|
Post by trentvale68 on Aug 21, 2019 23:34:20 GMT
Plans afoot to raise it, initially to 70,then to 75...
There's many folks in jobs who simply can't work to these ages.
And the ones raising it, of course, have zero intention of being in such a position themselves.
|
|
|
Post by felonious on Aug 22, 2019 4:24:32 GMT
When it was set at 65 people weren't living as long as they do these days. The problem is that for decades successive governments have done nothing about the issue until this one with the workplace pension which may alleviate some of the problem for the younger generation.
The other issue sidestepped by successive governments is housing and now house prices.
|
|
|
Post by foster on Aug 22, 2019 8:48:43 GMT
I don't know know what kind of jobs most people must have but there's no chance a 65, let alone 70 or 75 year old can do my job or any kind of manual physical labour job.
What is the expectancy here? That people save up their whole lives, then after 65 have to survive on their savings until they reach the new pension age. By which time they won't get the full amount because they've been penalised for retiring early.
If you lose your job at 60 years then what realistic options are there for finding a new job?
If anything I think the pension age should be brought back a bit to give people some time to actually enjoy their retirement.
I personally hope to be able to stop working 'full time' once I'm 55 - at the latest. I certainly don't expect to live until 79.2 ('apparent' average life expectancy)
|
|
|
Post by estrangedsonoffaye on Aug 22, 2019 8:59:32 GMT
All of my grandparents were fully incapacitated in some way by the time they were 75. (1 dead, 1 with severe arthritis, 1 with chronic COPD and one with major heart problems) Even with increases in life expectancy, (though this would mean some areas expectancy is exceeded by retirement age) the incidence of chronic and debilitating diseases is massively high in over 65s. Anyone losing their job post 60 is going to have a massive struggle for those 15 years. I know it's only in a think tank, but it's a genuinely awful idea that will no doubts have some champions of it in government.
|
|
|
Post by bathstoke on Aug 22, 2019 9:02:02 GMT
The rate that tech is developing, I’ll be operationally obsolete & redundant by that age.
|
|
|
Post by foster on Aug 22, 2019 9:11:03 GMT
All of my grandparents were fully incapacitated in some way by the time they were 75. (1 dead, 1 with severe arthritis, 1 with chronic COPD and one with major heart problems) Even with increases in life expectancy, (though this would mean some areas expectancy is exceeded by retirement age) the incidence of chronic and debilitating diseases is massively high in over 65s. Anyone losing their job post 60 is going to have a massive struggle for those 15 years. I know it's only in a think tank, but it's a genuinely awful idea that will no doubts have some champions of it in government. My mum passed away at 68 with all of these. The little time she had to enjoy her retirement and pension was spent in poor health. Two of my friends mothers passed away at 45 and 57 due to cancer. Life quality certainly has to be a factor. People shouldn't be forced to work themselves into a grave or have zero quality of life after retirement.
|
|
|
Post by trentvale68 on Aug 22, 2019 12:06:42 GMT
All of my grandparents were fully incapacitated in some way by the time they were 75. (1 dead, 1 with severe arthritis, 1 with chronic COPD and one with major heart problems) Even with increases in life expectancy, (though this would mean some areas expectancy is exceeded by retirement age) the incidence of chronic and debilitating diseases is massively high in over 65s. Anyone losing their job post 60 is going to have a massive struggle for those 15 years. I know it's only in a think tank, but it's a genuinely awful idea that will no doubts have some champions of it in government. My mum passed away at 68 with all of these. The little time she had to enjoy her retirement and pension was spent in poor health. Two of my friends mothers passed away at 45 and 57 due to cancer. Life quality certainly has to be a factor. People shouldn't be forced to work themselves into a grave or have zero quality of life after retirement. And then be forced to sell their house, to pay for the inevitable social care. They basically want you to die and never be in a position to claim from where youve paid into.
|
|
|
Post by musik on Aug 22, 2019 12:49:15 GMT
They basically want you to die and never be in a position to claim from where you've paid into. The same here in Sweden. They have already decided to go for 67, then 70, then 75. And the earlier you retire, the less you'll get. They have admitted they've placed parts of the pension money in some bad investments. To no longer feel the shame again, some years ago the decision making within the pension system was delegated to the citizens, during their working lives - what shares and funds etc to place the money ...
|
|
|
Post by foster on Aug 22, 2019 12:55:55 GMT
My mum passed away at 68 with all of these. The little time she had to enjoy her retirement and pension was spent in poor health. Two of my friends mothers passed away at 45 and 57 due to cancer. Life quality certainly has to be a factor. People shouldn't be forced to work themselves into a grave or have zero quality of life after retirement. And then be forced to sell their house, to pay for the inevitable social care. They basically want you to die and never be in a position to claim from where youve paid into. My nans house in Bentilee (that she'd lived in for 65 years) didn't last long once she went into a home. Was probably a good thing for the government that she didn't either.
|
|
|
Post by yeokel on Aug 22, 2019 13:00:13 GMT
My mum passed away at 68 with all of these. The little time she had to enjoy her retirement and pension was spent in poor health. Two of my friends mothers passed away at 45 and 57 due to cancer. Life quality certainly has to be a factor. People shouldn't be forced to work themselves into a grave or have zero quality of life after retirement. And then be forced to sell their house, to pay for the inevitable social care. They basically want you to die and never be in a position to claim from where youve paid into. “ They basically want you to die and never be in a position to claim from where youve paid into.” OK TV68, who is the “They” in your sentence above? Is it politicians? Is it not all politicians but just government ones? Is it just Tories or Labour ones too? (Labour started the ball rolling on this in about 2010) Is it the Civil Service? Is it the business community, Or is it us? You might ask yourself why do we keep demanding to pay lower taxes (locally and nationally), electing politicians who promis us as much, and then complain when services are cut to match the available finances. Who is going to vote for the politician who stands and says " I'll put up quite a few taxes by quite a bit if I get elected. That way we might be able to afford to live in the country we all think we deserve to. And not just taxes on 'the rich', but on all of us." Would you vote for that?
|
|
|
Post by Frogger Theft Auto on Aug 22, 2019 13:06:35 GMT
I wouldn’t worry. Every job will be automated by 2040 anyway and we’ll all be on universal basic income until we die with luxury communism, sitting on our arse all day with a couple of robot slaves and a sexbot for a wife.
And the next generation will be wiped out by robots in the great human genocide of 2061. Robots being earth’s dominant species for the next 100,000 years, human’s remembered in their history books as a type of caterpillar species with them as the butterflies.
|
|
|
Post by yeokel on Aug 22, 2019 13:27:03 GMT
I wouldn’t worry. Every job will be automated by 2040 anyway and we’ll all be on universal basic income until we die with luxury communism, sitting on our arse all day with a couple of robot slaves and a sexbot for a wife. And the next generation will be wiped out by robots in the great human genocide of 2061. Robots being earth’s dominant species for the next 100,000 years, human’s remembered in their history books as a type of caterpillar species with them as the butterflies. The battle that we all should fear (if we are still around) will be the BIG one between viruses and bacteria. Once that war has been won (viruses are the predicted winners at the moment) I think there could be trouble. I suspect the viruses might beat the robots in the race to wipe out humans and the rest of the animal kingdom. (If we don't do the job ourselves first) It will be a hollow victory for them though as viruses depend on having a living host, but there may be none left.
|
|
|
Post by foster on Aug 22, 2019 13:30:25 GMT
And then be forced to sell their house, to pay for the inevitable social care. They basically want you to die and never be in a position to claim from where youve paid into. “ They basically want you to die and never be in a position to claim from where youve paid into.” OK TV68, who is the “They” in your sentence above? Is it politicians? Is it not all politicians but just government ones? Is it just Tories or Labour ones too? (Labour started the ball rolling on this in about 2010) Is it the Civil Service? Is it the business community, Or is it us? You might ask yourself why do we keep demanding to pay lower taxes (locally and nationally), electing politicians who promis us as much, and then complain when services are cut to match the available finances. Who is going to vote for the politician who stands and says " I'll put up quite a few taxes by quite a bit if I get elected. That way we might be able to afford to live in the country we all think we deserve to. And not just taxes on 'the rich', but on all of us." Would you vote for that? We've just wasted over 6 billion preparing for a no deal Brexit. Not too mention whatever the cost has been in time and resources over the past 3 years. We (as a country) have the money, it's just not managed or spent properly. As with all the money that seems to be flying directly into the pockets of the mega-rich. Taxing extremely high earners more (like footballers for example) would be a step in the right direction. Just a few % more to them wouldn't impact their lifestyle at all, but would make a huge different to the rest (who basically pay them anyway).
|
|
|
Post by foster on Aug 22, 2019 13:34:07 GMT
I wouldn’t worry. Every job will be automated by 2040 anyway and we’ll all be on universal basic income until we die with luxury communism, sitting on our arse all day with a couple of robot slaves and a sexbot for a wife. And the next generation will be wiped out by robots in the great human genocide of 2061. Robots being earth’s dominant species for the next 100,000 years, human’s remembered in their history books as a type of caterpillar species with them as the butterflies. The battle that we all should fear (if we are still around) will be the BIG one between viruses and bacteria. Once that war has been won (viruses are the predicted winners at the moment) I think there could be trouble. I suspect the viruses might beat the robots in the race to wipe out humans and the rest of the animal kingdom. (If we don't do the job ourselves first) It will be a hollow victory for them though as viruses depend on having a living host, but there may be none left. I'm more inclined to go with a series of natural disasters, followed by relentless nuclear and chemical warfare myself. More along the lines of Mad Max than Terminator or Matrix. ...with a distinct outside chance of a Zombie Apocalypse.
|
|
|
Post by bathstoke on Aug 22, 2019 13:38:02 GMT
I wouldn’t worry. Every job will be automated by 2040 anyway and we’ll all be on universal basic income until we die with luxury communism, sitting on our arse all day with a couple of robot slaves and a sexbot for a wife. And the next generation will be wiped out by robots in the great human genocide of 2061. Robots being earth’s dominant species for the next 100,000 years, human’s remembered in their history books as a type of caterpillar species with them as the butterflies. It will be a hollow victory for them though as viruses depend on having a living host, but there may be none left. How would that fit into evolutionary theory though. Why would a virus wipe out its means of reproduction 🦠
|
|
|
Post by musik on Aug 22, 2019 13:41:26 GMT
It will be a hollow victory for them though as viruses depend on having a living host, but there may be none left. How would that fit into evolutionary theory though. Why would a virus wipe out its means of reproduction 🦠 I thought he meant computer virus.
|
|
|
Post by yeokel on Aug 22, 2019 13:46:49 GMT
It will be a hollow victory for them though as viruses depend on having a living host, but there may be none left. How would that fit into evolutionary theory though. Why would a virus wipe out its means of reproduction 🦠 It's a fair point. Perhaps they are not very bright.
|
|
|
Post by bathstoke on Aug 22, 2019 13:48:27 GMT
How would that fit into evolutionary theory though. Why would a virus wipe out its means of reproduction 🦠 I thought he meant computer virus. 👾
|
|
|
Post by foster on Aug 22, 2019 13:50:16 GMT
In any scenario the future doesn't look good does it? In all of these apocalyptic films based in the future there is an element of distinct possibility.
The environment being fucked is almost guaranteed. AI just keeps improving and we may not be able to contain it. A global epidemic could happen as a result of a man-made virus... or of course, war.
Probably shouldn't really worry about a rising pension age. We might not even make it that far.
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on Aug 22, 2019 14:54:06 GMT
Plans afoot to raise it, initially to 70,then to 75... There's many folks in jobs who simply can't work to these ages. And the ones raising it, of course, have zero intention of being in such a position themselves. There are no plans to raise it to 70 or 75
|
|
|
Post by Davef on Aug 22, 2019 15:02:15 GMT
|
|
|
Post by britsabroad on Aug 22, 2019 15:37:31 GMT
Pension age for men was set at 65 in 1940. Life expectancy of a male in 1940 was 62.
Pension age now is 66. Median age of death for a male in 2017 was 82.
Not hard to see the problem. It can and will go up, it has to.
|
|
|
Post by trentvale68 on Aug 22, 2019 16:26:09 GMT
And then be forced to sell their house, to pay for the inevitable social care. They basically want you to die and never be in a position to claim from where youve paid into. “ They basically want you to die and never be in a position to claim from where youve paid into.” OK TV68, who is the “They” in your sentence above? Is it politicians? Is it not all politicians but just government ones? Is it just Tories or Labour ones too? (Labour started the ball rolling on this in about 2010) Is it the Civil Service? Is it the business community, Or is it us? You might ask yourself why do we keep demanding to pay lower taxes (locally and nationally), electing politicians who promis us as much, and then complain when services are cut to match the available finances. Who is going to vote for the politician who stands and says " I'll put up quite a few taxes by quite a bit if I get elected. That way we might be able to afford to live in the country we all think we deserve to. And not just taxes on 'the rich', but on all of us." Would you vote for that? I absolutely would pay more taxes if it meant people keeping their homes or getting a decent standard of care in their old age or a decent pension. No problem whatsoever with it. If I can afford the pub several times a week, then I can afford a few more quid a month. And I'm not on high wages either. I think most people are genuinely willing to pay taxes for better public services, even potentially a bit higher.
|
|
|
Post by yeokel on Aug 22, 2019 16:31:40 GMT
“ They basically want you to die and never be in a position to claim from where youve paid into.” OK TV68, who is the “They” in your sentence above? Is it politicians? Is it not all politicians but just government ones? Is it just Tories or Labour ones too? (Labour started the ball rolling on this in about 2010) Is it the Civil Service? Is it the business community, Or is it us? You might ask yourself why do we keep demanding to pay lower taxes (locally and nationally), electing politicians who promis us as much, and then complain when services are cut to match the available finances. Who is going to vote for the politician who stands and says " I'll put up quite a few taxes by quite a bit if I get elected. That way we might be able to afford to live in the country we all think we deserve to. And not just taxes on 'the rich', but on all of us." Would you vote for that? I absolutely would pay more taxes if it meant people keeping their homes or getting a decent standard of care in their old age or a decent pension. No problem whatsoever with it. If I can afford the pub several times a week, then I can afford a few more quid a month. And I'm not on high wages either. I think most people are genuinely willing to pay taxes for better public services, even potentially a bit higher. I think most people would like to think they were. But when it comes to putting their cross on the ballot paper, those kind and benevolent thoughts seem to get forgotten.
|
|
|
Post by trentvale68 on Aug 22, 2019 16:34:39 GMT
I absolutely would pay more taxes if it meant people keeping their homes or getting a decent standard of care in their old age or a decent pension. No problem whatsoever with it. If I can afford the pub several times a week, then I can afford a few more quid a month. And I'm not on high wages either. I think most people are genuinely willing to pay taxes for better public services, even potentially a bit higher. I think most people would like to think they were. But when it comes to putting their cross on the ballot paper, those kind and benevolent thoughts seem to get forgotten. I can only speak for myself then, bud
|
|
|
Post by britsabroad on Aug 22, 2019 16:45:56 GMT
“ They basically want you to die and never be in a position to claim from where youve paid into.” OK TV68, who is the “They” in your sentence above? Is it politicians? Is it not all politicians but just government ones? Is it just Tories or Labour ones too? (Labour started the ball rolling on this in about 2010) Is it the Civil Service? Is it the business community, Or is it us? You might ask yourself why do we keep demanding to pay lower taxes (locally and nationally), electing politicians who promis us as much, and then complain when services are cut to match the available finances. Who is going to vote for the politician who stands and says " I'll put up quite a few taxes by quite a bit if I get elected. That way we might be able to afford to live in the country we all think we deserve to. And not just taxes on 'the rich', but on all of us." Would you vote for that? I absolutely would pay more taxes if it meant people keeping their homes or getting a decent standard of care in their old age or a decent pension. No problem whatsoever with it. If I can afford the pub several times a week, then I can afford a few more quid a month. And I'm not on high wages either. I think most people are genuinely willing to pay taxes for better public services, even potentially a bit higher. There are 12 million pensioners in the UK. At 130 quid a week, every additional year they live adds 80 billion onto the pension liability. That's quite a few pints worth.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 22, 2019 16:53:29 GMT
My mum passed away at 68 with all of these. The little time she had to enjoy her retirement and pension was spent in poor health. Two of my friends mothers passed away at 45 and 57 due to cancer. Life quality certainly has to be a factor. People shouldn't be forced to work themselves into a grave or have zero quality of life after retirement. And then be forced to sell their house, to pay for the inevitable social care. They basically want you to die and never be in a position to claim from where youve paid into. That's what it seems like.
|
|
|
Post by trentvale68 on Aug 22, 2019 17:38:12 GMT
I absolutely would pay more taxes if it meant people keeping their homes or getting a decent standard of care in their old age or a decent pension. No problem whatsoever with it. If I can afford the pub several times a week, then I can afford a few more quid a month. And I'm not on high wages either. I think most people are genuinely willing to pay taxes for better public services, even potentially a bit higher. There are 12 million pensioners in the UK. At 130 quid a week, every additional year they live adds 80 billion onto the pension liability. That's quite a few pints worth. Then what's the answer??
|
|
|
Post by Billybigbollox on Aug 22, 2019 18:18:00 GMT
It will be a hollow victory for them though as viruses depend on having a living host, but there may be none left. How would that fit into evolutionary theory though. Why would a virus wipe out its means of reproduction 🦠 Chlamydia does. 😁
|
|
|
Post by mattyd on Aug 22, 2019 18:28:07 GMT
Agenda 21 at work...I tell ya folks. De population has begun...
|
|