Will Pensioners Get A Better Deal Under Labour?

[ECCOnoob]

40 minutes ago, Anna B said:

OK. You have a point.

However IMO women still don't have equality, especially if you started work at 15 in the 60s.

I also think the way the pension age is creeping up is ridiculous. Not all of us are living longer, or capable of work at that age.  But it's up to the younger generations to protest /get it changed. I've done my share of banner waving in my time, but I've now put my pitchfork at the back of the cupboard.

But statistically a large majority of people are - in many cases 10-15 years longer than their predecessors.

 

Furthermore, as the generations have evolved the next batch of pensioners will include vast numbers of people who started their working life much later.  A generation of pensioners won't didn't leave school until at least 18 the continued in full-time education to their early twenties meaning they did not start of their working life until at least 5 or so years later than the previous generation. A generation of pensioners whom the majority will not have worked down a mine or 14 hours a day in some factory works filling their lungs with with various diseases, crippling their bones and going deaf. Many of those next generation will have been sat behind a desk or operating machinery at the touch of a button or tapping away on a computer or working from home or utilising the advancing technology.

 

You are always banging on about 'fairness and  equality'. So therefore, isn't it perfectly fair to expect a retirement age to be increased for people who are both living much longer and starting their careers much later than their predecessors.  

 

Pretty basic logic if you asked me.  We cannot leave things static continually funding increasing age of pensioners who've spent less years paying to the system but living dramatically longer lies after retirement. Something has to give.

[Anna B]

1 hour ago, ECCOnoob said:

But statistically a large majority of people are - in many cases 10-15 years longer than their predecessors.

 

Furthermore, as the generations have evolved the next batch of pensioners will include vast numbers of people who started their working life much later.  A generation of pensioners won't didn't leave school until at least 18 the continued in full-time education to their early twenties meaning they did not start of their working life until at least 5 or so years later than the previous generation. A generation of pensioners whom the majority will not have worked down a mine or 14 hours a day in some factory works filling their lungs with with various diseases, crippling their bones and going deaf. Many of those next generation will have been sat behind a desk or operating machinery at the touch of a button or tapping away on a computer or working from home or utilising the advancing technology.

 

You are always banging on about 'fairness and  equality'. So therefore, isn't it perfectly fair to expect a retirement age to be increased for people who are both living much longer and starting their careers much later than their predecessors.  

 

Pretty basic logic if you asked me.  We cannot leave things static continually funding increasing age of pensioners who've spent less years paying to the system but living dramatically longer lies after retirement. Something has to give.

I've highlighted that bit because IMO therein lies the problem. We may 'all' be living longer statistically, but in real life, we're not. Northerners live 10 to 15 years less than Southerners in the leafy shires, rich live longer than the poor, Educated live longer than uneducated, whitecollar workers live longer than those in heavy industry, etc, 

 

As the gap between the North and south increases we are becoming like too separate countries. Our life experiences and environments are going  their sparate ways. Indeed, life expectancy is falling rapidly in some areas, as the quality of life declines. Lack of healthcare, waiting lists etc are also taking their toll with regards to life expectancy. 

 

Of course all the decisions are made by the out of touch Metropolitan elite who rarely venture further North than Watford Gap and know very little of life at the lower end of the scale or make any allowances for it. 

[ECCOnoob]

4 minutes ago, Anna B said:

I've highlighted that bit because IMO therein lies the problem. We may 'all' be living longer statistically, but in real life, we're not. Northerners live 10 to 15 years less than Southerners in the leafy shires, rich live longer than the poor, Educated live longer than uneducated, whitecollar workers live longer than those in heavy industry, etc, 

 

As the gap between the North and south increases we are becoming like too separate countries. Our life experiences and environments are going  their sparate ways. Indeed, life expectancy is falling rapidly in some areas, as the quality of life declines. Lack of healthcare, waiting lists etc are also taking their toll with regards to life expectancy. 

 

Of course all the decisions are made by the out of touch Metropolitan elite who rarely venture further North than Watford Gap and know very little of life at the lower end of the scale or make any allowances for it. 

I'm sorry but you are completely exaggerating and doomongering again.

 

Every child in this country has basic level of mandatory schooling. They are now been kept in school up to 18. Those 'working classes', as I said earlier, are not going down some mine or stuck in some factory for 14 hours a day, many of those working classes are doing equivalent to 'white collar' 'middle class' jobs as the world of work and technology has evolved.  Luxuries which for previous generations will have been for the absolutely elite are now more open for all.  Even those on so called modest earnings now have potential to travel abroad, obtain domestic appliances, and abundance of cheap food, consumer goods and clothing.   

 

You're never going to get equality across the country, but let's not make out that all of the north is some grim industrial wasteland stuck in the past. Even in our own city we have evolved with the next generation  living and working in professional occupations, skilled trades and degree level careers not bemoaning the effects of Thatcher and sat on their behind waiting for the next Coking Works to be reopened. What about northern cities like Manchester which are going through dramatic changes and improvements.  What about some places in North Yorkshire, outskirts of Doncaster, Derbyshire and even some of our own local constituencies which have a average wealth and income rivalling  or even more than some parts of the southeast. 

 

Equally, there are plenty places south of Watford Gap and even in London itself which are very much down to earth working class areas with people on modest means.  It's not all streets paved with gold.  Go take a look around some parts of Essex, Norfolk, the South coast, Cornwall.  They face just as many challenges, adjustments and developments as the supposed industrial ghost towns in the North. 

 

You can't just dismiss statistics. Just because the rate fluctuates doesn't mean things are going backwards. Even if there are discrepancies (which I'll ever going to go away no matter what system you bring in), it doesn't detract from the overall fact that a majority of the population ARE living longer. The majority of the next generation ARE starting work several years later than predecessors.

 

There has been barely a handful of changes to the state pension age throughout history. At the time of the post war years, the average life expectancy for males was 66 and female 71.   On present day numbers it's now at 78 for males and 82 for females. 

 

An increase over time average to 11 to 12 years  extra life and you seriously think there is justified outrage of extending retirement age by a couple extra years away from the level set back in the 1940s.  It's obvious things have to change.

[El Cid]

9 hours ago, ECCOnoob said:

You are always banging on about 'fairness and  equality'. So therefore, isn't it perfectly fair to expect a retirement age to be increased for people who are both living much longer and starting their careers much later than their predecessors. 

Perhaps if the Government just paid out a pension to anyone that has paid taxes for 50 years, so on average, they pay receive a pension for 15 years.

If you want more money in retirement, save it yourself?

How would Anna fair under that system, still complaining?

I might tweek it and say 45 years, after all they did used to say that you neen to pay 35 years of NI