Jump to content

Tories Plan To Raise The State Pension Age To 75

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Mister Gee said:

Says the forty year a week geezer!

I mistakenly typed year when I meant hour. String me up. 

 

Someone might think you're childishly focusing on that to district from the question I asked you, or the fact you incorrectly suggested it wasn't possible for someone's free time to double or treble once they've retired. 

 

I'll just wait for the mods to remind us to actually discuss the topic, which everyone else is trying to do, as opposed to each other... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, banjodeano said:

can i ask what type of employment you are in ?

I am a driver, there are some drivers that are in their 70s in this type of work; but there are easier jobs.

1 hour ago, Longcol said:

Why?

 

Now we're retired our expenditure is no more - and perhaps less - than when working. The big difference for us was when the mortgage was paid off and the kids left home.

 

I work 40 hours during the week only, so most of my free time is weekends. If I was free to go to the coast, movies, meals etc 7 days per week, where would the extra money come from?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, El Cid said:

I am a driver, there are some drivers that are in their 70s in this type of work; but there are easier jobs.

I work 40 hours during the week only, so most of my free time is weekends. If I was free to go to the coast, movies, meals etc 7 days per week, where would the extra money come from?

you dont need to do those things that often though...how about gardening, tv, films, sitting talking, dinner etc at home? why does everything have to involve money?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Can we not lose sight of the fact that these proposals are based on impact studies on the next generation of pensions.

 

That generation (which I include myself in) has had a very different life to those days of being sent down't mill at age 14 or working in disgusting asbestos filled caverns for 18 hour days 6 days a week. 

 

A large number of the next generation of pensioners will have stayed in school longer, took further education studies and would not have started contributing through full time employment until as late as their early 20s.    Life expectancy has increased from just over 70 years in the 1960/70s to being over 80 now and continuing to increase further.

 

For a significant majority employment and careers has changed dramtically with machines replacing men and a dramatic increase towards desk based air conditioned sitting down roles the numbers of which would not have even been imagined 30 years ago.   That technological evolution is only going to increase with advancement in autonomous robotics and transport.

 

With such changes in lifestyle, life expectancy and the world of work its only common sense that the pension age will have to change too.    Its rediculous to think otherwise. 

Edited by ECCOnoob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no such thing as 'retirement age'.

This was abolished for most jobs years ago.

You can 'retire' at any age you choose and plan for.

'Retirement'  for some means entitlement to a state pension-at an age which is continually changing.

For others its an appropriate age at which their non-earned income, together with life-style changes, is sufficient for their needs. 

 

One element of your income will be the 'state pension'- and no matter how its clothed, its a very expensive drain on Government spending, which they will continue to need to reduce to pay for tax cuts.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, ECCOnoob said:

Can we not lose sight of the fact that these proposals are based on impact studies on the next generation of pensions.

 

That generation (which I include myself in) has had a very different life to those days of being sent down't mill at age 14 or working in disgusting asbestos filled caverns for 18 hour days 6 days a week. 

 

A large number of the next generation of pensioners will have stayed in school longer, took further education studies and would not have started contributing through full time employment until as late as their early 20s.    Life expectancy has increased from just over 70 years in the 1960/70s to being over 80 now and continuing to increase further.

 

For a significant majority employment and careers has changed dramtically with machines replacing men and a dramatic increase towards desk based air conditioned sitting down roles the numbers of which would not have even been imagined 30 years ago.   That technological evolution is only going to increase with advancement in autonomous robotics and transport.

 

With such changes in lifestyle, life expectancy and the world of work its only common sense that the pension age will have to change too.    Its rediculous to think otherwise. 

But there are still jobs that involve manual labour, some of it technical but manual none the  less and some of it low paid so a chunk of those manual workers retiring will work to death.

 

And unless they’ve got a cure for dementia, you’ve got to factor that in. 2 out of 100 65 year olds have it now and - if I read it right - that number doubles every 5 years, and initially it’s normally the spouse that looks after them (with sod all financial assistance from the government) so there’s that too. 75 is too high. Yes people are living longer, but fit to work? Different thing altogether.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 18/08/2019 at 10:32, Robin-H said:

That is not true. 

 

A think tank has proposed this idea. Sometimes proposals from this particular think tank eventually make their way into government policy, more often than not they don't. 

 

This particular policy suggestion has the made the headlines because of the fact it would be widely unpopular, which almost guarantees that it would never become government policy. 

Stop talking common sense at once, you will give the snowflakes a heart attack. 🤣

 

Angel1.

Edited by ANGELFIRE1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Longcol said:

Why?

 

Now we're retired our expenditure is no more - and perhaps less - than when working. The big difference for us was when the mortgage was paid off and the kids left home.

 

 

lots of people have to rent though, so that won't apply to them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, nightrider said:

lots of people have to rent though, so that won't apply to them.

The numbers of people renting has increased in recent years, but home ownership is still double what it was 80 years ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, El Cid said:

The numbers of people renting has increased in recent years, but home ownership is still double what it was 80 years ago.

Yes then there are such things as condominium fees which are not regulated like rents are. A lot of people over here choose to buy a condo when they retire,no more grass to cut, snow to shovel etc. All this comes at a price.

A guy about my age, who is a neighbour and comes in my local pub pays more in condo fees than I pay in rent. I have a magnificent view of Toronto from my 22nd floor balcony, he is looking at the side of my building. He has a larger apartment granted and it is paid for, but my point is you still need a decent income even if your residence is paid for. Even without condo fees , you have property taxes and ever rising utility bills, and of course you can't just call  a landlord when you need a new roof.

.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 18/08/2019 at 12:34, El Cid said:

I am just within that age range, its has been common sence for years that if people are living longer and the pension age will increase.

When the pension age of 65 was brought in, the average age of death was 58

 

So all those people that have seen their living standards rise over the last 25 years can start planning for their old age. People can actually retire at whatever age they choose, unless they are relying on others to support them. Some choose to carry on working and some like to retire early. I will no doubt carry on, I would prefer to be productive.

Who could cope with 20+ years of leisure or inactivity?

It may not be inactivity. Being able to afford it means you can choose what you do, not be told what to do by someone else. 

Personally I'm all geared up to finish at 59 (after working from age 16). I want to visit places I have never been, play more golf, run more and if the legs haven't gone even a little football. I may also do a little part time work of my choice, not work I am forced into to survive.   

Edited by blackydog

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, blackydog said:

It may not be inactivity. Being able to afford it means you can choose what you do, not be told what to do by someone else. 

Personally I'm all geared up to finish at 59 (after working from age 16). I want to visit places I have never been, play more golf, run more and if the legs haven't gone even a little football. I may also do a little part time work of my choice, not work I am forced into to survive.   

New united striker maybe?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.