Can we afford a pension rise for our old.

[JFKvsNixon]

£153 billion on Pensions, aye paid in by the millions of working people paying their taxes over a life time of work.

 

Angel1.

 

No, todays pensions are paid by todays tax payers. Yesterdays pensions were paid by yesterdays tax payers. The irony is that that todays young tax payers may not even get a pensions.

[mossdog]

No, todays pensions are paid by todays tax payers. Yesterdays pensions were paid by yesterdays tax payers. The irony is that that todays young tax payers may not even get a pensions.

......and todays taxpayers are enjoying the benefits of the welfare state,education system,NHS and the national infrastructure of the UK helped set up by yesterdays taxpayers.Lots of todays young have not a clue what they take for granted in their inheritance of todays luxuries compared with yesteryear!........ if todays young finish with no entitlement to a pension then join the club of yesteryear when pensions were just a dream.

[phantom309]

It seems that U K pensioners are not that well off compared to most countries

 

http://www.cityam.com/229957/the-uk-has-one-of-the-lowest-pensions-in-developed-world-according-to-the-oecd?ref=yfp

 

we try to live within our means as we have always done as most of our childhood was during rationing period during and after the war.

 

I still pay income tax now and have done for 56 years but not N I people do not start work until older now so even though they retire older there is not such a difference in the number of years which they pay tax

[tzijlstra]

Linked to Foreign aid and EU spending simply because they both seem a lot of brass. So by your reply I assume you think aid and the EU should get shed loads of brass while some our own populace have to use food banks and some unfortunates sleep on the streets, hence my "charity begins at home. If I have misinterpreted your reply, I apologise in advance.

 

No need to apologise.

 

The money in the foreign aid budget, I can't justify. It should not have been protected the way it has been in my opinion. The money to the EU however is one that I can defend. Britain has an enormously beneficial relation with the EU, just pointing at the outgoings of the government budget and say: we could spend that on pensions! is shortsighted.

 

For Britain's economy to work long term it needs positive global relations with important trading partners. The EU is the UK's number one trading partner.

 

For Britain's pensions to work long term it needs to address the underlying issue of the retired population and pension cost growing (due to longer life expectancy mainly) whilst keeping the economy viable. The larger the proportion of pensioners in an economy, the larger the need for a population of working age becomes - pensioners create jobs, being in the EU ensures jobs get filled.

[Allen]

No, todays pensions are paid by todays tax payers. Yesterdays pensions were paid by yesterdays tax payers. The irony is that that todays young tax payers may not even get a pensions.

 

The fact remains that today's pensioners worked and paid into the system with a promise of a pension for doing so. They paid into the government coffers with the promise of repayment at retirement.

Suddenly this government thinks they can (and have) moved the goalposts by increasing the retirement age.

[phantom309]

The fact remains that today's pensioners worked and paid into the system with a promise of a pension for doing so. They paid into the government coffers with the promise of repayment at retirement.

Suddenly this government thinks they can (and have) moved the goalposts by increasing the retirement age.

 

The retirement age for women started to move from 2010 so it would have been the previous labour government who had set out the movement of retirement age and this was carried on by the coalition and then this government

[999tigger]

The fact remains that today's pensioners worked and paid into the system with a promise of a pension for doing so. They paid into the government coffers with the promise of repayment at retirement.

Suddenly this government thinks they can (and have) moved the goalposts by increasing the retirement age.

 

Only because people live longer. If there arent the existing tax payers to pay pensions then the countrty cant afford it hence he change in retirement ages. Common sense and practical.

[Allen]

Only because people live longer. If there arent the existing tax payers to pay pensions then the countrty cant afford it hence he change in retirement ages. Common sense and practical.

But we can afford to go to war????

 

I stick by my original post. You pay into the system with a promise of a pension at 65. It follows that it should be paid.

 

Compare it to a straightforward repayment mortgage.

You pay for 25 years and then the house is yours.

You don't expect to be told "sorry, you must pay for another five years".

[Annie Bynnol]

The retirement age for women started to move from 2010 so it would have been the previous labour government who had set out the movement of retirement age and this was carried on by the coalition and then this government

 

The equal age retirement for women was introduced by the Conservative government of M. Thatcher setting out a timetable of a gradual increase in the age of retirement. This was not changed but started during the Labour government and accelerated by the Conservative led coalition government

[phantom309]

The equal age retirement for women was introduced by the Conservative government of M. Thatcher setting out a timetable of a gradual increase in the age of retirement. This was not changed but started during the Labour government and accelerated by the Conservative led coalition government

 

I did not realise it had gone through parliament 20 years before it was introduced in 2010 as that seems a very long time before it was implicated