No pension till mid 70-s

[Eric Arthur]

So you think that absolute poverty in the UK is obscene, but as long as it's not here it's OK?

Well pardon me, but I think absolute poverty is obscene anywhere on the planet in the 21st century. What makes you think they deserve it, but we do not?

It's the same with starvation. There's enough food to go round everybody, but we waste it and good food that's never seen a table gets pulped into the ground. We get fat but half the world starves? Does that seem fair to you?

 

Money is exactly the same. Sure more equality might mean we might not be as well off, but we have way too much stuff anyway, and it's people that make each other happy, not things. And don't give me that 'if all the money in the world was shared out equally, we'd be back where we are now in a month 'cos some people would squander it' ....etc etc etc... That's not true, because nobody ever said it should be shared out by giving everyone equal amounts of cash to spend. It has to be directed through people who know how to spend it locally to the best effect, to raise everybody's standard. That's how they've managed to reduce absolute poverty by half.

 

It's an unfortunate feature of people with power, (from city councillors to despots in banana republics,) that they seem to think it's their right to cream money off the top for everything from their own little projects, in which the small man has no say, to downright corruption.

 

Corruption is becoming a significant feature across the globe and it's really p**s**g people off.

 

Anyway to get back on track, we are coming up to a perfect storm and the root of the problem on all fronts is money, either lack of it, or pure greed. So how do you think we solve that?

 

Ok. I actually agree with a lot of what you say. What are you actually doing about not being one of the world's richest 0.25% ?

 

For fun, here's the world corruption index which neatly coincides with poverty. http://www.transparency.org/cpi2015

[RJRB]

It's all gone so wrong.

A 50 year working career is plenty for many people particularly if their work is of a physical nature.

Mine wasn't but I was still more than happy to reach my retirement age and step aside for a younger person to get promotion whilst I enjoy my leisure time.

What happened to the great dream of technology creating wealth and allowing greater leisure time for everyone.

All we seem to have is the requirement to work longer with less security and little possibility for a working man to build up an adequate pension fund.

Pension rules have been changed to suit the Treasury and those with sufficient wealth to make a pension a secondary soure of income.

Saving money and investing for the future has been made unattractive and unfashionable and many can only look forward to poverty after a lifetime of work.

[WiseOwl182]

Perhaps it is long overdue. The state pension age was set at 65 in 1909 when folk left school and started work at 14 and had a life expectancy of 47.

 

How can the country afford for folk to have funded schooling from 5 to 17. Start work after university aged 23, work for 42 years and then be on a state funded pension for 22 years?

 

Possibly true but it is difficult for the millenial generation to accept that the baby boomers still enjoyed job security, gold plated pensions and early retirement, on top of much lower housing costs. It's like the ladder is being lifted rapidly. I'm ok, I just grabbed the last rung in time, thankfully. I wouldn't like to be 21 again now (well, I would, but not financially).

[Hogg]

My partner and I have recently started receiving our state pensions. I am continuing to run my business and between us we have private pensions that are more than adequate. We are both hale and hearty and as things stand I would certainly expect to continue to run my business until well into my 70s if not longer. It seems strange to be receiving money from the Government at this stage of life. I think many non-manual workers may be capable of working until 70. Manual workers should retire earlier and those in stressful professions (nurses, teachers, fire fighters, police etc.) should not have to work full time until 70. Perhaps everyone over 60 should have the option to work part time, thus continuing to support themselves and feel useful in the world whilst they gradually step away from the world of work in their 70s, or for those who love their jobs (actors, judges writers etc.) even their 80s or 90s.

[Anna B]

My partner and I have recently started receiving our state pensions. I am continuing to run my business and between us we have private pensions that are more than adequate. We are both hale and hearty and as things stand I would certainly expect to continue to run my business until well into my 70s if not longer. It seems strange to be receiving money from the Government at this stage of life. I think many non-manual workers may be capable of working until 70. Manual workers should retire earlier and those in stressful professions (nurses, teachers, fire fighters, police etc.) should not have to work full time until 70. Perhaps everyone over 60 should have the option to work part time, thus continuing to support themselves and feel useful in the world whilst they gradually step away from the world of work in their 70s, or for those who love their jobs (actors, judges writers etc.) even their 80s or 90s.

 

I think there might be some mileage in universal job sharing, so everybody works part time, not just those over 60. It would take a lot of organisation but at least more people would have a job and a chance to build up a pension of some sort. That of course means people would see a drop in income, but that could be partially absorbed with lower living standards and less silly spending. (Has that made people happy?) It would be offset with more leisure time. The government could help with more public facilities like better public transport, libraries, health clubs and a return to free education so people didn't bankrupt themselves chasing ever better facilities.

 

Again the poorest can't afford to take half pay, they can barely manage on a full wage, so they would need extra help.

[Spock Puppet]

Anna is correct in everything she is saying.

 

When has this worked? Anywhere in the world? It's been tried over and over and all it brings is death and hardship.

 

Anna proposed dismantling the current dictatorship of the super rich. It didn't always used to be this unequal with power concentrated in so few hands.

 

She also suggested a Quantitative easing for the people. This is what George Osbourne is doing for a few wealthy bankers. If you're going to make money out of nothing why should giving it to banks be any better than giving it to people to spend? Governments have printed money many times in the past including here in the UK with the Bradbury pound.

 

You understand surely that a lot of QE has been lent to the state and used for public services. Is that not "people's QE" anyway.

 

Yes the government created a lot of money which will cause inflation and then they gave it to banks for free so the banks would be solvent again. The wealthy, who were now even more wealthy, kindly offer to lend the money back to the government rather than be taxed.

 

The government (so you and I) must now pay this money back to the bankers with interest (according to the banks) because this was just a loan and not a gift.

 

The government doesn't have money to pay for public services without taxing the wealthy.

 

Anna also proposed a way of equitably sharing the wealth. Currently wealth is being redistributed upwards. Simple changes in rules such as greater tax on the rich would redistribute it downwards. When has this worked? With the "New Deal" after the wall street crash in 1929 where it eliminated a lot of extreme poverty and restored growth to the economy.

 

Hey. You know that alternative economic model. The one that's always failed before.

 

In modern times there are lots of alternatives to a crony capitalism. You have pre-empted that Anna is talking about communism when in fact she said nothing of the kind.

 

Always seems to involve brutal dictatorship. Makes everybody poor and all that. Let's try it again!

 

Nobody said anything about having a system more evil than the one we are under now.

 

The very thing Anna is proposing is to make people less poor. Are you suggesting that any attempt to do this will always result in a brutal dictatorship? That seems rather simplistic. The only people that would benefit from such an outlook would be the wealthy. Are you yourself wealthy or are you being paid to present that point of view?

 

I'm sorry, but that's all rubbish.

Most of your statements of fact are false, your conclusions are largely disconnected from the issues you identify and that last bit sounds extremely paranoid.

 

Which statements of fact? Which conclusions? Disconnected how? Your post is extremely vague and doesn't meaningfully allow us to assess why you think these things.

 

So far you have called Anna "loopy," said she is talking "rubbish" and accused her of being "paranoid" for stating exactly what 99% of people already know. You have defended the interests of the wealthy and dismissed out of hand the mere suggestion that things could be any other way without refuting a single one of the valid criticisms of capitalism Anna has raised. Nothing in your post addresses automation, globalization, rising inequality or declining living standards.

 

Why not tax the rich instead of borrowing money off them?

[Anna B]

Ok. I actually agree with a lot of what you say. What are you actually doing about not being one of the world's richest 0.25% ?

 

For fun, here's the world corruption index which neatly coincides with poverty. http://www.transparency.org/cpi2015

 

I give as much as I can afford to charities, (although I refuse to give to any where the CEO is on more £100,000,) but it's never enough, (and I get very upset when I see the £122 million yachts, handbags costing thousands, and golf shoes studded with diamonds just for the fun of it...) It makes my contribution seem puny. I also give time. I also give help where and when I can. That's all I can do, I wish it was more.

 

Corruption index is interesting and what you'd expect, but it is about perception, not fact. I was talking to a Chinese student who said it was interesting that in China everything the government said was considered suspect by the people, but here, our people think nothing our government said, was. She said she thought we needed to wise up.

 

And I think that's why there is so much unrest in the West. People are starting to wise up...

[Olive]

My partner and I have recently started receiving our state pensions. I am continuing to run my business and between us we have private pensions that are more than adequate. We are both hale and hearty and as things stand I would certainly expect to continue to run my business until well into my 70s if not longer. It seems strange to be receiving money from the Government at this stage of life. I think many non-manual workers may be capable of working until 70. Manual workers should retire earlier and those in stressful professions (nurses, teachers, fire fighters, police etc.) should not have to work full time until 70. Perhaps everyone over 60 should have the option to work part time, thus continuing to support themselves and feel useful in the world whilst they gradually step away from the world of work in their 70s, or for those who love their jobs (actors, judges writers etc.) even their 80s or 90s.

 

Long may your good health and business continue Hogg.

 

I agree with you to an extent regarding earlier retirement for manual workers and those in stressful jobs, but I've no idea how anyone could define these. What about people who have a manual job for a few years, then go and retrain and get a white collar job? And vice versa, I knew someone who got fed up of the corporate rat race and became a plumber.

 

How would you judge if a job was stressful or not? The professions you give as examples, I'd imagine are stressful for many people in them, but there are many, many people in all walks of life doing silly hours, trying to meet constant and unrealistic deadlines, dealing with difficult people and situations and so on.

 

Fair enough, there are some jobs that are physically not possible to carry on doing for decades, and I think the same can apply to mentaly taxing jobs. I think that the job I was in prior to my current role would have killed me off eventually if I hadn't have decided to put my sanity first. 10 years of that was about 5 years too long if I'm honest. It was OK for a single person who didn't mind giving up any semblance of a family or social life. I couldn't imagine trying to keep up that level of pressure in my 60s, let alone my 70s.

 

I would think that administering a two (or more) tier system would create more problems than it might solve. I do like your idea of having the choice to go part time though, that could work really well.

[unbeliever]

Anna is correct in everything she is saying.

 

 

 

Anna proposed dismantling the current dictatorship of the super rich. It didn't always used to be this unequal with power concentrated in so few hands.

 

She also suggested a Quantitative easing for the people. This is what George Osbourne is doing for a few wealthy bankers. If you're going to make money out of nothing why should giving it to banks be any better than giving it to people to spend? Governments have printed money many times in the past including here in the UK with the Bradbury pound.

 

 

 

Yes the government created a lot of money which will cause inflation and then they gave it to banks for free so the banks would be solvent again. The wealthy, who were now even more wealthy, kindly offer to lend the money back to the government rather than be taxed.

 

The government (so you and I) must now pay this money back to the bankers with interest (according to the banks) because this was just a loan and not a gift.

 

The government doesn't have money to pay for public services without taxing the wealthy.

 

Anna also proposed a way of equitably sharing the wealth. Currently wealth is being redistributed upwards. Simple changes in rules such as greater tax on the rich would redistribute it downwards. When has this worked? With the "New Deal" after the wall street crash in 1929 where it eliminated a lot of extreme poverty and restored growth to the economy.

 

 

 

In modern times there are lots of alternatives to a crony capitalism. You have pre-empted that Anna is talking about communism when in fact she said nothing of the kind.

 

 

 

Nobody said anything about having a system more evil than the one we are under now.

 

The very thing Anna is proposing is to make people less poor. Are you suggesting that any attempt to do this will always result in a brutal dictatorship? That seems rather simplistic. The only people that would benefit from such an outlook would be the wealthy. Are you yourself wealthy or are you being paid to present that point of view?

 

 

 

Which statements of fact? Which conclusions? Disconnected how? Your post is extremely vague and doesn't meaningfully allow us to assess why you think these things.

 

So far you have called Anna "loopy," said she is talking "rubbish" and accused her of being "paranoid" for stating exactly what 99% of people already know. You have defended the interests of the wealthy and dismissed out of hand the mere suggestion that things could be any other way without refuting a single one of the valid criticisms of capitalism Anna has raised. Nothing in your post addresses automation, globalization, rising inequality or declining living standards.

 

Why not tax the rich instead of borrowing money off them?

 

There is no "dictatorship of the super-rich". That's a lie. They're influential, but they still only get one vote each.

We tax the hell out of the super rich. Sure we could try to tax them more. They'll probably move to another country though. Then your tax revenue from them will be zero.

You're showing disrespect for the demos. They get one vote each and this is the system they've chosen.

This is why socialism requires dictatorship. You think the poor would benefit from moe socialism, but they don't. Then you'll say this is because they have been conned (which amounts to saying they're too stupid to know what's best for them). So we start ignoring what they've democratically chosen. Boom: dictatorship.

 

QE money is a loan. Perhaps on generous terms, but still a loan. As I say a lot has been lent from one part of the state to another to keep providing public services we can't afford.

It doesn't come from the rich. It comes from the state.

Living standards keep rising precisely because of capitalism and globalisation. No, it's not a perfect system. But all forms of socialism are a disaster.

 

At best your plan would make everybody poorer than the poorest are now.

At worst you'd end up killing a lot of people.

 

Socialism is a nice sounding idea that doesn't work. The lessons of history are extremely clear on that.

Accept the will of the people, and the choices they make. You can't claim to be speaking for the poor, if you refuse to carry out their decisions.

[Thorpist]

Would it be better to link retirement age to the number of years of national insurance contributions?

Generally manual workers start work earlier than people with academic qualifications and are worn out earlier, thereby not claiming pension for as long.