Do you fancy working till you are 81?

That could become the age future generations will have to work up to to receive a state pension.
from the article..."Those joining the workforce today are likely to find themselves working till their mid 70's before they are entitled to receive their state pension".

Not everyone will be in the position to save to fund their retirement ...so relying on a state pension will force our grandkids and their kids onwards to work till they die.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/georgeosborne/12179375/Work-until-youre-75-or-even-81-under-Government-review-of-state-pension-age.html

Syl wrote:That could become the age future generations will have to work up to to receive a state pension.
from the article..."Those joining the workforce today are likely to find themselves working till their mid 70's before they are entitled to receive their state pension".

Not everyone will be in the position to save to fund their retirement ...so relying on a state pension will force our grandkids and their kids onwards to work till they die.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/georgeosborne/12179375/Work-until-youre-75-or-even-81-under-Government-review-of-state-pension-age.html

I think it's disgusting.   Put in place by people with huge personal private pensions and healthcare.   They seem to have no concept that for starters, nobody is going to employ anyone over 60, never mind 75, as ageism is very much alive and well in the UK.    Health matters aside, most people in their late middle age don't have the energy of a 30 year old, and might have arthritis, or heart problems, or any number of ailments that stop them from being able to earn a full time wage.   We'll have a whole generation either starving in the gutter or on benefits to top it up.

HoratioTarr wrote:

Syl wrote:That could become the age future generations will have to work up to to receive a state pension.
from the article..."Those joining the workforce today are likely to find themselves working till their mid 70's before they are entitled to receive their state pension".

Not everyone will be in the position to save to fund their retirement ...so relying on a state pension will force our grandkids and their kids onwards to work till they die.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/georgeosborne/12179375/Work-until-youre-75-or-even-81-under-Government-review-of-state-pension-age.html

I think it's disgusting.   Put in place by people with huge personal private pensions and healthcare.   They seem to have no concept that for starters, nobody is going to employ anyone over 60, never mind 75, as ageism is very much alive and well in the UK.    Health matters aside, most people in their late middle age don't have the energy of a 30 year old, and might have arthritis, or heart problems, or any number of ailments that stop them from being able to earn a full time wage.   We'll have a whole generation either starving in the gutter or on benefits to top it up.

Exactly...it's a ridiculous idea that has not been thought through.
Even increasing the retirement age for men and women to 67, which will be completed in the next 10 years is a bad decision.
Like you say....many people cannot do the jobs as they age, both physically and mentally many will not be up to it.
Plus if they are hanging on to their jobs, what will the younger ones who are starting work do?....twiddle their thumbs till a vacancy comes up, probably when someone has died of old age.

Syl wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:

I think it's disgusting.   Put in place by people with huge personal private pensions and healthcare.   They seem to have no concept that for starters, nobody is going to employ anyone over 60, never mind 75, as ageism is very much alive and well in the UK.    Health matters aside, most people in their late middle age don't have the energy of a 30 year old, and might have arthritis, or heart problems, or any number of ailments that stop them from being able to earn a full time wage.   We'll have a whole generation either starving in the gutter or on benefits to top it up.

Exactly...it's a ridiculous idea that has not been thought through.
Even increasing the retirement age for men and women to 67, which will be completed in the next 10 years is a bad decision.
Like you say....many people cannot do the jobs as they age, both physically and mentally many will not be up to it.
Plus if they are hanging on to their jobs, what will the younger ones who are starting work do?....twiddle their thumbs till a vacancy comes up, probably when someone has died of old age.

Exactly.   If you cannot be forcibly retired until 75, what the fuck will become of those just coming into work.  Stupid.

I agree with all that. Some people want to keep working of course, which is fine, and some might want to work part time instead of full time, which is also fine. It's a bit much to have to keep working full time to that age though - most people have had enough of boring jobs by the time they're 60 or so anyway.

The problem is - is there enough money to let people retire earlier?

I would say to anyone - if you can save in a private or company pension, do it. That way you might be able to retire at 60, or if you can't save quite enough for that, you might be able to go part time.

The same situation is occurring over here in Oz...

Back in the early 'noughties' the Howard Liberal (the Aussie Tory party..) guvm'nt saw fit to  (a) raise the female retirement age to the same as their menfolk, over a couple of decades; and (b) gradually raise the pension age to 70 over a few years;  with their obvious aim being to reduce the nu,ber of pensioners aged in their '60s..

When the Abbott/Hockey conservatives regained office in 2013, one of their first actions was to acelerate the rise of the pension age, so that today those workers (and would-be workers) aged under 42 or so, will now have to wait until age 70 before being eligible for any pension (depending on levels of superannuation and other income-producing assets, of course..).

These Aussie 'conservatives' have also - as with their overseas counterparts - made it harder for people to claim age pensions and disability payments, while the unemployed now have to wait longer to even start on dole payments.

Our governments always like to claim that they're being "fiscally responsible", and aiming for those mythical "balaced budgets" that the Economic Rationalists are so keen on -- whilst all along, even the proverbial 'Blind Freddy' standing outside looking in, can plainly see that the real reason is so that the Tory guvm'nts can give more tax cuts to their billionaire mates and corporate sponsors !

Raggamuffin wrote:I agree with all that. Some people want to keep working of course, which is fine, and some might want to work part time instead of full time, which is also fine. It's a bit much to have to keep working full time to that age though - most people have had enough of boring jobs by the time they're 60 or so anyway.

The problem is - is there enough money to let people retire earlier?

I would say to anyone - if you can save in a private or company pension, do it. That way you might be able to retire at 60, or if you can't save quite enough for that, you might be able to go part time.

I agree. Start a pension fund early, the earlier the better, and hope some robbing bastard doesn't plunder it before it matures.
Our grandson has just started uni, if he works hard, lucky, and ends up in the profession he is aiming for, he will be well paid and hopefully will be able to provide for his retirement, which will be when he chooses.
To have to hang on to work till your 70's and 80's because you are relying on a state pension would be cruel....but that's what the future holds for millions.

Syl wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:I agree with all that. Some people want to keep working of course, which is fine, and some might want to work part time instead of full time, which is also fine. It's a bit much to have to keep working full time to that age though - most people have had enough of boring jobs by the time they're 60 or so anyway.

The problem is - is there enough money to let people retire earlier?

I would say to anyone - if you can save in a private or company pension, do it. That way you might be able to retire at 60, or if you can't save quite enough for that, you might be able to go part time.

I agree. Start a pension fund early, the earlier the better, and hope some robbing bastard doesn't plunder it before it matures.
Our grandson has just started uni, if he works hard, lucky,  and ends up in the profession he is aiming for, he will be well paid and hopefully will be able to provide for his retirement, which will be when he chooses.
To have to hang on to work till your 70's and 80's  because you are relying on a state pension would be cruel....but that's what the future holds for millions.

A lot of women in particular are complaining because they now have to wait much longer to retire than they used to. Some say they didn't get enough warning of the change.

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:
The same situation is occurring over here in Oz...

Back in the early 'noughties' the Howard Liberal (the Aussie Tory party..) guvm'nt saw fit to  (a) raise the female retirement age to the same as their menfolk, over a couple of decades; and (b) gradually raise the pension age to 70 over a few years;  with their obvious aim being to reduce the nu,ber of pensioners aged in their '60s..

When the Abbott/Hockey conservatives regained office in 2013, one of their first actions was to acelerate the rise of the pension age, so that today those workers (and would-be workers) aged under 42 or so, will now have to wait until age 70 before being eligible for any pension (depending on levels of superannuation and other income-producing assets, of course..).

These Aussie 'conservatives' have also - as with their overseas counterparts - made it harder for people to claim age pensions and disability payments, while the unemployed now have to wait longer to even start on dole payments.

Our governments always like to claim that they're being "fiscally responsible", and aiming for those mythical "balaced budgets" that the Economic Rationalists are so keen on -- whilst all along, even the proverbial 'Blind Freddy' standing outside looking in, can plainly see that the real reason is so that the Tory guvm'nts can give more tax cuts to their billionaire mates and corporate sponsors !

So yours is the same scenario as ours then.

One thing both governments have done I do think is fair though, in fact I'm surprised it hasn't been done long before now, is making the retirement age for men and women equal.
And when women are paid the same as men for doing the same job....that'll be another long awaited step towards equality for the workforce.

Syl wrote:

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:
The same situation is occurring over here in Oz...

Back in the early 'noughties' the Howard Liberal (the Aussie Tory party..) guvm'nt saw fit to  (a) raise the female retirement age to the same as their menfolk, over a couple of decades; and (b) gradually raise the pension age to 70 over a few years;  with their obvious aim being to reduce the nu,ber of pensioners aged in their '60s..

When the Abbott/Hockey conservatives regained office in 2013, one of their first actions was to acelerate the rise of the pension age, so that today those workers (and would-be workers) aged under 42 or so, will now have to wait until age 70 before being eligible for any pension (depending on levels of superannuation and other income-producing assets, of course..).

These Aussie 'conservatives' have also - as with their overseas counterparts - made it harder for people to claim age pensions and disability payments, while the unemployed now have to wait longer to even start on dole payments.

Our governments always like to claim that they're being "fiscally responsible", and aiming for those mythical "balaced budgets" that the Economic Rationalists are so keen on -- whilst all along, even the proverbial 'Blind Freddy' standing outside looking in, can plainly see that the real reason is so that the Tory guvm'nts can give more tax cuts to their billionaire mates and corporate sponsors !

So yours is the same scenario as ours then.

One thing both governments have done I do think is fair though, in fact I'm surprised it hasn't been done long before now, is making the retirement age for men and women equal.
And when women are paid the same as men for doing the same job....that'll be another long awaited step towards equality for the workforce.

Do you think that women are not paid the same for doing the same job? I haven't seen any evidence of that.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Syl wrote:

I agree. Start a pension fund early, the earlier the better, and hope some robbing bastard doesn't plunder it before it matures.
Our grandson has just started uni, if he works hard, lucky,  and ends up in the profession he is aiming for, he will be well paid and hopefully will be able to provide for his retirement, which will be when he chooses.
To have to hang on to work till your 70's and 80's  because you are relying on a state pension would be cruel....but that's what the future holds for millions.

A lot of women in particular are complaining because they now have to wait much longer to retire than they used to. Some say they didn't get enough warning of the change.

I think women felt cheated....I am of the age that snuck in at the very end to get a state pension at 60, quite a few of my friends didn't....it did seem unfair (to them) that a month or two could make all the difference.
The upside for them is that if they were born after a certain date they will get the increased pension when it comes in soon.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Syl wrote:

So yours is the same scenario as ours then.

One thing both governments have done I do think is fair though, in fact I'm surprised it hasn't been done long before now, is making the retirement age for men and women equal.
And when women are paid the same as men for doing the same job....that'll be another long awaited step towards equality for the workforce.

Do you think that women are not paid the same for doing the same job? I haven't seen any evidence of that.

I was reading some statistics not long ago that said women were working for on average 7% less (I think it was, would have to check) than men for doing the same job.

Syl wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:I agree with all that. Some people want to keep working of course, which is fine, and some might want to work part time instead of full time, which is also fine. It's a bit much to have to keep working full time to that age though - most people have had enough of boring jobs by the time they're 60 or so anyway.

The problem is - is there enough money to let people retire earlier?

I would say to anyone - if you can save in a private or company pension, do it. That way you might be able to retire at 60, or if you can't save quite enough for that, you might be able to go part time.

I agree. Start a pension fund early, the earlier the better, and hope some robbing bastard doesn't plunder it before it matures.
Our grandson has just started uni, if he works hard, lucky,  and ends up in the profession he is aiming for, he will be well paid and hopefully will be able to provide for his retirement, which will be when he chooses.
To have to hang on to work till your 70's and 80's  because you are relying on a state pension would be cruel....but that's what the future holds for millions.

A member of my family has invested in property in London.  He owns two houses.  That's his pension pot.

Syl wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

A lot of women in particular are complaining because they now have to wait much longer to retire than they used to. Some say they didn't get enough warning of the change.

I think women felt cheated....I am of the age that snuck in at the very end to get a state pension at 60, quite a few of my friends didn't....it did seem unfair (to them) that a month or two could make all the difference.
The upside for them is that if they were born after a certain date they will get the increased pension when it comes in soon.

The proviso for getting a full state pension of £151 or so a week is that you've worked full time for 35 years.  What about all the women who couldn't do that due to bringing up kids?

HoratioTarr wrote:

Syl wrote:

I agree. Start a pension fund early, the earlier the better, and hope some robbing bastard doesn't plunder it before it matures.
Our grandson has just started uni, if he works hard, lucky,  and ends up in the profession he is aiming for, he will be well paid and hopefully will be able to provide for his retirement, which will be when he chooses.
To have to hang on to work till your 70's and 80's  because you are relying on a state pension would be cruel....but that's what the future holds for millions.

A member of my family has invested in property in London.  He owns two houses.  That's his pension pot.

Wise member of family, course you have to have the money to invest in the first place.
Property is a sure fire bet to increase in value as long as you treat is as a long term investment.

HoratioTarr wrote:

Syl wrote:

I think women felt cheated....I am of the age that snuck in at the very end to get a state pension at 60, quite a few of my friends didn't....it did seem unfair (to them) that a month or two could make all the difference.
The upside for them is that if they were born after a certain date they will get the increased pension when it comes in soon.

The proviso for getting a full state pension of £151 or so a week is that you've worked full time for 35 years.  What about all the women who couldn't do that due to bringing up kids?

I was one of those women HT, then I left work early to be a carer.
I did have the option to pay a lump sum in to boost my state pension, which I did. It was a good move.
However if you wait till AFTER you retire to boost....it costs a fortune and you would have to live to be about 101 to se any real benefit, by which time you are probably past caring.

Syl wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

A lot of women in particular are complaining because they now have to wait much longer to retire than they used to. Some say they didn't get enough warning of the change.

I think women felt cheated....I am of the age that snuck in at the very end to get a state pension at 60, quite a few of my friends didn't....it did seem unfair (to them) that a month or two could make all the difference.
The upside for them is that if they were born after a certain date they will get the increased pension when it comes in soon.

Yes. A lot of people seem to think it's unfair that those who retire later will get more, but then they've had to wait longer.

By the way, if someone has been contracted out of SERPS at any time, they might get less than they expect. It's worth checking out.

HoratioTarr wrote:

Syl wrote:

I think women felt cheated....I am of the age that snuck in at the very end to get a state pension at 60, quite a few of my friends didn't....it did seem unfair (to them) that a month or two could make all the difference.
The upside for them is that if they were born after a certain date they will get the increased pension when it comes in soon.

The proviso for getting a full state pension of £151 or so a week is that you've worked full time for 35 years.  What about all the women who couldn't do that due to bringing up kids?

I think they get NI credits - not sure for how many years.

State pensions are complicated....I don't know anyone who gets the same amount.

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/experts/article-3143386/How-flat-rate-state-pension-contracted-out.html

Raggamuffin wrote:I agree with all that. Some people want to keep working of course, which is fine, and some might want to work part time instead of full time, which is also fine. It's a bit much to have to keep working full time to that age though - most people have had enough of boring jobs by the time they're 60 or so anyway.
......

THOSE people who are lucky enough to be in jobs that they are happy with, enjoy, or maybe even love, should be able to keep on working for as long as they like -- as long as they are physically and mentally able, and can keep on earning their way...

HOWEVER, there are many jobs where people are no longer able to carry out necessary tasks, for example :
Miners and oil rig workers being able to retire in their 50s,
Surgeons and certain trades and craftsmen, may find that failing/loss of eyesigjt and/or certain motor skills means that they have to give up certain jobs in their 50s or 60s,
Professional sports people usually have to change careers, or retire if rich enough, somewhere between their early 30s and mid 40s, depending on the sport..

And, as well, there are always those menial, boring, stressful or taxing jobs, where people are always ready to retire at the first reasonable opportunity; and there's really no point in keeping them on unnecessarily, if there is always somebody to take their place..

The lucky ones are often those able tpo keep on working in a job they enjoy, maybe happily working into their 70s or 90s, gradually slipping into semi-retirement, rather than giving it all up in one hit...

And never forgetting that those who stay on "beyond their time" in sme areas, maybe sometimes are likely keeping a young worker out of a job.

It's still complicated to me...the basic state pension is misleading.
I know women who get next to nothing....and others who have worked the full quota who get different amounts.

What I do know is that anyone who expects to live a comfortable life needs more than a state pension when the time comes.

Syl wrote:It's still complicated to me...the basic state pension is misleading.
I know women who get next to nothing....and others who have worked the full quota who get different amounts.

What I do know is that anyone who expects to live a comfortable life needs more than a state pension when the time comes.

It might be to do with SERPS or the second state pension, or maybe they paid a reduced amount of NI - or "stamp" as they used to call it.

The new pension is a bit misleading because they call it a flat rate - implying that everyone will get the same, and that's not necessarily true.

It will still depend on how many years a person has worked wont it?

Also, if a person has no savings and has not worked the required number of years, they will be entitled to the minimum living allowance for pensioners (or whatever it's called) and will probably receive in benefits as much as a person who has worked for 35 years and is drawing the flat rate pension.

Syl wrote:It will still depend on how many years a person has worked wont it?

Also, if a person has no savings and has not worked the required number of years, they will be entitled to the minimum living allowance for pensioners (or whatever it's called) and will probably receive in benefits as much as a person who has worked for 35 years and is drawing the flat rate pension.

Yes, it will depend on how many years someone worked, and it will also depend on whether they were contracted out of SERPS at any point or not. If they were, they could get less on the grounds that they paid less NI. Of course, if they were contracted out because they were paying into a private pension, they will have got tax relief which others didn't get.

I don't know what those who aren't entitled to any state pension will get, but they will get some kind of benefits of course.

I have just had a look and filled in an online questionaire....a single person living alone, if they have made no contributions through work they would not be entitled to a state pension, however they  would be entitled to pension credits of £151.20pw.

That is based on someone who has no other income or savings and no other person living with them.

Syl wrote:I have just had a look and filled in an online questionaire....a single person living alone, if they have made no contributions through work they would not be entitled to a state pension, however they  would be entitled to pension credits of £151.20pw.

That is based on someone who has no other income or no other person living with them.

So they get the same then. They probably automatically get housing allowance on top of that too.

So a person can work all their lives, pay tax and NI for decades, and still be no better off if relying on a state pension at the end of it all.

Syl wrote:So a person can work all their lives, pay NI for decades, and still be no better off if relying on a state pension at the end of it all.

Yes of course. It's the same with JSA. If you get contribution-based JSA, you only get pretty much the same as someone who has never paid a penny, and you only get it for six months anyway. In addition to that, those on income-based JSA are entitled to other things like free prescriptions.

This is why people should have their own pension. Obviously they have to spend their own money to pay into it, but they do get an amount paid in by the Government as well.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Syl wrote:So a person can work all their lives, pay NI for decades, and still be no better off if relying on a state pension at the end of it all.

Yes of course. It's the same with JSA. If you get contribution-based JSA, you only get pretty much the same as someone who has never paid a penny, and you only get it for six months anyway. In addition to that, those on income-based JSA are entitled to other things like free prescriptions.

This is why people should have their own pension. Obviously they have to spend their own money to pay into it, but they do get an amount paid in by the Government as well.

That wouldn't work with self employed people though would it...at least it never has in the past.
My OH was self employed...no employer or government top ups to help with his pension pot.

Syl wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Yes of course. It's the same with JSA. If you get contribution-based JSA, you only get pretty much the same as someone who has never paid a penny, and you only get it for six months anyway. In addition to that, those on income-based JSA are entitled to other things like free prescriptions.

This is why people should have their own pension. Obviously they have to spend their own money to pay into it, but they do get an amount paid in by the Government as well.

That wouldn't work with self employed people though would it...at least it never has in the past.
My OH was self employed...no employer or government top ups to help with his pension pot.

yes - self-employed people with their own pensions will have money paid in by the Government if they pay in themselves.

http://www.pensionsadvisoryservice.org.uk/about-pensions/saving-into-a-pension/pensions-and-tax/tax-relief-and-contributions

That's interesting....my OH had an accountant so it was probably all done through him, thanks Rags.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Syl wrote:It will still depend on how many years a person has worked wont it?

Also, if a person has no savings and has not worked the required number of years, they will be entitled to the minimum living allowance for pensioners (or whatever it's called) and will probably receive in benefits as much as a person who has worked for 35 years and is drawing the flat rate pension.

Yes, it will depend on how many years someone worked, and it will also depend on whether they were contracted out of SERPS at any point or not. If they were, they could get less on the grounds that they paid less NI. Of course, if they were contracted out because they were paying into a private pension, they will have got tax relief which others didn't get.

I don't know what those who aren't entitled to any state pension will get, but they will get some kind of benefits of course.

SERPS is being demolished, I think.  So anyone who was contracted out, automatically gets put back in.  Some people had no choice when it came to contracting out.  You can request a contributions invoice where it will tell you exactly what you've paid in over a lifetime and how much you'll eventually get.

HoratioTarr wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Yes, it will depend on how many years someone worked, and it will also depend on whether they were contracted out of SERPS at any point or not. If they were, they could get less on the grounds that they paid less NI. Of course, if they were contracted out because they were paying into a private pension, they will have got tax relief which others didn't get.

I don't know what those who aren't entitled to any state pension will get, but they will get some kind of benefits of course.

SERPS is being demolished, I think.  So anyone who was contracted out, automatically gets put back in.  Some people had no choice when it came to contracting out.  You can request a contributions invoice where it will tell you exactly what you've paid in over a lifetime and how much you'll eventually get.

Yes, SERPS disappeared a while back, but it will still affect anyone who was contracted out in the past. It's a good idea for people to get a statement so they know in advance what's going on.