UKC

Work 'til you drop

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.

This was pretty much the plan anyway (having not managing to build up a pension pot) - it was reassuring to read then, that Iain Duncan Smith's hilariously named "Centre for Social Justice" is recommending raising the retirement age to 75.

Bah humbug etc

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/state-pension-age-rise-conse...

1
 Ridge 18 Aug 2019
In reply to Phantom Disliker:

Do you think they actually believe the crap they spout?

In reply to Ridge:

Surely not, such sadistic and delusional thinking would be grounds for having them sectioned, I'd have thought. It has to be an act.

 Lord_ash2000 18 Aug 2019
In reply to Phantom Disliker:

It's only a think tank suggestion and I doubt it'll be implemented any time soon. But looking long term I can easily seet state pension age being at least 70 by the time I'm that age. (Currently 34)

In terms of planning for the future though I'd base it on there no longer being a state pension or at least it becoming a means tested benefit only for those without adequate workplace / private pensions. If you do get anything then consider it a bonus is basically my outlook on the matter.

Got to look out for yourself in this world these day, no one else will.

8
In reply to Lord_ash2000:

Well Im 43 and have put away about £600.

 Rob Exile Ward 18 Aug 2019
In reply to Lord_ash2000:

Mine kicks in in 2 months time and that's exactly how I regard it - a bonus. Happy days!

Removed User 18 Aug 2019
In reply to Lord_ash2000:

> Got to look out for yourself in this world these day, no one else will.

Well that's the sort of "phuq the rest of you" society this think tank gets wet dreams about I agree but it really isn't like that nor does it have to be.

We can have a welfare state where everyone chips in what they can and the government uses the dosh to look after the old, the sick and the unemployed or we can privatise it all so you only get back what you paid in. Too bad if you grew up poor and get a chronic illness or suchlike and can save nothing but hey, that's just too bad.

What really bugs me about this rubbish is that it must have been dreamed up by someone who never leaves their middle/upper class bubble. Someone who doesn't know what it's like to be a joiner or a plumber or a gardener in your sixties when arthritis and a bad back make every day at work a struggle. It simply isn't possible for many people to continue their profession into their seventies. It is these people who have struggled their lives to make ends meet that really can't survive without a state pension and frankly can't be expected to stick away enough into a private pension scheme to support themselves. 

 neilh 19 Aug 2019
In reply to Removed User:

It is possible though to do something else. 

Mate of mine who retired as a creative director at an advertising agency. Now does part time work as a picker at an Amazon fulfilment centre. He says no responsibility and it keeps him really fit as he walks about 12-14 km a shift. 

Keeps his pension topped up. 

B and Q are well known for taking on older people as their work ethic is strong. 

The issue on the state pension is whether the govt can afford it because of ageing population.

and if you think it’s a problem in the uk. Look at Japan to see how bad it can get with funding.

4
 Lord_ash2000 19 Aug 2019
In reply to Removed User:

That's all very well, but the balance between those who pay in and those who take out for pensions has been tipping the wrong way for a while now and things are only due to get worse as people live longer in general and the baby boomer generation move into old age. So you've got to either pay a lot more tax or make your own arrangements.

As things stand there are vast numbers of people who probably have comfortable lives now who are due decades of poverty ahead of them if they don't put things in place themselves. As you mentioned if you work a manual job you're unlikely to be able to manage it much after 55-60 so you either need to retrain or have something else in place to replace the income.

For those who do work to retirement age without any workplace or private pension, particularly if they don't own a home are screwed really. Because you're always going to have to pay rent where as most people who had mortgages will have long paid them off by then.

I suspect the government who are pushing workplace pensions are doing so in order to phase out universal state pensions as they become increasingly unaffordable and turn it into a means tested benefit only for the poor. W

looking at decades ahead here and anything could happen, it's just my personal view so I'm no factoring in the state pension into my retirement plans, if I'm wrong and I get it anyways then great, but as I said it's a bonus to me rather than something I'm relying on.

1
 neilh 19 Aug 2019
In reply to Removed User:

The plumbers and joiners I know are not daft and already put plenty of money away in their self employed pension schemes. It is very tax efficient for them to do this and has been for a long time. That is why a lot of them retire early. 

The issues is not this with skilled trades. The issue  with those on zero hours contracts. 

 EdS 19 Aug 2019
In reply to Phantom Disliker:

Men's retirement ages was originally set at 65 as 25% of working males were not expected to reach that age.....hence the scheme paid it's way.

Up the age to the 75% quartile or cull? 😱😂

 Siward 19 Aug 2019
In reply to neilh:

SIPPS are all very well, but you need hundreds of thousands salted away to realise any sort of worthwhile pension. Not many people, skilled or not, can save that.

I'm 52 now, not looking at retiring until at least 70 touch wood

 neilh 19 Aug 2019
In reply to Siward:

Depends on when you start . A lot of trades buy second properties as a source of income.

i do not pretend there is an easy answer..it is an extremely tough issue to handle.

traceyphillips 19 Aug 2019
In reply to Phantom Disliker:

75 is no age to retire! It should be 60 and stay at 60! I have no idea why they keep increasing it. Anything past 60 can cause unnecessary injuries and illnesses!

T

18
 DancingOnRock 19 Aug 2019
In reply to EdS:

It’s all very well looking at life expectancy but I think they need to introduce some kind of measure of life quality. 

I often see people saying that the old people are ‘being kept alive’ which is what costs the NHS lots of money.

In my own experience there are a lot of old people who haven’t looked after their health (gone to the doctors at first sign of problems) and a lot of people in their 80s still walking up hills etc. BUT that’s not limited to old people, it applies to all ages.

The problem with fitness to work is it needs to be applied properly and individually by people, and not decided by a computer and a tick list.

 Rob Exile Ward 19 Aug 2019
In reply to neilh:

This is insanity. We all have too much stuff and consume too much  resource, and yet we're supposed to work for longer so can have even more stuff and consume even more. It's unsustainable, and it's wrong. The traditional 'growth is good'  model is now obsolete.

In the developed world we have more than enough to reduce work and find other ways of occupying ourselves: ways that are satisfying, socially cohesive and low impact. Working after 50, let alone 60,  should be something to be ashamed of (and I am).

1
 robert-hutton 19 Aug 2019
In reply to Phantom Disliker:

It's still up to you when you decide to retire from or reduce work, at 65+ the state then helps you out.

1
 petermartinez 19 Aug 2019
In reply to Phantom Disliker:

It's difficult one!

 neilh 19 Aug 2019
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

Quite relaxed about it. 

Conversely I do not see why I have to fund those  in the public sector who can retire at say 55 or 60 when I can’t ........

its a devisive issue. 

8
In reply to neilh:

It is divisive. Some plug away temping for decades and work hard doing antisocial hours and at around the minimum wage. Some more skilled people end up in plush positions and can afford a retirement.

I'm also relaxed about it, even if somewhat unprepared.

 neilh 19 Aug 2019
In reply to Phantom Disliker:

You only have to look at the issue from the NHS perspectice to undertand its complexity. Look at the Dr's and consultant current  issue on overtime payments/ tax/ pensions to understand how getting it wrong has an impact on everyone.

 Ian W 19 Aug 2019
In reply to traceyphillips:

> 75 is no age to retire! It should be 60 and stay at 60! I have no idea why they keep increasing it. Anything past 60 can cause unnecessary injuries and illnesses!

> T

Because as a nation we cannot afford it. people are living longer, and so to afford to pay the pensions, the starting point has to be later.

2
 DancingOnRock 19 Aug 2019
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

That depends on whether you are in the service industry or production. 

There’s plenty of services that people can perform for years that doesn’t require physical fitness, and there’s no reason for people who have paid off mortgages etc to work 5-7 full days a week. 

1
 johang 20 Aug 2019
In reply to Ian W:

There is another argument that (if you are happy to stop considering government finances as operating as a household) paying pensions is actually economically stimulating/has a multiplying factor >1.

This is because anyone on a state pension (probably) has to spend the majority of cash they receive, i.e. cash is injected into the economy via allowing pensioners to survive, not squirrelled away into savings accounts which are not very economically active at all.

Private savings are government deficit and all that.

Expecting a lot of hate for this, but hey ho...

 The New NickB 20 Aug 2019
In reply to neilh:

> Quite relaxed about it. 

> Conversely I do not see why I have to fund those  in the public sector who can retire at say 55 or 60 when I can’t ........

Do you object to paying their wages as well? It’s the same thing. As for most public sector workers being able to retire at 55, not without massive penalties, which for most of them would make it impossible.

They of course in most cases are making substantial contributions to those pensions.

2
 Ian W 20 Aug 2019
In reply to johang:

> There is another argument that (if you are happy to stop considering government finances as operating as a household) paying pensions is actually economically stimulating/has a multiplying factor >1.

> This is because anyone on a state pension (probably) has to spend the majority of cash they receive, i.e. cash is injected into the economy via allowing pensioners to survive, not squirrelled away into savings accounts which are not very economically active at all.

However, the evidence is somewhat different:-

www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/pensions/12021772/Frugal-pensioners-save-nearly-twice-as-much-as-middle-aged-workers.html

 Ian W 20 Aug 2019
In reply to The New NickB:

> Do you object to paying their wages as well? It’s the same thing. As for most public sector workers being able to retire at 55, not without massive penalties, which for most of them would make it impossible.

> They of course in most cases are making substantial contributions to those pensions.


It varies with department, but when daughter number 1 worked in an area with a civi service pension, her contribution was 5% of salary, the employer contribution being 22%.........quite a significant amount.....

 kwoods 20 Aug 2019
In reply to johang:

How about one step further, 'government debt is personal/private surplus'?

That's not even mentioning UBI. 

Oooh...

 The New NickB 20 Aug 2019
In reply to Ian W:

The Civil Service has traditionally had worse pay and a better pensions than other areas of the public sector. In local governments contributions range from 5.5% to 12.5% with the lowest earners paying the least.

However, employer contributions should be considered as part of any remuneration package, it is after all deferred pay.

1
 Ian W 20 Aug 2019
In reply to The New NickB:

> The Civil Service has traditionally had worse pay and a better pensions than other areas of the public sector. In local governments contributions range from 5.5% to 12.5% with the lowest earners paying the least.

> However, employer contributions should be considered as part of any remuneration package, it is after all deferred pay.


Until recently (well, 15 - 20 years) I would agree. Now, I would say a civil service job is usually better in pretty well all aspects (The current Mrs W also benefits from civil service t's & c's).

 The New NickB 20 Aug 2019
In reply to Ian W:

We are getting in the realms of subjective opinion. My main point is that employer pension contributions are deferred pay. You need to consider the whole package.

Post edited at 20:58
 Ian W 20 Aug 2019
In reply to The New NickB:

Agree entirely.

Now where do I forward the spraycans to? you need some practice........

 birdie num num 20 Aug 2019
In reply to Phantom Disliker:

Compulsory euthanasia is the answer.

 johang 21 Aug 2019
In reply to Ian W:

I can believe this. But

UK pension in 2019 = £168.60p/w 

Pensioner average spend in 2015 ~ £175

Pensioner average spend in 2018 (inflation calculator) = £190(.58), so lets say £190+/- £5

£168.60 < £190, therefore pensioners are spending at least their state pension per week (on average)

Just because they are saving more than younger generations does not mean that the (value of the) state pension is not going back into the system.

Assumption 1 - any pensioners which can save on top of their state pension have incomes from other pension pots/investments.

Assumption 2 - Therefore many which fall below the mean behaviour have only their state pension to survive on.

Assumption 3 - Pensioners referred to in assumption 2 must spend (almost) all of their pension back into the economy out of necessity.

Do we want to remove this safety net? Do we means test it so that only those in need receive it? Should those without be penalised because those with are receiving just a little chunk more? Should there be redistributive taxes put on private pensions rather than cutting of the state pension? 

I honestly don't know where the proper balance lies, but I don't feel happy about removing the safety net of many vulnerable older people. Especially as the numbers suggest it is actually the income from private pensions which is being saved.

 johang 21 Aug 2019
In reply to kwoods:

I'm not really sure what you're getting at?

In reply to birdie num num:

> Compulsory euthanasia is the answer.

Sounds like an I.D.S. policy

 birdie num num 22 Aug 2019
In reply to Phantom Disliker:

I.B.S. 

Soylent Green, it tends to bloat you

 Pyreneenemec 22 Aug 2019
In reply to birdie num num:

> I.B.S. 

> Soylent Green, it tends to bloat you

Nice to see someone on here  pinching my Soylent Green  ideas. 

I had thought that this excellent sci-fi film had fallen into the depths of cinematic oblivion.

1
In reply to johang:

There are redistributive taxes on private pensions. A large chunk of my pension is taxed and redistributed. Of the tax, 23.8% goes on Welfare, 19.9% on Health, 12.8% on State Pensions and 12% on Education.

I am not complaining.

(BTW, for those who have forgotten or don't know just 0.7% currently goes on the UK Contribution to the EU Budget.)

Post edited at 11:31
1
In reply to DancingOnRock:

"There’s plenty of services that people can perform for years that doesn’t require physical fitness, and there’s no reason for people who have paid off mortgages etc to work 5-7 full days a week. "

Tongue in cheek, but pretty much every injury I get (and I get a lot) is blamed on sitting slumped in a chair all day for 9 hours 5 days a week....

 ScottTalbot 22 Aug 2019
In reply to birdie num num:

> Compulsory euthanasia is the answer.

Very Logan's Run! I think they saw this coming... 

 johang 22 Aug 2019
In reply to John Stainforth:

Yeah, fair point.

>> Should there be redistributive taxes put on private pensions rather than cutting of the state pension? 

Should probably be:

Redistribution from private pensions is probably a better route than further cutting state pension? 

Or maybe it even doesn't need to be mentioned for now? The presence or absence of that line doesn't detract from the message that paid state pensions go back in to the economy in (almost) their entirety.

 bonebag 22 Aug 2019
In reply to traceyphillips:

I took voluntary redundancy at 52 and now work in outdoor activities as an RCI and ML. I'm 60 in October, love the work and fully intend to carry on until the providers say I'm too old or my body tells me to stop. Yes, it's tiring work but that's not a reason to say we shouldn't work past 60. For those of us that can there is no reason not to keep working if we want to.   


New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...