Retirement

[MrZigster]

French Government: We want to raise retirement age from 60 to 62.

French people: Oh no you don't.

British Government: We want to abolish the retirement age, and also allow companies to raid your pension funds.

British people: Not a peep, we'll just quietly aquiesce.

linky

I truly despair.

Edited September 9, 2010 by MrZigster

[saratink]

It's because we're thick

[jump]

In fairness my Grandad was still working (and he was good at his job) till his was 75 at an airport, and the only reason he stopped was because the NHS did an ink test which he was allergic to and now needs dialysis evey other day.

f**k working till I'm that old though, I'm 24 and want to retire now.

Edited September 9, 2010 by jump

[benc]

If i'm fit and healthy at 68 or whatever age it is by then, I may want to carry on with my job and not be 'released' by my employers. I think it's not right at the moment when you reach retirement age that employers can get rid of you for nothing.

Must admit I have not seen or heard anything about the goverment raiding my pension fund, but it wouldn't suprise me as goverments are c*nts

[eFestivals]

French Government: We want to raise retirement age from 60 to 62.

French people: Oh no you don't.

British Government: We want to abolish the retirement age, and also allow companies to raid your pension funds.

British people: Not a peep, we'll just quietly aquiesce.

linky

I truly despair.

While that difference is huge, there's another difference that would be necessary to be more like the French that the UK won't accept - and that's higher taxes to pay for people's retirements.

While the situation around our own pensions is far from good, I'm more than realistic enough to recognise that we can only have the pensions some expect if there's a way to pay for them.

When the retirement age was introduced the average life expectancy won't have been much beyond 65. Nowadays it's much greater. That difference needs to be paid for in some manner, either by higher taxes or a longer working life.

[eFestivals]

Must admit I have not seen or heard anything about the goverment raiding my pension fund, but it wouldn't suprise me as goverments are c*nts

He didn't say govts, he said companies.

And companies have been raiding our pensions for nearly 30 years - the pensions deficit we have is the result of "pensions holidays" for companies during the 80s and 90s, when instead of paying into pension funds, they looked at the funds in the good times (but not the bad times) and said "there's enough funds in there. So instead of paying money into them, we'll give it to our shareholders".

Gordon Brown raided pensions for around £2Bn in '97, which didn't help. But that raid was less than 1/100th of the pensions deficit that exists as a direct result of those earlier "pensions holidays".

As ever, the poor have been robbed by the rich.

Edited September 9, 2010 by eFestivals

[Pogues Mcgogues]

A lot of people talk about discimination against older people about forcing people over a retirement age out of a job.

There's too many younger people (me included) sitting on the brew who desperatly want to work. Surely holding up jobs from the other end isn't going to help anything?

It's a tricky one.

[Steve P]

A lot of people talk about discimination against older people about forcing people over a retirement age out of a job.

There's too many younger people (me included) sitting on the brew who desperatly want to work. Surely holding up jobs from the other end isn't going to help anything?

It's a tricky one.

[jump]

A lot of people talk about discimination against older people about forcing people over a retirement age out of a job.

There's too many younger people (me included) sitting on the brew who desperatly want to work. Surely holding up jobs from the other end isn't going to help anything?

It's a tricky one.

[Pogues Mcgogues]

The biggest nonsense argument that young people will take the replacement of the older folk job by job, that's not how it works and it doesn't wash. In companies, people move up and side to side. It's always this way even if someones simply promoted to a new post, the staff get shifted about and people apply for higher/different jobs. Someone doesn't just retire and a 20 year old replace them. There's people behind that retired person that mvoe to that job, other people move to the other vacancies then created and the 20 year old comes in at the bottom.

It's how it works. So the argument of loosing 'old hands' doesn't wash, cause there's slightly less 'old hands' ready to go for that position that then creates space at the bottom.

I passed a first round of interviews yesterday and have a second round next week so I'm hopeful, but to suggest that people not retiring when they are meant to doesn't cause problems is ridiculous.

Look at teaching as a prime example. Retire then go on the supply list and the old head teacher pals get them in on supply as if they haven't left!

[RABun]

I don't think there should be a compulsory retirement age, but there should be the option of retiring at 65 at the latest.

Unfortunately when the national pension was set up the average man worked for 45 years and retired for 10 years, Now the average man works for 40 years and retires for 25 years. You can see where the shortfall is.

The problem with having people work longer than 65 - 70 is that although life expectancy is longer people still do slow down and become less able to do the job. I see it in my mum, who is 64. She is very good at what she does, she is an associate in an architects firm, but she is slowing down as she gets older. How long do employers put up with that before wanting to get younger more productive blood in?

[Steve P]

The biggest nonsense argument that young people will take the replacement of the older folk job by job, that's not how it works and it doesn't wash. In companies, people move up and side to side. It's always this way even if someones simply promoted to a new post, the staff get shifted about and people apply for higher/different jobs. Someone doesn't just retire and a 20 year old replace them. There's people behind that retired person that mvoe to that job, other people move to the other vacancies then created and the 20 year old comes in at the bottom.

It's how it works. So the argument of loosing 'old hands' doesn't wash, cause there's slightly less 'old hands' ready to go for that position that then creates space at the bottom.

I passed a first round of interviews yesterday and have a second round next week so I'm hopeful, but to suggest that people not retiring when they are meant to doesn't cause problems is ridiculous.

Look at teaching as a prime example. Retire then go on the supply list and the old head teacher pals get them in on supply as if they haven't left!

[lost]

the problem is simple - 1 retiree for every 40 workers when the system was introduced, 1 retiree for every 3 workers to support now (falling to 2 workers by 2050)

and there's no fixed amount of jobs where 1 retiree is replaced by 1 new worker, we all have different consumption patterns which affect the wider economy differently

[eFestivals]

the problem is simple - 1 retiree for every 40 workers when the system was introduced, 1 retiree for every 3 workers to support now (falling to 2 workers by 2050)

Yep - there's too many people who wish to bury their heads in the sand about these facts, and who wish to believe that it's still possible for all the exact same terms to remain around retirement despite those facts.

It's very very simple: one of the following or a combination of them MUST happen...

1. taxation goes up.

2. other govt expenditure is cut to free up tax money for pensions.

3. the retirement age goes up.

The sooner these things are tackled the better the result for all of us.

PS - I missed out making oldies drop dead sooner in some manner. This is something we'll have to address sooner or later too, so this might as well be sooner. To my mind, a shorter and financially richer life will be more satisfying than one where people are always skint and live well beyond the point where they're able to get a lot less than maximum enjoyment from those last years.

Edited September 9, 2010 by eFestivals

[llcoolphil]

I passed a first round of interviews yesterday and have a second round next week so I'm hopeful, but to suggest that people not retiring when they are meant to doesn't cause problems is ridiculous.

[llcoolphil]

the problem is simple - 1 retiree for every 40 workers when the system was introduced, 1 retiree for every 3 workers to support now (falling to 2 workers by 2050)

[llcoolphil]

Yep - there's too many people who wish to bury their heads in the sand about these facts, and who wish to believe that it's still possible for all the exact same terms to remain around retirement despite those facts.

It's very very simple: one of the following or a combination of them MUST happen...

1. taxation goes up.

2. other govt expenditure is cut to free up tax money for pensions.

3. the retirement age goes up.

The sooner these things are tackled the better the result for all of us.

[eFestivals]

And alongside this is the ticking time bomb around dementia, when people will not only be living longer but will be needing significantly more care than has been the case.

I don't think we need to worry about that anymore. After today's news they'll all be dropping dead from vitamin B poisoning long before the dementia gets them.

[MrZigster]

All good points on retirement re ability and willingness to work, funding, discrimination, youth unemployment and even immigration and euthanasia ffs, all put far more eloquently than I could have managed. I thought it might get our host going

However, what I was really despairing at was the seemingly lack of protest at this sort of thing over here. Do we just feel that it is a waste of time these days? That they will implement whatever they want to implement anyway? That the Average Joe should bear the brunt of the screw up/robbery by the banks and the politicians who passed the legislation that allowed the banks to act in the way that they did??

It's because we're thick

[rachbon]

i got a letter a few years ago telling me my state pension was like £20 a week or something. what's that all about?

[MrZigster]

And alongside this is the ticking time bomb around dementia, when people will not only be living longer but will be needing significantly more care than has been the case.

[lost]

I missed out making oldies drop dead sooner in some manner. This is something we'll have to address sooner or later too, so this might as well be sooner. To my mind, a shorter and financially richer life will be more satisfying than one where people are always skint and live well beyond the point where they're able to get a lot less than maximum enjoyment from those last years.

[MrZigster]

And this just in.

Link.

Bastards.

[llcoolphil]

However, what I was really despairing at was the seemingly lack of protest at this sort of thing over here. Do we just feel that it is a waste of time these days? That they will implement whatever they want to implement anyway? That the Average Joe should bear the brunt of the screw up/robbery by the banks and the politicians who passed the legislation that allowed the banks to act in the way that they did??

Edited September 9, 2010 by llcoolphil

[llcoolphil]

And this just in.

Link.

Bastards.