[Beso]

For anyone born after 8th april 1970.....whooohooo..8th march...up your bum government.

[Crimson Dynamo]

good news, people need to work. Sit down, stay down

[Underscore]

Ughhhhhh

[Toy Soldier]

I very much doubt state pension will exist at all by the time I'm in my 60's at this rate, so I'm not planning to rely on it anyway.

In principle I have nothing against people who enjoy their careers working for as long as they can, but frankly, having people work in cruddy retail / manual jobs into their 70's is ridiculous. Bad for their health AND bad for the economy as both physical and mental productivity begins to drop.

I'm going to bring brutally honest. The company I work for has far too many in the 55+ age bracket still in shops, who have been with the company 20 or 30 years, and frankly 95% of them are utterly useless at the job as it is now. A liability. They're too slow, they make cash errors, and they don't understand modern systems.

[Toy Soldier]

Anywaaay... My wife's retirement age (in mental health) is still 60, though I imagine she'll keep doing the other things she does (writing / journalism / networking and conferences and all that stuff) for as long as she can because she enjoys it.

I personally hope to be either in academia or self employed within the next decade also so I'm not too concerned about the state pension age at this point. But yeah. I'd literally rather just drop of a heart attack at 60 than still be working in rat race employment into my 70s. Gads.

[Toy Soldier]

Also just had a read and this actually only affects those born between 1970 and 1978, not everyone born after 1970

[waterhog]

Originally Posted by parmnion

For anyone born after 8th april 1970.....whooohooo..8th march...up your bum government.

I don't mind - poetry will remain free free even if I have to work for free

[smudgie]

No doubt it will get to the near eighties before you retire if people keep living longer.
Shame you can't offer to pay more into the pot on condition you can retire earlier.

[Vicky.]

I am positive there will not even be a state pension when I reach retirement age (probably like...95)

I have no private pension either as I don't trust the whole thing tbh and can honestly see everyones pensions being written off...so I would rather spend when I actually get it.

[waterhog]

I think they want us to work till we drop then they don't pay any pension - its a win win win for them.

[Kizzy]

You know that saying 'I'm alright jack' ? Well this is an example of that right here, the govt can screw with anyone and unless it affects us directly we don't give a ****.

[Tom4784]

People get what they voted for.

[Toy Soldier]

Originally Posted by smudgie

No doubt it will get to the near eighties before you retire if people keep living longer.
Shame you can't offer to pay more into the pot on condition you can retire earlier.

Well, you can... you can have a private pension or retirement plan and then retire whenever you want. They can't "force you to work until 70" - all they can do is withhold the state pension. That's all that's meant by "retirement age", really.

What is a bit of a sham, is that you can't opt OUT of having a state pension and have your NI contributions reduced accordingly (to invest however you want).

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

People get what they voted for.

Lets be hoenst though, it does have to happen. We (as a country) simply cannot afford the aging population. and I don't think tis fair at all to expect younger taxpayers to subsidize older people, especially when these younger taxpayers are unlikely to even get a pension themselves when odler.

It has to be dealt with. And one of the things I actually do admire May for doing was at least attempting to start sorting this issue out. The 'dementia tax' needed a bit of tweaking, but we need to be honest with ourselves...we cannot afford to offer pensioners the world on a plate

[DemolitionRed]

Pensions come from a working life of contributions but instead of sticking our hard earned pension fund under the mattress, we hand it to the government trusting they will invest it well. Instead of spending this 'real' money on infrastructure, its been poorly invested and used towards paying off the deficit! If our pension funds are not well invested then we can't expect a good return; our pensions can't keep up with inflation or the growing numbers of old people (who by the way, have paid their dues and those dues came with a promise)

If my state pension isn't being invested then where does the return come from? from the younger generation of course and the state pension they collect when they are older will come from their descendants (its like borrowing from Peter to pay Paul) The problem with that is, the population is getting smaller and smaller populations mean less national insurance contributions. This means the government has to subsidize pensions and thats not something the government wants to do.

Edited to say: Private sector pensions are a high risk game. Its often trashed by the City to pay bonuses or play with on the ever vulnerable stock market. Łbillions are lost on private pensions each year. OAPs who have dilligently saved in a private pension fund all their lives so often end up with nothing more than their state pension.

Start buying gold.

[reece(:]

**** you Theresa Fraud!

[smudgie]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Well, you can... you can have a private pension or retirement plan and then retire whenever you want. They can't "force you to work until 70" - all they can do is withhold the state pension. That's all that's meant by "retirement age", really.

What is a bit of a sham, is that you can't opt OUT of having a state pension and have your NI contributions reduced accordingly (to invest however you want).

This is true.
Hubby has retired early, a year earlier than we planned due to redundancy (bit of luck really as he received 12 months wages and only had to pay tax on anything over Ł35K)

I have mixed feelings on the being able to opt out.
People would more than likely opt out but then not bother to invest the money for their retirement. But if it was on condition that they did invest privately I could see it working. Plus it would encourage people to invest a bit more for a better deal.

[smudgie]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

Lets be hoenst though, it does have to happen. We (as a country) simply cannot afford the aging population. and I don't think tis fair at all to expect younger taxpayers to subsidize older people, especially when these younger taxpayers are unlikely to even get a pension themselves when odler.

It has to be dealt with. And one of the things I actually do admire May for doing was at least attempting to start sorting this issue out. The 'dementia tax' needed a bit of tweaking, but we need to be honest with ourselves...we cannot afford to offer pensioners the world on a plate

The 'dementia tax' would have enabled people to keep Ł100K to hand down to their kids, unlike the Ł23K they can now.

[DemolitionRed]

The Dementia Tax was just a commercial opportunity; a stealth incentive to take out equity release mortgages. A market dominated by Legal & General of which a major share holder is Capital Group. No prizes for guessing who's the key executive of Capital group? No other than Philip May, Theresa's hubby... Nice try Theresa but you had to rely on a population of naivety to carry that one off.

http://www.newsfixboard.com/t20781-n...insurance-scam

[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

Lets be hoenst though, it does have to happen. We (as a country) simply cannot afford the aging population. and I don't think tis fair at all to expect younger taxpayers to subsidize older people, especially when these younger taxpayers are unlikely to even get a pension themselves when odler.

It has to be dealt with. And one of the things I actually do admire May for doing was at least attempting to start sorting this issue out. The 'dementia tax' needed a bit of tweaking, but we need to be honest with ourselves...we cannot afford to offer pensioners the world on a plate

The younger taxpayer has always subsidised older people - just like the younger generation of today will be subsidised by future generations - it's how it works and every generation benefits when their time comes.

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by Brillopad

The younger taxpayer has always subsidised older people - just like the younger generation of today will be subsidised by future generations - it's how it works and every generation benefits when their time comes.

Except it won't will it. Pension age will be 95 by the time todays tax payers reach the age. So we are asking them to contribute more than they can afford to do, whilst not actually having the chance to reap the benefits themselves. This simply cannot continue forever. It can't. We cannot afford this and I do agree with attempting to sort out the mess that has been made (triple lock promises and such )