Retiring To Increase To 68 By Tories

[harvey19]

11 minutes ago, ECCOnoob said:

I don't agree.  Things have evolved dramatically over the decades.   First and foremost, life expectancy which has increased by nearly 10 years since 1960.

 

Back in the black and white days, it was very common for people to leave school at 15 go straight into a lifetime of work from the shop floor up, often in heavy industry, manual, labour or extremely basic work conditions with basic equipment.  Even the white collar professional office jobs often involved laborious, time consuming and manual processes. 

 

Now, we have increasing numbers of people  staying in school through to 18 years old, then spending several years more years in colleges, academies or university, the odd gap year here and there and not even beginning to start full time employment until early or even mid 20s.

 

For the career professionals. Many also have the benefits of flexible or hybrid working arrangements, paid sick leave, paid holidays, parental leave, carer, wellbeing initiatives, sabbaticals....

 

Even for those in the more industrial and manual professions, their trade has moved on significantly with health and safety regulations, increased protections, welfare standards, sanitation, modernised equipment, semi-automation, robotics...

 

Is it really so shocking to you that in return for all this evolution, retirement age itself would be increased.  It's pretty logical.  If there are increasing numbers of people joining the workforce much later in life, spending less years paying into the system with an ever increasing life expectancy post retirement - how on earth would it be possible for things to remain status quo.

 

If people desire to retire early, that's their business. But they should pay for it. Why is everything the state's problem.

You have pointed out a very obvious point that I had overlooked.

The fact that many people are starting work years later than in my day and therefore need to work to an older age to gain the same number of years at work as those who had started work at 15 or 16.

I feel sorry for those who started work in the 1960s and expected to retire at 65 and especially women who had expected to retire at 60.

 

[*_ash_*]

2 hours ago, Anna B said:

68 is too old to be compelled to work. People age at different rates and many are simply not fit enough or have the energy to do full time jobs. 

And where are the extra jobs to come from? Shouldn't older people be making way for the young?

I think, you might have blown your own argument here, but I'm happy to be corrected.

 

You say 68 is too old to be compelled to work. 

But you also say people age at different rates.

 

What has changed since it was 67 or 66 or 65?

 

Did people age differently then, when that was the retirement age?

 

 

[*_ash_*]

2 hours ago, Anna B said:

68 is too old to be compelled to work. People age at different rates and many are simply not fit enough or have the energy to do full time jobs. 

And where are the extra jobs to come from? Shouldn't older people be making way for the young?

Also, who mentioned full-time jobs?

 

And why are the Tories mentioned? Do the alternative parties have a plan that overcomes the now well-known issue of good health/modern medicine means people live longer, and many 'developed' countries have lower birth rates?

 

 

Edited January 25, 2023 by *_ash_*
typos and clarity

[fools]

increasing number of people on this forum defending officialdom at every opportunity.

 

work till you drop kids

[ECCOnoob]

24 minutes ago, fools said:

increasing number of people on this forum defending officialdom at every opportunity.

 

work till you drop kids

They are not though. That's the point.

 

Leaving the retirement age untouched potentially means that "kids" today are going to be working and paying into the system  5 or 10 years less then those currently reaching retirement plus potentially living 10 extra years longer.

 

You really think that's going to be sustainable?

 

Edited January 25, 2023 by ECCOnoob

[fools]

28 minutes ago, ECCOnoob said:

They are not though. That's the point.

 

Leaving the retirement age untouched potentially means that "kids" today are going to be working and paying into the system  5 or 10 years less then those currently reaching retirement plus potentially living 10 extra years longer.

 

You really think that's going to be sustainable?

 

you must live in a different world, people die before getting to retirement age every day. and some pensioners are now having to look for work again, because their power and council tax bills have wiped out their pension. Any savings have been devalued.

 

the pushing back of entitlement age has nothing to do with life expectancy, it's to push more people out of entitlement.

 

if they wanted to introduce a fairer perfectly sustainable system, and one which allowed the individual to choose, they could simply reduce the value of the pension depending on the age someone chose to take it.

 

there is no law that kids have to waste time in uni

 

as to affordability, the govt keep spaffing our taxes up the wall, you'd be mad to want to waste more of your life generating money for them to waste

 

 

Edited January 25, 2023 by fools

[Guest sibon]

6 hours ago, fools said:

you must live in a different world, people die before getting to retirement age every day. and some pensioners are now having to look for work again, because their power and council tax bills have wiped out their pension. Any savings have been devalued.

 

the pushing back of entitlement age has nothing to do with life expectancy, it's to push more people out of entitlement.

 

if they wanted to introduce a fairer perfectly sustainable system, and one which allowed the individual to choose, they could simply reduce the value of the pension depending on the age someone chose to take it.

 

there is no law that kids have to waste time in uni

 

as to affordability, the govt keep spaffing our taxes up the wall, you'd be mad to want to waste more of your life generating money for them to waste

 

 

It’s nice to see you taking a left wing view on something. 
 

What are you going to do when we’ve run out of other peoples money?

[crookesey]

I can’t tell who’s working and who’s not, in respect of the plethora of Public Sector ‘workers’ who live on our street. I reckon that nothing will change when they take their early retirement pension and supplement it until whatever age the State Pension clicks in, one rule for one etc,etc.

[hauxwell]

The way the population is increasing in this country I’m not surprised that the retirement age has increased and it will continue to grow. The population was a lot smaller in 1960s.

 

[Thorpist]

To obtain a full state pension, would it be a good idea to increase the number of years paid into it to receive the full amount?

Those that started paying in early reach the point of return earlier than the ones who didn't for whatever reason.

I do think that paying into the NI  should carry on after state retirement age if one continues to work.

As with the NHS the current system of funding is unsustainable