savings to fund retirement.

    Raising the pension age may save money, but I doubt it'll actually significantly increase the age at which people retire. Since workers are likely to be made redundant well before this age, they will either claim JSA or live off savings which might have supplemented their pension, and have a lower quality of life overall.
    Pensions were never designed to support people from 65 to 85 and beyond. They were just their to support people from when they typically couldn't be expected to work until they die. It was designed in 1948 and even by 1970 life expectancy for women was 74 and for men 69.

    We could just reduce the pension though.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yawn)
    Aside from the fact that the pension age is currently being raised and will stand at 68 for most of the current workforce at present, one can anticipate that it will probably rise further to age 70. When that day comes, there will also be a necessity to raise the age to which one is entitled to Incapacity Benefit to age 70 as well so as there is a seamless transition for the incapacitated to transfer from that benefit to RP.

    What you haven't figured into the equation is the extra costs to the Treasurery of funding Incapacity Benefit to age 70...that benefit being paid at a higher rate than RP!

    I wonder if your accusation of profligacy will still apply when you reach that 'golden age.'
    The increase in the pension age is being delayed actually, and won't reach 68 for a long time, 70 for even longer. My argument is that it should be raised for everyone, immediately (With some sliding scale for those in their 60s etc etc) - I fail to see why we should pay more than they.

    Given that my generation has been less profligate than the boomers, I don't really see the relevance of your last comment.

    On a related note to all this, http://business.timesonline.co.uk/to...cle7035627.ece
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Deadly Lightshade)
    We've also had reasonable levels of growth in the last 50 years (I'm not sure how much truth there is to the claim that salaries have depreciated as more women have entered the workforce). We can't on one hand say that people should be working for longer, without acknowledging the current job shortage, and whether it really is possible to work longer. I'm stating the other side of the issue.
    Do you think an expanding labour supply might have helped?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Apagg)
    The increase in the pension age is being delayed actually,
    It is?

    I thought it was being accelerated if anything...
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8291835.stm
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I suppose I'm speaking from the viewpoint of when it should have been done - it's certainly not "currently being raised" as Yawn claims. It's true the Tories are planning on doing it sooner than Labour. As far as I'm concerned though 2016 is ten years too late, and the earlier age for women is a complete disgrace.
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by Apagg)
    The increase in the pension age is being delayed actually, and won't reach 68 for a long time, 70 for even longer. My argument is that it should be raised for everyone, immediately (With some sliding scale for those in their 60s etc etc) - I fail to see why we should pay more than they.

    Given that my generation has been less profligate than the boomers, I don't really see the relevance of your last comment.

    On a related note to all this, http://business.timesonline.co.uk/to...cle7035627.ece
    I think that circumstances will mean that the cut-off date for receipt of RP will come sooner rather than later.

    The reason for the delay has been that it gives those who have not had adequate opportunity to make provision for a private pension to supplement to abysmal rates of state RP to make such provision and that takes years.

    Also remember that the world slump has resulted in a massive drop in the pay-outs of pensions that were linked to the stock market and those that had paid in over the long years are now screwed and have up to 60% less than had been anticipated.

    You seem to think that all those people born shortly after WWII are very wealthy...you need to rethink as many are in receipt of pension credit to give them an income that is considered to take them out of poverty, particularly those who have been unable to work because of illness or those whose employers did not provide an occupational pension scheme.

    Don't be such a begrudger because you don't know what misfortune is going to become you in your working years that will impact on your means when you retire.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Have you ever been hacked?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Write a reply...
    Reply
    Hide
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.