Guest 667- Registered: 6 Apr 2008
- Posts: 919
#1
Is it right for the Government to up the retirement age to 67 - 70 years of age?
Yes they should make it that if someone wants to stay on at work past 65 that Companies should not be able to stop them and they should be able to continue to contribute to their pension schemes but the retirement age should stay at 65.
I have been employed since I left school at 15 and now at 64 I am ready to retire and although this will not affect me I would hate to think I had to carry on to 67 or beyond. Individuals are different and some want to carry on some not and it is that area the Government should look at to make it easier and more beneficial for those that do.
Guest 640- Registered: 21 Apr 2007
- Posts: 7,819
#2
Harry this item came up on Questime Time the other night and I guess the responses to it are something of a mixed bag. Some poeple work because they like it..was the general concensus, and those that do will agree with the measure. Some people, columnists in Fleet St for example who have a cushy number with bags of easy earning power, wont want to be turfed out at 65. The guy working 'down pit' on the other hand, cant wait to get out of it..To force him and others in similar situations into working longer, yes 70 is being touted, is pretty awful I would say.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
#3
Interesting question Harry and one that I have been discussing and studying at a financial advisers conference over the last two days.
The last government had plans to increase the State retirement age to 68 phased in over several years. The new government has decided to accellerate the process as part of dealing with the deficit bringing in the age 66 SRP age much sooner.
Some people are saying that the present plans do not go far enough and the SRP age should be raised to 70 but that is not government policy, at least not yet.
Regardless of the deficit situation this is to address a serious problem building up.
The numbers of people working relative to the number over the State Retirement age is falling, people are simply living longer and longer while the birth rate is falling. This is building up huge costs in the system. Add to that the huge and increasing number of working age people who are 'economically inactive' the bad situation is threatening to become a crisis.
The important point to remember is that we are only talking about the State Pension age. You can still retire and draw a private pension from age 55 but cannot take the state one until a year later than before.
At the end of the day it is a matter of priorities.
I know many people who prefer to smoke 20-40 a day, spending £200 to £400 a month on cigarettes instead of saving towards a better standard of living in retirement. This money, even a part of it, can still be invested towards providing a retirement income attracting additional cash input from the government. If someone smoking 40 a day cut down to 20 and invested £200 a month into a pension, they would end up with £250 a month invested and that would help them a long way towards retireing earlier. They earlier they start investing the better it is, even if it is done in a small way. Make no mistake, there are some very good pension schemes out there specially with the right advice back-up.
We all make these lifestyle choices and should remain free to do so however daft it seems.
The government, by the way, is not inactive in this respect either. There is a rather flawed scheme put forward by the last government called NEST, that will force every employee to be authomaically enrolled in to a pension scheme run by, believe it or not, an Indian car manufacturer, Tata.... I do not know if it will survive the change of government but this is certainly an ill-conceived scheme offering a very poor and restrictive pension that will be of no use to man or beast and will do not more than pull people off means tested benefits, at their own and their employer's expense, for no real advantage. UK (European and US) pension providers refused to get involved and be associated with this terrible scheme, hence Tata.
#4
The joke of this idea, mooted by ALL the main political parties is this. Employers won't hire workers who are anything like that old. In fact, if your the wrong side of 40 and out of work it can take years to gain employment. Until that ageist problem is rresolved by forcful action against the culprits, nothing will change and there will be no point to increasing retirement age.
In addition to this, the pojnts made by Harry are spot on but I would add, whatever the occupation, we all feel differently. I have energy to burn and feel I could go on for years yet, indeed I want to, but I have similarly aged family members who have had enough and want to put their feet up metaphorically speaking.
But, we all have to recognise that we have to pay for our pensions (although I thought I had) and for some reason the country doesn't have the money to afford so many old people. who aren't contributing.
I can't help thinking a couple of other thoughts on this subject:
1. Who was responsible for making sure our state pension contributions were adequate for purpose and why didn't they deal with this issue years ago.?
2. Where did the contributions money go?
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
#5
Sid - the State pension has never been 'funded' but has always been paid out of current taxation. National Insurance was a poorly conceived scheme that is no more than another tax on income. This should have been a ringfenced and invested, or in other words 'funded' as a pool of money designed to pay for certain benefits like the State Pension.
In the 80's the Thatcher government did start to address some problems of this kind relating to the earning related top-up, SERPS as that was projected to be a serious problem.
Governments have always been trying to play catch-up over this.
#6
The fact is the general public has been conned. After years of paying and being encouraged to think it included contributions to a fair and reasonable old age it has becoe clearer over a period of time that actually no-one gives a stuff about old people and hey, you can't work, your life is over, and anyway we will keep you working til you drop. Nice.
Guest 694- Registered: 22 Mar 2010
- Posts: 778
#7
well ladies and gents... taken straight from the State Pension Profiler.. ohh lucky me
Your State Pension age is : 68 years. The earliest date from which you could be entitled to any State Pension is 2 January, 2052.
Which is why it makes me chuckle when I get letters from the DWP telling me that I havent made enough NI contributions and unless i make the 35 years (think thats right) contribution I wont get my full pension, I have already got 8 years, so I think in the next 42.. i think i might be able to manage the rest..
Ohh and the profiler also advises me I can put my pension back to claim it later... yeah alrite..
Not really looking forward to the prospect in fairness....
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
#8
Jenni - you need 30 years NI contributions for the maximum Basic State pension. People need to be careful about notices they get telling them they should make additional contributions for the maximum pension - it is often not the case.
Whatever though, for a decent retirement income, you should not rely on the state pension. Anyone who is sensible should save/invest as well and to get a decent income. Your retirement savings must be expected to get to a figure of significantly higher value than your home....as a crude rule of thumb. Anything less will not do.
Bern - I have to disagree with you. For many years people have been warned that the State alone will not provide enough. We built up the best funded pensions in the world as a result, but over the last 15 years they have been systematicaly been destroyed by ill-conceived government policies. Yes that does include the 1995 Act under Major which was a significant step in building problems for final salary schemes.
Those of you employed at least have the S2P top-up to the basic state pension even if you don't have any private provision, those of us who are self-employed have only the Basic State pension plus anything we do ourselves.
I could write reams and reams about pensions from every angle but will resist it...
#9
Some of us have private pensions, but many don't and many don't understand the need. Or have the funds to do it - even the ones who don't fag it and whiz it up the wall!!!
Guest 645- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 4,463
#10
Govt. statistics show that on average a person (male) who works to the age of 65 yrs and then retires normally draws his pension for approx 18 months. These are the figures that the govt base their calculations on.
Bern
Private pension...your Tory Cameron cutie you.
Marek
I think therefore I am (not a Tory supporter)
#11
It's that little bit of hypocrisy that makes us all so tantalising, Marek!!!
Guest 694- Registered: 22 Mar 2010
- Posts: 778
#12
thanks Barry.. i did ring them once and point out i was going to be working the next 42 years, and could they kindly refrain from sending me letters and wasting more tax money.. alas on deaf ears it fell..
I do have a private pension also, not that at present we can afford for me to pay into it.. but one day :)
Not really a bimbo.. just give the allusion of such!
Guest 649- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 14,118
#13
Well I worked from about the age of 15years till I was 67 and look how I ended up if you work in a office OK you may be OK to work on for two years but not on building sites etc it gets very hard when you get older all the going up and down ladders hanging off steel at about 200ft in the air, welding in water etc and that is just part of it.I am just glad I made it to the end some do not .
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#14
i was told when i started work that all my national insurance and something called superannuation was put to one side for me when i retire.
it appears that i was misinformed.
Guest 667- Registered: 6 Apr 2008
- Posts: 919
#15
Right so we increase the pension age to 70, what happens to those who cannot continue to do their job of work between the ages of 65 to 70, do they just go on the dole, for in some cases the Company they work for may not have alternative employment for them.
Public Transport is one such industry; Drivers of Trains, buses and I suspect pilots of planes have to have medicals every year from age 65. Five years to the age of 70 is a long time in medical terms as you get older and I would think a good number will not get through.
Surly if they the age of retirement is raised the Government will also have to bring in some sort of back up for those who cannot go on for medical reasons.
I still think carrying on past 65 should be voluntary for the employee but in some way compulsory for the Company they work for unless as I have said there are medical reasons involved. At present a Company does not have to agree to you carrying on and often do not.
Guest 690- Registered: 10 Oct 2009
- Posts: 4,150
#16
Interesting topic and posting`s there Harry. I can only comment on my own humble experience`s, and other`s I know. I`ve never been able to understand the retiring age being 65 for a man, while at the same time, the average life expectancy of a man is 65! It always has been as far as I`m aware. So what would have happened in the 50s, 60s, or 70s for example, if men on average were found to be living till 70? I suspect the retiring age would have been increased at that time rather than now. This living longer business seems to be something new in recent years, and of course anything like this, (and global warming), will quickly be jumped upon by politician`s and other`s for their own ends maybe. I`m now 58 and finishing up through health probs, but I loved my job, and liked most of the people I`ve worked with over the year`s. I also saw myself going beyond 65, like a few other`s I know. However, since being off last year for many month`s recovering, I discovered that there was more to life than work. I did go back to work last August, on 3 hours per day gradually building up to the present 6 through doctor`s order`s. I decided last month, after my own personal experience`s last year not to go on but to finish up, and this is all going through at the moment. I`ve found I don`t miss the job, as it`s all changing anyway,and I`m out getting a life, something I didn`t have at work as I was there all the time and liking what I did.
Tell them that I came, and no one answered.
#17
Colin, that is exactly what makes Life so interesting - sometimes what seems ike a bodyblow can be an opportunity. It doesn't feel like it at the time, but nevertheless it is. Your posts are often inspirational.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
#18
Harry - remember we are still only talking of the age at which you can draw a State pension.
Peole who wisely plan and prepare can still retire early, or as so often happens now, partially retire. The word early really should not apply any more in fact, the demise of the fixed retirement age is happening.
I have clients who have been with me for 20 years with really quite modest incomes, some in manual jobs, who will still be able to fully of partially retire before the State Pension age.
It all comes down to planning and being sensible. I have seen lots of peope with piles of dosh, 6 figure incomes, who have less provision for retirement than a certain manual worker client of mine.
It is all about lifestyle choices that we individually make.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
#19
Harry - remember we are still only talking of the age at which you can draw a State pension.
People who wisely plan and prepare can still retire early, or as so often happens now, partially retire. The word early really should not apply any more in fact, the demise of the fixed retirement age is happening.
I have clients who have been with me for 20 years with really quite modest incomes, some in manual jobs, who will still be able to fully of partially retire before the State Pension age.
It all comes down to planning and being sensible, not how much someone earns. I have seen lots of people with piles of dosh, 6 figure incomes, who have less provision for retirement than a certain manual worker client of mine.
It is all about lifestyle choices that we individually make.
Guest 690- Registered: 10 Oct 2009
- Posts: 4,150
#20
Barry`s right above regarding the demise of the 65 retiring age. Some like to carry on, some want to finish up, and at the end of the day, it`s what you can afford, rather than what you want, and I`m excluding health reasons on this one. 65 may be as outdated as £ s d, why 65? Why not 68? Certainly you can`t reduce the retiring age, due to the high cost I`m informed. I know a number of people who have died at 65, or not long after. Maybe 65 has an effect on them mentally, which brings me to the point of how often I`ve heard work colleague`s saying, " he retire`s next year, he won`t last long, won`t know what to do with himself", and it`s happened, a few times! Anyway, enjoy life now while you can, you`ve only got one. (P.S. Thanks Bern
).
Tell them that I came, and no one answered.
