Retirement postponed to 75? (1 Viewer)

[Ivory55]

Whilst I agree with the injustice, mine went from 65 to 66 and my wife's from 60 to 66, I find it hard to see them (us) winning, too much money involved now. Obviously I would be delighted to be proved wrong, although I am not sure who would suffer further down the line to pay for it.

What some see as suffering others might see as prioritise on better use of our tax

 

[Makingtrax]

Whilst I agree with the injustice, mine went from 65 to 66 and my wife's from 60 to 66, I find it hard to see them (us) winning, too much money involved now. Obviously I would be delighted to be proved wrong, although I am not sure who would suffer further down the line to pay for it.

The Lib Dem’s have called for WASPI to get £15,000 each pension compensation.

It still would be a tiny sum compared to what the government has spent recently planning for the disruption that might be caused by something that is unmentionable on here.

 

[busby]

IF, it ever became law. It would be a criminal act. When as a 15yr old, I was given my NI Number and started work. I "Signed" a contract with the UK and its Government, to work until 65, pay my NI at the going rate and at the end of which period I would receive a pension paid by said Government. ANY attempt to alter that is a blatant BREACH OF CONTRACT.

But they already have,,Many men will work until they are 67 and its worse for women,,was 60 now 66 i think.BUSBY.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[busby]

Imagine posting that.

I know what you’re alluding to though Buttons, looking at the state of the parties, any moderate person is struggling to work out which of them is the ‘least’ of all evils. And it’s a very hard decision. Retiring at 75? This mob are crazy.

Its 70 in USA.BUSBY.

 

[Makingtrax]

But they already have,,Many men will work until they are 67 and its worse for women,,was 60 now 66 i think.BUSBY.

Spot on. The Labour Government changed the contract for women in the 90s and they begrudgingly accepted that in the name of equality. But when the Tories changed it again in 2011 some of them weren’t far off their new retirement age and had planned for that, only to find out the contract was broken again.

 

[buttons]

Richard Harrington Beware.....you represent a marginal seat with Lib-Dem on your tail. and a strong Labour following. We as residents don't want reduced pensions.
Everyone or Nobody

I’m sorry for women hit by pension age changes – but they’re asking for too much

Taxpayer spending on pensions, whether state pensions for everyone or public-sector pensions for retired civil servants, is slipping further out of control.

www.telegraph.co.uk

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[sussexlad]

It’s called the “basic” State Pension. I appreciate it’s not so easy for low paid occupations but surely most people in our generation the "baby boomers", who undoubtedly have had it relatively easy should have had the opportunity to build up private funds so they do not have to wait until their State Pension to fully retire?

 

[42208]

Spot on. The Labour Government changed the contract for women in the 90s and they begrudgingly accepted that in the name of equality. But when the Tories changed it again in 2011 some of them weren’t far off their new retirement age and had planned for that, only to find out the contract was broken again.

That's what we find particularly unfair

 

[sussexlad]

I am not condoning the treatment of the WASPI women my wife is amongst them but I think you will find the issues were generally exacerbated by the weak Labour party who failed to act on the serious issues of affordability building up in the pension system, leaving the Tories to do the difficult deed years later.
Government debt is already eye watering but if you also include unfunded pension liabilities then it is off the scale.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[tonyidle]

You don't have to work until that age. I retired at 54

They're not raising retirement age - they're simply raising the age at which you'll get any help from the State to do so. Having said that very few of the current generation will be able to save for a retirement age of their choice. I too retired early (50 years old) but I recognise that I am incredibly lucky to have been able to do so. I say lucky because I made no specific decisions in my early years about retirement or pension. Circumstances conspired make it possible.

 

[PeteH]

Well said Ivory55 "Everyone or Nobody." Great slogan....

We Then, Sent it to your M-P and remind them that they are up against the "Baby Boomer" Generation, with a tiny majority and the "commies" waiting in the wings to take over and hike the higher rate taxes.

Terrible treatment of women. WASPI (women against state pension inequality) have taken this to the high court. If they win, this government may well gave to pay compensation,which is what they are seeking. The changes were made too quickly without giving women time to plan. Hard to see them losing to be fair.

Whilst that is the case, and we should all have sympathy. It should not be forgotten that the whole thing was kick started by a "lady" who won a case against government because her job forced her to retire at 60 and she did not want to. She won, and that gave the Government the "in" to start tinkering with ALL pensions. A classic case if ever was, of "beware what you wish for".

Whilst I agree with the injustice, mine went from 65 to 66 and my wife's from 60 to 66, I find it hard to see them (us) winning, too much money involved now. Obviously I would be delighted to be proved wrong, although I am not sure who would suffer further down the line to pay for it.

NO different to my working life?. My "contributions" and yours. Where used to pay the pensions of generation behind, and was futher based on the assumption the the generation in front would be liable for Ours. That was the commitment of the COUNTRY in the wake of the Bevan Report and the formation of the Welfare State. So rightly, IMV, your kids are now resposible for yours just as we where for our fathers.

But they already have,,Many men will work until they are 67 and its worse for women,,was 60 now 66 i think.BUSBY.

In my case it IS academic as I will be 76 in a week or so. BUT nevertheless the PRINCIPAL is the same.

It’s called the “basic” State Pension. I appreciate it’s not so easy for low paid occupations but surely most people in our generation the "baby boomers", who undoubtedly have had it relatively easy should have had the opportunity to build up private funds so they do not have to wait until their State Pension to fully retire?

As many indeed will have, BUT the principal is unchanged. You paid into it, you are ENTITLED to it.
Government has an OBLIGATION to fund it. How they do that is thier problem, but it has been known since AT LEAST the 1980`s, so they have had plenty of opportunity to do something. It`s been the usual "politician" behaviour. ie; F*ck you jack WE are OK!.

 

[Makingtrax]

I am not condoning the treatment of the WASPI women my wife is amongst them but I think you will find the issues were generally exacerbated by the weak Labour party who failed to act on the serious issues of affordability building up in the pension system, leaving the Tories to do the difficult deed years later.
Government debt is already eye watering but if you also include unfunded pension liabilities then it is off the scale.

Yes they’ve doubled the national debt since 2010, but let’s not get into a political debate. The point is, some of these women were near retirement, promised by a previous government (whatever their colour) and suddenly found their feet taken from under them. Obviously for those with money or married to someone with money, there’s no problem. But in principal it was a dastardly thing to do, particularly when this government is quite happy to find any amount of amount to solve problems of its own making.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[Makingtrax]

We Then, Sent it to your M-P and remind them that they are up against the "Baby Boomer" Generation, with a tiny majority and the "commies" waiting in the wings to take over and hike the higher rate taxes.


Whilst that is the case, and we should all have sympathy. It should not be forgotten that the whole thing was kick started by a "lady" who won a case against government because her job forced her to retire at 60 and she did not want to. She won, and that gave the Government the "in" to start tinkering with ALL pensions. A classic case if ever was, of "beware what you wish for".



NO different to my working life?. My "contributions" and yours. Where used to pay the pensions of generation behind, and was futher based on the assumption the the generation in front would be liable for Ours. That was the commitment of the COUNTRY in the wake of the Bevan Report and the formation of the Welfare State. So rightly, IMV, your kids are now resposible for yours just as we where for our fathers.



In my case it IS academic as I will be 76 in a week or so. BUT nevertheless the PRINCIPAL is the same.



As many indeed will have, BUT the principal is unchanged. You paid into it, you are ENTITLED to it.
Government has an OBLIGATION to fund it. How they do that is thier problem, but it has been known since AT LEAST the 1980`s, so they have had plenty of opportunity to do something. It`s been the usual "politician" behaviour. ie; F*ck you jack WE are OK!.

That’s a fair summary but don’t forget WASPI women aren’t complaining about the equality of pensions. They accepted that. They’re complaining about the timetable of change given to them by one government being changed at the last minute by another.

There’s not a lot of money involved here compared to what’s being thrown around on other issues at the moment. They should have left the timetable in place so women could retire in accordance with the plans they’d obviously made.

 

[Yorick]

Yeah but did you work in the low paid caring profession....

No, I was blessed with brains so used them to the best of my ability.

 

[PeteH]

That’s a fair summary but don’t forget WASPI women aren’t complaining about the equality of pensions. They accepted that. They’re complaining about the timetable of change given to them by one government being changed at the last minute by another.

There’s not a lot of money involved here compared to what’s being thrown around on other issues at the moment. They should have left the timetable in place so women could retire in accordance with the plans they’d obviously made.

I am in full agreement. However a recent thread about Age limits on driving highlighted a similar point, I favour a change, (increase) on principal, to the weight of motorhome allowed on B or B1. which would remove the need for (expensive) and unnecessary Medicals. It has been suggested elsewhere that it needs a new category, However current VED rates are "favourable" in the C1 Category as opposed to Sub 3.5T, B regime as it stands. It is a SURE case that any change would inevitably bring a (Heavy?) increase in VED. Hence. (Again) "Be careful what you wish for".

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[SpeedyDux]

Nowadays the bottom line is that every UK government sees the cost to HM Treasury of the State Pension as an obstacle to funding its political aims, whether it is reducing direct taxes (tories) or boosting other state benefits (labour).

This goes hand-in-hand with propaganda that labels the State Pension as a "benefit" instead of an entitlement, and seeks to stir up inter-generational hatred about so called "unfairness" to get the millenials and Generation XYZ blaming the baby boomers who are now mostly retired, for problems that they face that have been caused by decades of government economic mismanagement, and globalism. Very nasty and cynical.

I noticed that in Hammond's last Budget speech the word "pensioners" was missing. The political class really don't care about pensions except their own gold plated ones.

Slightly OT, the published Tax Calculation for Mr J B Corbyn (by way of example) for 2015/16 showed he received UK pensions and state benefits totalling £36,045 in addition to his MP Salary and other income.

As a replacement income percentage the UK's state pension is one of the lowest in the OECD yet it is somehow "unaffordable". It should be called out as a national disgrace.

 

[buttons]

No, I was blessed with brains so used them to the best of my ability.

Join the club Yorick I had my feet up long before 54 but what about those who were not blessed with our grey matter or our fortuity in good health. Let them work till they drop...

 

[Ivory55]

It’s called the “basic” State Pension. I appreciate it’s not so easy for low paid occupations but surely most people in our generation the "baby boomers", who undoubtedly have had it relatively easy should have had the opportunity to build up private funds so they do not have to wait until their State Pension to fully retire?

Remember we had a recession and a lot of people stopped paying in to pension as other things needed to be paid for plus the returns were getting less. Now it’s not uncommon for older workers to be on zero hours etc as the good jobs they did have has disappeared. I think you’re probably one of the lucky ones not everyone was.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[SpeedyDux]

Interesting that it would make us the oldest in the developed world, but is it enough to influence your vote at the next election?

https://www.etk.fi/en/the-pension-system/international-comparison/retirement-ages/

I understood that one of the grievances of the gilets jaunes protesters was Macron's proposal to raise the French retirement age from 62 to 63. On that basis I am questioning the data on which the comparison in your link is based. (Not aimed at you personally, of course - linked in good faith relying on presumed accuracy.)

It affects my other half so yes it is yet one more factor that would influence my vote. Looking back on a career that was interrupted by redundancy at 50 and the subsequent difficulties experienced in an ageist job market I would question the over-optimistic assumption that the majority of over-65s will be able to find jobs. Most likely precarious part-time jobs on low pay, I expect. Jobs that won't help them build up a replacement pension pot.

Those who are still in jobs at 65 could face pressure by greedy employers to accept pay cuts and worse conditions on the assumption (probably correct) that they don't have much alternative except unemployment and trying to survive on JSA until 75.

Such a proposal to raise retirement age to 75 also seems to disregard among other pressing problems the level of youth unemployment, and the impending wave of job destruction by AI and increased automation that could destroy an estimated third of all current jobs. Oh yes, they will be replaced by new kinds of jobs they blithely say ... hmmmm.

 

[buttons]

Nowadays the bottom line is that every UK government sees the cost to HM Treasury of the State Pension as an obstacle to funding its political aims, whether it is reducing direct taxes (tories) or boosting other state benefits (labour).

This goes hand-in-hand with propaganda that labels the State Pension as a "benefit" instead of an entitlement, and seeks to stir up inter-generational hatred about so called "unfairness" to get the millenials and Generation XYZ blaming the baby boomers who are now mostly retired, for problems that they face that have been caused by decades of government economic mismanagement, and globalism. Very nasty and cynical.

I noticed that in Hammond's last Budget speech the word "pensioners" was missing. The political class really don't care about pensions except their own gold plated ones.

Slightly OT, the published Tax Calculation for Mr J B Corbyn (by way of example) for 2015/16 showed he received UK pensions and state benefits totalling £36,045 in addition to his MP Salary and other income.

As a replacement income percentage the UK's state pension is one of the lowest in the OECD yet it is somehow "unaffordable". It should be called out as a national disgrace.

Just one comment regarding your information SD how could Corbyn have received £36k in benefits. Is this accurate. Seven hundred pounds a week for what?

 

[Paddywack]

Just one comment regarding your information SD how could Corbyn have received £36k in benefits. Is this accurate. Seven hundred pounds a week for what?

12% of salary.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[SpeedyDux]

Just one comment regarding your information SD how could Corbyn have received £36k in benefits. Is this accurate. Seven hundred pounds a week for what?

Corbyn was born in 1949 so in 2015/16 he was 66

£36k could include his State Pension (with income-related top-ups for SERPS and S2P under the old system)
According to wikipedia from 1971 he was a Trade Union organiser so presumably he gets a pension from one of the Trade Union pension schemes for paid officials
He has also been a Member of a district Health Authority, and a Councillor with Haringey Council - these appointments are paid and might include some pension rights (currently Councillors are entitled to pensions) although I am not entirely certain about this in his case.
Corbyn first became a MP in 1983 and has a safe Labour seat. Correct me if I am wrong but I understand that MPs can draw a MP's pension after they reach pension age, while they are still a MP with a full MP salary as well. Double-dipping in the taxpyer-funded trough?

It is not difficult for Corbyn to reach a total of £36k from UK pensions and state benefits (apparently including state pensions) when you add all of these together.

 

[nicholsong]

Just prior to my 65th birthday I received a phone call from work & pensions asking if I wanted to defer my pension. My answer to them was :- Would you prefer it if I deferred it until after I fell off the perch so you can waste "MY MONEY" I don't think so you can pay it into my bank on the due date thank you. You have earned enough from my pension as it is.
Phil

Whether not to defer was a good or bad decision probably depended on the increase available then. When I deferred it was 1 per cent increase for every 5 weeks deferal(10.4 per cent p.a.) It has now been dropped to half that.

I was still working part-time and had other pensions, so would have been paying tax on the state Pension. I deferred for 6 years and with that increase and indexation I doubled my State Pension. I have calculated that I have to draw the increase for 6.5 years to recoup what I missed net of tax. I am almost there, and from then on I will be getting £6,000 more per year than I would have done without deferral.

To me it feels like a good return. If I had died in the meantime would I have worried?

Geoff

 

[2657]

It’s called the “basic” State Pension. I appreciate it’s not so easy for low paid occupations but surely most people in our generation the "baby boomers", who undoubtedly have had it relatively easy should have had the opportunity to build up private funds so they do not have to wait until their State Pension to fully retire?

I am also a baby boomer but I think you must live in a different world than I

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[Silver-Fox]

But they already have,,Many men will work until they are 67 and its worse for women,,was 60 now 66 i think.BUSBY.

I’m trying to figure out why it’s worse for women.
When you consider how many men have physically demanding jobs.

Just a thought ?

 

[Makingtrax]

Nowadays the bottom line is that every UK government sees the cost to HM Treasury of the State Pension as an obstacle to funding its political aims, whether it is reducing direct taxes (tories) or boosting other state benefits (labour).

This goes hand-in-hand with propaganda that labels the State Pension as a "benefit" instead of an entitlement, and seeks to stir up inter-generational hatred about so called "unfairness" to get the millenials and Generation XYZ blaming the baby boomers who are now mostly retired, for problems that they face that have been caused by decades of government economic mismanagement, and globalism. Very nasty and cynical.

I noticed that in Hammond's last Budget speech the word "pensioners" was missing. The political class really don't care about pensions except their own gold plated ones.

Slightly OT, the published Tax Calculation for Mr J B Corbyn (by way of example) for 2015/16 showed he received UK pensions and state benefits totalling £36,045 in addition to his MP Salary and other income.

As a replacement income percentage the UK's state pension is one of the lowest in the OECD yet it is somehow "unaffordable". It should be called out as a national disgrace.

This is a discussion about the pension age. What’s Corbyn’s pension got to do with it, as opposed to Vince Cable or Ken Clarke?

 

[Yorick]

Did anyone actually read the newspaper story ? I could only see first part of is as I didn't subscribe.

But I suspect it's a complete non story. A report said that money could be saved, then someone decides to tell everybody it's actually gonna happen.

Hmm.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[Sandancers]

Corbyn was born in 1949 so in 2015/16 he was 66

£36k could include his State Pension (with income-related top-ups for SERPS and S2P under the old system)
According to wikipedia from 1971 he was a Trade Union organiser so presumably he gets a pension from one of the Trade Union pension schemes for paid officials
He has also been a Member of a district Health Authority, and a Councillor with Haringey Council - these appointments are paid and might include some pension rights (currently Councillors are entitled to pensions) although I am not entirely certain about this in his case.
Corbyn first became a MP in 1983 and has a safe Labour seat. Correct me if I am wrong but I understand that MPs can draw a MP's pension after they reach pension age, while they are still a MP with a full MP salary as well. Double-dipping in the taxpyer-funded trough?

It is not difficult for Corbyn to reach a total of £36k from UK pensions and state benefits (apparently including state pensions) when you add all of these together.

And I think I am correct in saying that JC won't be paying NI on his salary due to being over 65 ?

Up the Workers eh JC ?

 

[busby]

I

Join the club Yorick I had my feet up long before 54 but what about those who were not blessed with our grey matter or our fortuity in good health. Let them work till they drop...

I didn't have much GREY MATTER or i would not have spend my life driving trucks 60 to 70 hours a week,,(loved it though) but i still retired at 56,,struggle until i managed to draw a couple of private pensions at 60,,,BUSBY,,

 

[CazPaul]

The report says the pension age has remained the same for nearly a century??

Eh, load of cobblers that is.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}