howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#1
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
#2
Then they will just have to work hard and save hard, just like sensible people have always done. I just feel sorry for the ones who come from non-working families who have been cruelly led to believe that the state owes them a living.
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
Guest 649- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 14,118
#3
Working till they are 81 is not on .OK we might be living longer but most of us have had new knees and need lots of pills and pain killers so to keep going .Might be OK siting at a PC but not working as I did on building sites or going up high or under ground .you would not be pass fit to do it anyway,I think 65 still is the age to pack it in if you wish to.I worked till I had to stop at 67 and must say I found that very hard to do at times.We do not live to work but work to live.And lets get to the highlands for the last few years.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#4
I read another article that said retirement age would be dependent on the type of work someone had been doing i.e manual workers earlier than office people. This is not as simple as it sounds as a lot of work involves both and also what if someone had been grafting manually for 40 years then found a desk job when the body started to pack up?
Guest 649- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 14,118
#5
Who whats to work till they are 81? will the MP be doing it themselfs they start getting a pension after the first four years in office and it is a free one .
Reginald Barrington
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 17 Dec 2014
- Posts: 3,261
#6
Where has 81 come from?
A few innacuracies in that piece,
1. government has got review pensions in each parliament so not 3yrs early.
2. They have stuck an arbitrary figure on retirement age75yrs? Last parliament they moved it 2yrs by 2028 they are hardly going to be able to jump 9 yrs in one.
3. There is no indication that they will move retirement age at all during this reveiw.
I'm with Peter work hard save hard and stop expecting ought for nowt
Arte et Marte
Guest 649- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 14,118
#7
If you have worked all your working life from 15 to 65 or a few years after and you have been paying all your taxs and stamps etc it is not ought for nowt in your words sir,just getting some back what you have put in and that why you have paid into it in the first place,
Reginald Barrington- Location: Dover
- Registered: 17 Dec 2014
- Posts: 3,261
#8
I meant it in reference to those who have spent their life sponging off the state as in my reference to agreeing with Peter's post.
But at some point there will no longer be enough paid in to pay out, as you say Vic having payed in for 50 yrs you should be able to get that back out, unfortunately with many more people now living well into their 90's and that number only increasing, the pot will be empty by the time today's babies get to retirement,.
Any suggestions for them?
Arte et Marte
Guest 649- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 14,118
#9
You are right sir so we have to stop the once that take out but do not put in anything and a lot of them come from over the sea.Come over here to work is OK but to come here and just take out is not.To look after number two, first you must look after number one,or we all end up number twos.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#10
I wonder if I will end up as a number one or two, neither sound complimentary.
The starting age of 81 has been bandied about without any dates given. When I first started work something called "Superannuation" I think was deducted from my wages. When I queried it I was told that it all went into my bin for my pension. Later on it became clear that the money was being paid out to pensioners of the time and that when it came to my retirement the working population would be paying for mine.
Therein lies the problem as most people croaked about the age of 70 in those days so took little in the way of pensions unlike today with so many people living into their 90's. A pensions expert today said that most younger working people should save up 800 quid a month for their pensions!! In our low wage economy that is next to impossible for most people. I can only conclude that I was born about the right time unlike the poor devils of today.
Bob Whysman
- Registered: 23 Aug 2013
- Posts: 1,948
#11
Howard wrote, ' I can only conclude that I was born about the right time unlike the poor devils of today.' Unquote.
Regardless of when you were born Howard the State Pension would not provide the means to live comfortably so the prudent ones in the past contributed to Company or private pension schemes to fund their retirement.
It was a condition of employment to join the Company pension scheme for many which meant a percentage of your earnings were earmarked for pension contributions......the more you earn't the the more you paid in. It was difficult sometimes with a young family to keep, but that was the situation. That was in the days of 'hand me downs' not handouts.
Free childcare, maternity leave and other 'perks' and many other benefits make life more pleasant for families today so perhaps they should enjoy these but not lose sight of their future needs.
As Vic said some started working at 15 years old; there was also 2 yrs compulsory National Service in your later teens to contend with so making provision for your old age was tough.
The choice is still there today; work hard and make provision for your own retirement and yes, it's still tough but your future lifestyle is your responsibility.
Do nothing and nothing happens.
Guest 649- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 14,118
#12
You are right most young ones do not think that far ahead I was one of them ,but it comes round but then it is to late to change things must say we do find it hard at times but there 1000s if not more that have a lot less then my self .