Brits to work till 70

[kropotkin]

A point which should also be noted!
If it is currently the legal position that we retire at 65 and that business/the rich withold £80 billion, then people should connect some dots if the future way of dealing with this is to change the law not to recoup that money and save the population from working more, but to impose even more work on us.

'Politics' doesn't and can't work in our favour. It isn't designed to.

 

[danny la rouge]

'Politics' doesn't and can't work in our favour. It isn't designed to.

Indeed. Which is why politicians are all agreed "we" can't afford pensioners any more. Or, not working class ones.

 

[CyberRose]

Somewhere north of £80 billion is lost to the treasury every year through legal tax avoidance by the Rich.

I think that people should probably note that when plans like this are floated.

That's true but even if that were sorted out (and obviously it should) there still comes a point where that money also runs out due to the ageing population...

 

[kropotkin]

....allowing things to function as they currently do, of course.

There is nothing 'natural' about how society is organised, it is a product of [a subgroup of] human decision making. It is entirely possible to organise society so that we don't have to work until 70 (or even 65!), it just requires certain other assumptions that underpin how things work to be allowed to come into question.

If forcing everyone (well, those who rely on a pension to live!) to work (5/~45=) 1/9th as long can be countenanced, why can't capital controls and increased corporation tax, for example?

 

[Hocus Eye.]

So older people are expected to carry on working for more years in an economy that is shedding labour. Meanwhile unemployment for youngsters leaving school and even university is increasing.

To solve - disguise this problem there are going to be training schemes and civilian versions of National Service (a Tory wish-list idea) using government money, to disguise the unemployment among the young who will have to wait so much longer to fill the 'dead-mens shoes' of a job. Pushing them all into college places doing pretend qualifications won't work with lots of the school leavers already having had enough of the education system which has reportedly not been a happy place to be in recent years. Even university and college graduates will have little opportunity for worthwhile employment. Already it needs a degree to get the kind of job that 15 years ago would be given to a sixth form school leaver with just A levels. Added to this the graduate has paid for his/her course and is in debt.

It is not that the country cannot afford the meagre pensions on offer to people, it is just propaganda from the private sector who want to reduce their taxes. The propaganda has been pushed on to the politicians who don't have the brains to see that they are being conned. Yes the country has spent more public sector money since the world recession but this has gone to the banks, not public sector services.

The extra spending the government used to boast about going into health and education did not go on services ie staff at all but on capital projects, buildings that were built to replace existing ones that just needed repairs. Instead the buildings were given away to PFI speculators who got a nice guaranteed income from taking over the services as well as provision of buildings on essentially a rental deal. All of this to keep the spending off the books to evade EU regulations.

It won't wash. The profit makers of this country are going to have to pay more taxes. To avoid these companies playing countries off against each other, all developed countries need to agree to a common percentage of taxation going on essential public services. This would have been a better use of the G20 meeting

 

[CyberRose]

I think pensions should be collected individually throughout one's life time, rather than the current work force paying for the previous work force. That seems logical and means every person has an individual pot they get when they choose to retire, and it's also not affected by population changes.

That's not to say everyone should have a private pension they should pay into, because many people can't afford that. Perhaps the national insurance for employers should be raised by x% and that extra money goes into the employees personal pension fund?

 

[Hocus Eye.]

I think pensions should be collected individually throughout one's life time, rather than the current work force paying for the previous work force. That seems logical and means every person has an individual pot they get when they choose to retire, and it's also not affected by population changes.

That's not to say everyone should have a private pension they should pay into, because many people can't afford that. Perhaps the national insurance for employers should be raised by x% and that extra money goes into the employees personal pension fund?

Yes that would be a more honest approach than the current one. The problem is caused by the fact that the state Pensions Fund is notional. There is no money in it. If when you paid your money in there was a real State Pension Fund, then it would accumulate and when you came to retire there would be real money there to pay you.

What happens now is that the money you pay in to your state pension goes into general taxation and becomes part of current spending rather than building up a real pension. Yes part of that current spending is current pensions.

The problem is difficult to solve though. Everyone who retires under the present system has had their contribution already spent on those who retired earlier. To set up a new fund would require a massive albeit one-off capital input because of the existing liability to those who had already paid their whack. It should be done though.

 

[CyberRose]

The problem is difficult to solve though. Everyone who retires under the present system has had their contribution already spent on those who retired earlier. To set up a new fund would require a massive albeit one-off capital input because of the existing liability to those who had already paid their whack. It should be done though.

Maybe the £80bn/year "rich tax avoidance" Kropotkin mentions above could be that one off payment? (If that figure is correct of course)

 

[rikwakefield]

it hasn't been raised yet, they are going to phase it in, I think the first effected will be those born in 65, who will retire when they are 66 i think (that'll be me then) and then gradually it is raised to 68. afaik, it won't effect anyone currently over 45

I'm 27

 

[brasicritique]

So basically for the working/under classess who in the next ten years are going to see the end of the NHS , the end of the welfare state and now the end of pensions, the question is where is the first shanty town in britain likely to be? BTW those of you saying that there is nothing wrong ethicaly with working until 70 and that the country needs more immigration are both ignorant and politically stupid . Work till 70 = even more people voting for the far right.

 

[Wolveryeti]

It won't wash. The profit makers of this country are going to have to pay more taxes.

To play devil's advocate - What if they decide to leave? Most of the city are sociopathic basket cases who spend so much time in their offices that I doubt they really care whether the outside world is London, Geneva, Guernsey etc.

At some point we are going to reach a point where the answer to society's problems is not going to be 'tax the rich more' because higher taxation will lead to lower receipts. I don't know whether we're there yet, but this guy has done a breakdown of how our tax situation compares to other financial centres and it doesn't look good.

http://alexmasterley.blogspot.com/2009/05/city-of-london-will-be-most-highly.html#links

 

[FridgeMagnet]

To play devil's advocate - What if they decide to leave? Most of the city are sociopathic basket cases who spend so much time in their offices that I doubt they really care whether the outside world is London, Geneva, Guernsey etc.

At some point we are going to reach a point where the answer to society's problems is not going to be 'tax the rich more' because higher taxation will lead to lower receipts. I don't know whether we're there yet, but this guy has done a breakdown of how our tax situation compares to other financial centres and it doesn't look good.

http://alexmasterley.blogspot.com/2009/05/city-of-london-will-be-most-highly.html#links

They already _have_ left, or at least their money has. The point is not about any concept of residency, rather "if you make money in this country you have to pay a cut of it, no matter where you technically 'live'".

 

[SpookyFrank]

given that we don't have full employment now, and are unlikely to have it ever again afaics, how is widening the pool of people looking for work going to be good thing other than for employers by driving down wages?

Spot on apart from the highlighted word. There has never been full employment, at least not since the industrial revolution. A fact which welfare policy reform seldom takes into account.

 

[gentlegreen]

They have already raised the state pension age to 68 in the Pensions Act 2007 (which received the full support of the three main parties). It will be introduced gradually over 22 years from 6th April 2024 onwards.

I was born in 1960 and by all accounts I don't get my state pension until I'm 66.

 

[Wolveryeti]

They already _have_ left, or at least their money has. The point is not about any concept of residency, rather "if you make money in this country you have to pay a cut of it, no matter where you technically 'live'".

I thought the point was to consider the extent to which we value the principle of fair taxation (progressiveness) over taxation as a means to a particular end (maximising receipts). I suggest there is a trade-off involved.

 

[London_Calling]

I think pensions should be collected individually throughout one's life time,

You've just described a private pension plan.

rather than the current work force paying for the previous work force. That seems logical and means every person has an individual pot they get when they choose to retire

In a democracy, the previous Government can't dictate to the incoming Government what their fiscal policy should be - that's our job. That's why it's called 'Parliamentary sovereignty'.

The idea of any Government ring-fencing my Gran's £1.00 weekly pension contribution 40 years ago and giving it back to her now as £90.00 is amusing, for about 90 reasons.

 

[CyberRose]

You've just described a private pension plan.

Er no you chopping half of my comment out made it a private pension plan. I specifically said it doesn't have to be a private scheme and even went as far as to give an example about raising employer NI contributions to cover it. But no, you ignore all that and create something different to what I said just for the sake of arguing

In a democracy, the previous Government can't dictate to the incoming Government what their fiscal policy should be - that's our job. That's why it's called 'Parliamentary sovereignty'.

The idea of any Government ring-fencing my Gran's £1.00 weekly pension contribution 40 years ago and giving it back to her now as £90.00 is amusing, for about 90 reasons.

What I described would be an individual account for each person, with each account containing that person's personal pension contributions. There is no reason to suggest anyone could take that money it's no different to any other kind of pension scheme or savings account

 

[Wolveryeti]

What I described would be an individual account for each person, with each account containing that person's personal pension contributions. There is no reason to suggest anyone could take that money it's no different to any other kind of pension scheme or savings account

A friend of mine went for a job at the DWP recently - he said that one of their projects at the moment is to set up something very similar to what you're describing.

It has attractive elements in that a collective pool of funds is likely to attract significant discounts in terms of managerial fees, plus you are less likely to get an Equitable Life style catastrophe of people taking a large hit to their pension entitlements.

I have a feeling it will be portrayed as a privatisation of the welfare state and thus resisted though. There is also the thorny question of what the government will do if the payout amount isn't enough to live off.

 

[Quartz]

That given that this retirement age is older than average life expectancy in working class communities such as Glasgow's Calton, this is a cynical way to avoid paying any pension at all to the poorest in society.

Maybe I'm missing the whoosh, but it was originally a cynical ploy. When the state pension was originally introduced many people didn't live to 60, let alone 65, and many of those that did lived only a few years beyond retirement age. Now people are regularly living into their 80s. And people are healthier in their 60s these days to boot. So working until 70 is entirely reasonable.

 

[kropotkin]

No it isn't, what is reasonable is for us to structure society so that people can live out their final years in peace with enough money to make it easy.

Everything else is mutable; that is not.

Priorities, eh? What are yours?

 

[Quartz]

No it isn't, what is reasonable is for us to structure society so that people can live out their final years in peace with enough money to make it easy.

Everything else is mutable; that is not.

When 'final years' becomes 'final decades', it's gone too far. Besides, many people 65 years old and more are perfectly capable of work. Why shouldn't they work?

 

[scifisam]

No it isn't, what is reasonable is for us to structure society so that people can live out their final years in peace with enough money to make it easy.

Everything else is mutable; that is not.

Priorities, eh? What are yours?

I agree.

With current life expectancies, there will be plenty of 'final years' after 70.

 

[_angel_]

When 'final years' becomes 'final decades', it's gone too far. Besides, many people 65 years old and more are perfectly capable of work. Why shouldn't they work?

Where is this huge influx of jobs coming from? Even in good times, the over fifties face discrimination never mind over 60's (and before long over 70s)

Not everyone who is in their sixties is in good health, either.

 

[AnnO'Neemus]

I think it's a natural progression considering the general rise in life expectancy. Yes, there might be some blackspots where life expectancy is lower, but I think that generally people live longer.

Just Googled:

http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/rp99/rp99-111.pdf

On page 8, there's a graph that shows that in around 1900, life expectancy was around 50 years. Now it's around 80.

And don't forget, back then, the majority of people left school at 16 (or was it 14 back then?) and began working and earning.

I don't think it's sustainable for people to expect to study until they are 21, spend most of their 20s trying to pay off their student loans, so not having any spare money to contribute to a pension pot, so they don't even start to think about pensions until they are late 20s, early 30s, and then retire at 60 or 65 and draw from the pension pot for 15-20 years.

The sums just don't add up. If people are starting work later, they're going to have to work later. It's simple mathematics. Start work five years later, end work five years later. People aren't losing out, they're just shifting the working life timescale by five years.

 

[kabbes]

"And this pension is perfect if you intend to work right up to retirement and then immediately die..."

Alternatively:

 

[gentlegreen]

Besides, many people 65 years old and more are perfectly capable of work. Why shouldn't they work?

Because they ought to be pottering in the garden or going for a swim - after working for 50 years.

I'm fully hoping to be doing that at 60 ...

 

[London_Calling]

Er no you chopping half of my comment out made it a private pension plan. I specifically said it doesn't have to be a private scheme and even went as far as to give an example about raising employer NI contributions to cover it. But no, you ignore all that and create something different to what I said just for the sake of arguing

No I didn't. I just took out the relevant part of this, which was the first part:

I think pensions should be collected individually throughout one's life time, rather than the current work force paying for the previous work force. That seems logical and means every person has an individual pot they get when they choose to retire, and it's also not affected by population changes.

 

[_angel_]

I think it's a natural progression considering the general rise in life expectancy. Yes, there might be some blackspots where life expectancy is lower, but I think that generally people live longer.

Just Googled:

http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/rp99/rp99-111.pdf

On page 8, there's a graph that shows that in around 1900, life expectancy was around 50 years. Now it's around 80.

And don't forget, back then, the majority of people left school at 16 (or was it 14 back then?) and began working and earning.

I don't think it's sustainable for people to expect to study until they are 21, spend most of their 20s trying to pay off their student loans, so not having any spare money to contribute to a pension pot, so they don't even start to think about pensions until they are late 20s, early 30s, and then retire at 60 or 65 and draw from the pension pot for 15-20 years.

The sums just don't add up. If people are starting work later, they're going to have to work later. It's simple mathematics. Start work five years later, end work five years later. People aren't losing out, they're just shifting the working life timescale by five years.

Although - not everyone does do a degree and start working 'five years later' necessarily.

Don't you think it's bad enough, for those that do study to be expected to pay for all that as well as a pension and then have to work for longer than previous generations.

It's not that 'there isn't the money' for people to retire at 65, it's that it's been decided that it's not going to happen because it might mean higher taxes for those that can afford it.

 

[London_Calling]

Is there much financial difference between a state pension and Jobseekers Allowance - presuming Housing Benefit/Social security stuff is about the same regardless?

Actually that's pretty involved isn't it; house-owner, renting, living alone . . . other benefits.

 

[trevhagl]

Because they ought to be pottering in the garden or going for a swim - after working for 50 years.

I'm fully hoping to be doing that at 60 ...

I can think of people who've died of cancer before even 60. These ideas are a disgrace and i don't believe this "people are living longer" bollocks either.