artisan Posted July 29, 2010 Share Posted July 29, 2010 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-10796718 The nonsense talked here about empowering people to slave on until they are turned 65. It true aim is to not allow us to have the pensions we have paid for, and to make us work forever, until we drop. What rational person wants to carry on working for the man, after 65? Most have far better thinds to do. Another con, by the condems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ms Macbeth Posted July 29, 2010 Share Posted July 29, 2010 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-10796718 The nonsense talked here about empowering people to slave on until they are turned 65. It true aim is to not allow us to have the pensions we have paid for, and to make us work forever, until we drop. What rational person wants to carry on working for the man, after 65? Most have far better thinds to do. Another con, by the condems. My OH turns 65 later this year. He has a part time job that he enjoys, and has chosen to carry on working. Several of his colleagues are over 65, one is 70. They choose to do it. There are obviously others who feel the same: 'Activists, who have long campaigned against the rule, welcomed the proposal as a "victory" against ageism' from the BBC quote. I don't see it as making anyone continue to work - but it means that those who wish to carry on won't be forced out. We are in the position of so many others in retirement nowaday - we'll have more than the limit for pension credit - but not a huge amount more. So a bit of extra income will be very welcome. Lots of our generation don't have large company pensions, the state pension was expected to be reasonable to live on in retirement. But of course its not. And the opportunity to continue working could be a godsend for some. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
artisan Posted July 29, 2010 Author Share Posted July 29, 2010 My OH turns 65 later this year. He has a part time job that he enjoys, and has chosen to carry on working. Several of his colleagues are over 65, one is 70. They choose to do it. There are obviously others who feel the same: 'Activists, who have long campaigned against the rule, welcomed the proposal as a "victory" against ageism' from the BBC quote. I don't see it as making anyone continue to work - but it means that those who wish to carry on won't be forced out. We are in the position of so many others in retirement nowaday - we'll have more than the limit for pension credit - but not a huge amount more. So a bit of extra income will be very welcome. Lots of our generation don't have large company pensions, the state pension was expected to be reasonable to live on in retirement. But of course its not. And the opportunity to continue working could be a godsend for some. I have nothing against a bit of part time work for pensioners, infact many have been doing that for years. But I firmly believe that 65 is time to leave the rowing benches, and let younger men have a chance at work. In fact the true age for retirement should be about 55 to 60. If people have worked hard all their lives it is only fair they should be allowed some time for themselves and on a good pension, at least equivalent to the minimum wage. The money to pay for this should come from the capitalist coffers, they have money in abundance. The obscene profits made by large orgainisations means they could lose the money required down the back of a metaphorical sofa. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tomataheeed Posted July 29, 2010 Share Posted July 29, 2010 I'm all for allowing people to work past 65, but does it commit the employer to having to pay redundancy to get rid of people? Won't people just stay on in the hope of a pay out? Will workers over 65 be inelligable for Voluntary redundancy schemes? Will workers over 65 be elligable for redundancy payments at all? Alternatively, employers might decide to find evidence of poor performance in older workers to ensure they can fire them instead of paying redundancy. In principle I agree with the change, but it could have some unintended consequences. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
decaff Posted July 29, 2010 Share Posted July 29, 2010 I know many "rational" people who work and they're in their 70's. They get bored at home all day so why shouldn't they be able to work? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
esme Posted July 29, 2010 Share Posted July 29, 2010 well as my pension kind of went sideways a while ago, I never really had much choice about working past retirement age Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poppins Posted July 29, 2010 Share Posted July 29, 2010 I know many "rational" people who work and they're in their 70's. They get bored at home all day so why shouldn't they be able to work? Also retirees are more reliable at jobs than some young-uns, also they don't demand as much and are willing to work for low wages ....thats in some cases. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ms Macbeth Posted July 29, 2010 Share Posted July 29, 2010 I have nothing against a bit of part time work for pensioners, infact many have been doing that for years. But I firmly believe that 65 is time to leave the rowing benches, and let younger men have a chance at work. In fact the true age for retirement should be about 55 to 60. If people have worked hard all their lives it is only fair they should be allowed some time for themselves and on a good pension, at least equivalent to the minimum wage.The money to pay for this should come from the capitalist coffers, they have money in abundance. The obscene profits made by large orgainisations means they could lose the money required down the back of a metaphorical sofa. But the state pension is nowhere near minimum wage. Even with pension credit (which I'm against in principle) it falls well short. Of course, people on guaranteed pension credit (who live in rented homes) will get housing benefit and council tax benefit, so that would all add up to more than the minimum wage. HB doesn't apply to people with mortgages in the same way. And very often its the pensioners who don't qualify for means tested benefits who find themselves still with debt, or mortgages and rent to pay when they get to 65. No wonder so many more are continuing to work, or finding other jobs in retirement. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/money/article-1269293/Quarter-pensioners-mortgage.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
artisan Posted July 29, 2010 Author Share Posted July 29, 2010 What I am trying to say, in my own inept way, is that this is the thin end of the wedge. They are testing the water. If enough people, in their opinion, say that they want to work for the man for ever, then they will make everyone do it. They are already talking about making me work until 66 even though I have already paid all my contributions. In other words they are stealing my money. If some folk as said on here, are so obsessed with having to work, why not come and do my job? I will do as I please, and they can do my work. It seems selfish of me to deny these old folk the right to slog their guts out day after day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shipshape Posted July 29, 2010 Share Posted July 29, 2010 I agree entirely that the pension age should be scrapped and people be asked to work into their seventies. There are after all one million unemployed people aged btween 16 and 24....somebody has to go to work to keep them! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.