Topic: The Pension Age

[PurpleHeather]

Years ago I recall that we were told that there would be a reduction in jobs
Technology would replace menial jobs .......and it has.

I am sure many could add to the list of jobs which no longer exists the tea lady has been replaced by a vending machine. The filing clerk, bus conductor (except in London Transport) and the 'mate' most tradesmen had has gone.

Retirement needed to be earlier rather than later they said so at 60, you could claim pension credit and not need to 'sign on.

Now we have insufficient jobs so young families are needing to claim unemployment benefits of hundreds of pounds a week.

Surely single people and couples on a pension would cost less to keep than young families so why put up the pension age when there are not enough jobs for the under sixties?

Loads of companies now prefer to employ older people (they do not have to take time off to look after their kids) they are experienced and can work unsupervised.  Great, but a sixty year old on a pension costs less to keep than a  couple with kids on benefits.

If there were a lot of jobs and not enough people to fill them it would make sense but that is not the case.

Next time you shop or buy petrol, during the day.. check out the age of the person at the till. They are almost all of an age where they could be pensioned off . Evenings and weekends and holidays they are often replaced with students who are trying to supplement their learning.

I have happily retired early  (from my own investments not state benefits) but if I did claim it would cost a lot less to keep me than it would to keep a family.

I can not see the sense in keeping older people in work and paying a fortune to pay out for families to jave the parents doing nothing.

There are a lot of charity jobs for the elderly who want to do things to benefit others if they want to be useful. The savings on family benefits coud be made to increase pensions.

And why are we not using our kids (students) to do the agricultural work during the summer school holidays which is why the long summer holiday for schools was origionally there for?

Lets have a debate.

[gwynnethmary]

My husband worked in engineeringr , starting as an apprentice at 16.  He was made redundant at 58, and, in spite of many efforts, has now accepted that he has, in effect, "retired" (he's now 60). He has struggled to accept this situation, as he is of a generation that defines value by the job that a man does and his ability to provide for his family.  I took ealy retirement (I was a special needs teacher) at the same time as his redundancy took place.  This was also difficult, since I had chosen to be in my position, whereas his was forced upon him.
I think that it's all very well to talk of raising the pension age, when these days people live a lot longer, but if there aren't the jobs for people to do, what is the point? 

[lottie lou]

When i was young we "worked" out way up a company ie: taking over the jobs of ladies who left to have their families/retired etc.  Sadly now there is very little progression that way for the young.

[Jeannine]

I worked 7 years after official retirement age and would have continued if my health had not failed me.

I think folks work(or don't) for different reasons. In my case it was the love of my job that made me want to work,not the pay. I also did voluntary work, I had done so since being 12 whatever job I was paid to do. . Retiring and taking more volunteer work would not have given me the joy I got from my  professional job.

While I believe that the young folks have a right to a job ,I don't feel that I should have given up mine , it is not that simple. Working for me had many more benefits than money, I don't feel anyone should have to give up what they have perhaps spent a lifetime working on   simply because of age.  Working  basically is what  one does to support themselves etc but it is also  a right  wether money comes into it or not.

Swapping  one job for another, paid or otherwise, is not he same thing as being able to follow a career that one is happy doing .

I knew many elderly people who worked after retirement, few did it  for the money. Simply having a daily goal, a feeling of contributing etc is often the main reason. To retire early or continue on after the usual time should surely be ones choice.

 I don't see it as "keeping someone older  in work"  that was not really an  issue for me, it was my choice . As for "could be pensioned off"   and "wanting to be useful".... sorry I simply don't understand the rationale there.

XX Jeannine

[Mushy Pea]

The main issue I really don't agree with is the way goverments just change "contracts" willy nilly. When I first started paying into their pension scheme (NI contributions) the retitrement age was 60, but over the years this has been eroded so that now I'll be 66 when I can finally get a return on my investment. Should I die before then what do I get? Nothing!

If these politicians are so keen on raising the pension age then they should give some guarantees that even if we don't make it to collect it they put something into our estate. Perhaps they should pay for the funeral?

The goverment statistics show we are living longer? That is the generation who lived through rationing and enjoyed a healthy diet. What about the poor diets of today? I reckon that the number of people living to be healthy enough to enjoy a government pension will be very small. This is the biggest rip off since the expenses scandal!

 >:( >:( >:(

To make matters worse. I should be looking forward to taking a small private pension this year. but our government again changed the rules so I have to wait another 5 years!  >:( >:( >:(

Here is the conundrum though. If you scrounge and stay on benefits the state (that means us workers) will still be paying for you before and after you reach retirement. Be a conciencious worker and you will be lucky to live long enough to collect any of your hard earned cash.

I whole heartedly agree that you should be given the right to continue working if you want to but you shouldn't be forced to.

Sorry rant over. Grrrrrrrrr.

MP

[Froglegs]

So them who have a job have to work longer,so them looking for a job have to wait longer for a job  ::)

[redcoat]

Should I die before then what do I get? Nothing!

National Insurance: There's a clue in the name.  Insurances don't pay out if you don't need them.  If you die, you don't need a State Pension to live on. (Sorry to be blunt).  If more people crash their cars or set their houses on fire, premiums go up. If average life expectancy goes up (more state pension paid out), either higher or longer NI 'premiums.

As a comparison, if state pensions had only been set up now, the retirement age would be 75.

Private pensions work in roughly the same way.  Walk under that bus on the way home from your last day at work and your contributions go to pay for someone else's long retirement.

However, if you have saved £100K outside a pension, you have a choice.  Use the interest (hard to match inflation after tax) and the capital if necessary, or put it into an annuity which would give less that £5K per annum (a rough guess here). Less for a woman than a man because they live longer.  The capital might run out if you live till you are 100, but if not your children would get it; an annuity would pay out until you die but it dies with you.

All oversimplified, I know, but I know I'd hate to have to sort this country's mess out.

My two pennorth worth is "Why are over 65s the only group not to have their personal allowance raised?"