1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Pension age to rise to 67

Discussion in 'Speaker's Corner' started by dirtydog, 12 May 2006.

  1. dirtydog

    PermaBanned

    Joined: 18 Oct 2002

    Posts: 47,398

    Location: Essex

    http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2006210685,00.html

    So after all the rumours it appears they're really going to do it. After years of mismanaging the public finances, wasting countless billions of pounds, not to mention raiding private pension funds, the government is now taking the pensions betrayal one step further by making us work longer.

    I thought mass immigration was supposed to be the magic solution to the pensions problem? A problem which didn't exist before Labour got into power in 1997 incidentally - at that time we had the best pension provision in all of europe. If we 'need immigrants to pay our pensions' then I must be missing something, because we have mass immigration but they're still raising the retirement age anyway??? Sounds like neither having your cake nor eating it.

    How can they claim our economy is a success? If you have to work longer then that is a sign of failure.
     
  2. afraser2k

    Sgarrista

    Joined: 18 Oct 2002

    Posts: 7,515

    Location: Glasgow

    I don't think I'm that bothered about the rise now that the pensions are going to be linked to earnings again, certainly could turn into a big vote-winner for New Labour at the next election, at least until we know if we can afford it or not.

    Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4763803.stm

    But would this mean the major tax rises would come into effect in 2012 or that we'd (hopefully) have enough back in the system to pay for it?

    Edit: Oh and I wouldn't worry about paying for Glasgow pensions much, not with the average male living to 69 due to health issues. :o
     
    Last edited: 12 May 2006
  3. Visage

    PermaBanned

    Joined: 13 Jan 2005

    Posts: 10,708

    No.

    If you work longer its beacuse people arent working from 15 to 65 then dropping dead at 75 any more - 50 years of work to fund 10 years of retirement.

    Nowadays people start work at 20, retire at 55, then live till a ripe old age of 80-odd.....35 years of work to fund 25 years of retirement.

    You dont need to be an economist to see that those figures dont add up......
     
  4. dirtydog

    PermaBanned

    Joined: 18 Oct 2002

    Posts: 47,398

    Location: Essex

    What about people who start work at 16, they are going to be expected to work for 51 years are they? There doesn't seem to be any provision being made for them.

    Incidentally it wouldn't matter so much if the pensions stayed linked to inflation, if the official inflation figure bore any relation to reality.
     
  5. Visage

    PermaBanned

    Joined: 13 Jan 2005

    Posts: 10,708

    It just seems to me that we're clinging to an outdated notion of retiremnet that may have worked well 509 years ago, but is hopelessly outdated now.

    So we'll see the usual hysterical headlines in the Mail and the Express about how the government want to 'work us into our graves', but we'll hear precious little from the same sources about their own proposals to fix this problem.

    Its a FACT that people are living longer and working less. How would you propose to solve this problem?
     
  6. ritcH

    Gangster

    Joined: 5 Apr 2004

    Posts: 479

    Location: London

    The deal sounds pretty good on the surfance, greater pensions without tax rises to pay for them? Let's just hope life expectancy doesn't rise too much.
     
  7. dirtydog

    PermaBanned

    Joined: 18 Oct 2002

    Posts: 47,398

    Location: Essex

    Manage the public finances better and there will be enough to provide pensions at 65.

    You need to work and pay income taxes for two more years, that sounds like a tax rise to me.
     
  8. Visage

    PermaBanned

    Joined: 13 Jan 2005

    Posts: 10,708

    Manage the public finances better doesnt actually mean anything unless you're able to come up with examples of how you'd do it though.

    Its akin to the promises that all the major parties come out with at election time -'We'll make everything better, and charge you less, and pay for it through eliminating waste'. It never works.
     
  9. dirtydog

    PermaBanned

    Joined: 18 Oct 2002

    Posts: 47,398

    Location: Essex

    I've mentioned various ways to save money before in this forum - the trouble is that the government spends our money like water, on things we don't need or want, and getting poor value for money on what they do spend it on.
     
  10. VIRII

    PermaBanned

    Joined: 24 Jul 2003

    Posts: 30,259

    We could save a lot of money by streamlining immigration and asylum and not funding long drawn out court cases.
    You came here illegally, you're leaving now. Much cheaper.

    Similar cost savings on waste can be found in most public services.
     
  11. Visage

    PermaBanned

    Joined: 13 Jan 2005

    Posts: 10,708

    Ive seen estimates ranging from 60 billion up to 250 billion for the size of the black hole in uk pensions. You dont save that by simply getting 'better value for money'.....
     
  12. VIRII

    PermaBanned

    Joined: 24 Jul 2003

    Posts: 30,259

    I agree. I mean that I do actually agree. Current pension systems are unworkable.

    Less people are paying in.
    People are taking out (living for longer) more cash.
    Investments aren't growing as quickly as they used to.

    The maths doesn't add up. The solution is either increased contributions or greater working life times or a combination of both. If neither of these work then changes in taxation and increasing the working age limits and perhaps taxes on private pensions (at realyl high levels) to force people not to retire too soon will be employed.

    I don't like the implications of that at all. Sadly it is what I expect will have to happen.
     
  13. dirtydog

    PermaBanned

    Joined: 18 Oct 2002

    Posts: 47,398

    Location: Essex

    How big was this black hole in 1997?
     
  14. Visage

    PermaBanned

    Joined: 13 Jan 2005

    Posts: 10,708

    I have no idea. Why did you pick 1997 as a baseline?
     
  15. Murf

    Soldato

    Joined: 18 Oct 2002

    Posts: 5,467

    Location: Newcastle

    You know why, it's when Labour came to power and Brown was put in charge of pensions.
     
  16. dirtydog

    PermaBanned

    Joined: 18 Oct 2002

    Posts: 47,398

    Location: Essex

    While Labour expects us to retire at 67, notice that they are still letting public sector employees (whose numbers have rocketed under Labour) retire at 60 with their ridiculously generous taxpayer-funded pensions. If they had the balls to tackle that problem then there would be more money for state pensions.
     
  17. VIRII

    PermaBanned

    Joined: 24 Jul 2003

    Posts: 30,259

    This is the thin end of the wedge. I expect that as the next 25 years draw in we'll see radical changes that make this look rather tame.
    I do agree that public sector employess can expect to some rather radical pension changes in the near future.
     
  18. anarchist

    PermaBanned

    Joined: 2 Dec 2004

    Posts: 9,702

    Location: Midlands

    Just thought I'd quote that so visage could see you agreeing with him ;)

    I agree too. It's an undeniable fact that people live longer nowadays and longer retirements obivously cost more. We can't really blame Labour for that, unless we want to blame them for making the health service better and making people live longer ;)

    Ok some savings can be made where the government have been wasteful with money, but nowhere near enough to cover the increase in pension costs.

    Yes, very dodgy that. I wonder if it will actually happen?
     
  19. anarchist

    PermaBanned

    Joined: 2 Dec 2004

    Posts: 9,702

    Location: Midlands

    The black hole is, I suspect, based on estimates of life expectancy and future pension costs, so if, for example, in 2005, the government changed life expectancy from 75 to 85, that would instantly increase the black hole massively but that doesn't mean the problem itself only started in 2005.
     
  20. dirtydog

    PermaBanned

    Joined: 18 Oct 2002

    Posts: 47,398

    Location: Essex

    The black hole is largely of Brown's making.

    Full article: Daily Mail