Looks like Gordon Brown is toying with the idea of postponing the state pension for those who go to Uni until they reach 70.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1622625,00.html

For professional people I imagine the pittance that is the state pension will be little more than pin money anyway, but not all graduates go on to be well heeled barristers or senior civil servants, and it could be a sigificant hardship for some people.

To me it looks like a step towards making the state pension a means tested benefit.

They have to up the retirement age. Due to the lack of any war, plague or famine in the last 50 years we have an ageing population. With people living longer and low birth rates we cannot (as a country) aford to pay for our elderly.

Its a pain in the bum but there is no other alternative.

Originally posted by robbie
They have to up the retirement age. Due to the lack of any war, plague or famine in the last 50 years we have an ageing population. With people living longer and low birth rates we cannot (as a country) aford to pay for our elderly.

Its a pain in the bum but there is no other alternative.

yeah but surely as most of us have worked all our lives and paid into the system we should be allowed to live out our later years without working so hard!

we haven't paid for the system as thereisn't enough money in the kitty. We could all still retire at 65/60 but you'd end up with £10 per week pensions.

everyone who has worked (declared thier work) pays national insurance. this pays towards health care and pensions i was led to believe, i have however been told to buy into a private pension as soon as i can so this is probably the best way to go

The NI you pay now pays for the CURRENT users of pension / health services.

I've always assumed that by the time I retire I'll not get a state pension. It will be my responsibility to ensure that I have an income in later life.

I have no issues with that provided that Messrs Brown, Blair and Blunkett will allow me to do so without robbing me blind today.

Of course, by taking responsibility for myself, I appreciate that that puts me in to a minority...:)

Joe

I think it's unfair because most graduates, even though they'll start work a few years later, will pay more throughout their working lives in NI contributions, yet will have to wait until they're 70 to see the (pathetic excuse for) the return. At least Mr Blair has carved himself a healthy £2.5million pension fund to look forwards to.

I think this debate is a red herring.

AS Joe has quite rightly stated, if things carry on the way they are going the State Pension is going to either not exist or (more likely) be so measly that it might as well not exist.

Another thing that is being talked up is "compulosry saving". Is it just me, or does that sound a little like tax/NI and if that is the case wouldn't it make just as much sense to raise NI contribution rates, or to lower the threshold?

I think this sort of thinking should be extended to the can't work, won't work brigade too. Why should they get a pension equal to or even greater than someone wha has worked all their lives?
As for graduates eventually paying more in????? Those that work MAY DO, there are well paid people in this society that have not got degrees and therefore deserve to retire earlier than someone who did not start their working life until they were 21 or over.

Talking about "deserving" is not really practical when you are talking about administering a country of nearly 60 million people.

You need a hard and fast rules based on okjective (measurable) things. Who is to judge what age someone "deserves" to retire at.

The way people talk about it is as though work means 40 years of back breaking labour down the mines in incredibly hazardous and unpleasant conditions and your retirement is like your desrved rest at the end of 40 years of hell.

Now, I think most people do get to the stage where they have had enough of full time work, and they should be able to have that rest if they want it.

Originally posted by Yodameister
Talking about "deserving" is not really practical when you are talking about administering a country of nearly 60 million people.

You need a hard and fast rules based on okjective (measurable) things. Who is to judge what age someone "deserves" to retire at.

The way people talk about it is as though work means 40 years of back breaking labour down the mines in incredibly hazardous and unpleasant conditions and your retirement is like your desrved rest at the end of 40 years of hell.

Now, I think most people do get to the stage where they have had enough of full time work, and they should be able to have that rest if they want it.

When I say deserve I mean that the working lifespan has come to its end. Not an award for a "hard worker". As for the "okjectives", your measurables will determine who can retire and when I suppose? So you ansered the question before you asked it.

Originally posted by pinhead
When I say deserve I mean that the working lifespan has come to its end. Not an award for a "hard worker". As for the "okjectives", your measurables will determine who can retire and when I suppose? So you ansered the question before you asked it.

"the working lifespan has come to its end"?

In centuries past you worked until you dropped in our culture. Perfectly fair that way, the unfit dropped dead before the fit, and were hence spared years more of back breaking labour. Thats fair to all, but not particularly pleasant!

Originally posted by Yodameister
"the working lifespan has come to its end"?

In centuries past you worked until you dropped in our culture. Perfectly fair that way, the unfit dropped dead before the fit, and were hence spared years more of back breaking labour. Thats fair to all, but not particularly pleasant!

What are your plans for the retirement age of people? If you think the work till you drop ethic is fair, be my guest but I won't be joining you. I'll be drinking champagne and eating fresh salmon on one of my motor cruisers in the South of France after I retire.

I don't fancy working untill I'm 70. I'd rather pay more and stop working at 65.

I do not understand how they can justify letting one group of people retire earlier than another. ( would it not go back to the man / women retiring earlier arguement?)

I did go to college and University but I also worked throughout my sixth form (34 hours a week) and my degree often working 26 hours plus,and full time in the holidays. So I did pay a little tax and NI throughout my university years ( maybe as much as someone who is on a low income and works part time....does that mean they would also have to work untill 70?) neither did I get a grant / money off the government to help me at university.

Maybe if you worked through university and college they would let you retire at 65 as you had paid something for the years you were in education.