State Pensions - crisis or no crisis

quote:

Clearly there should be exceptions

.....

Sorry. You lost me on that bit....

Cheers

Don

There are in my view certain professions where the physical toll must be that to expect someone to continue working to 67 or whatever may be pushing it a little bit too much.

quote:

Originally posted by Don Atkinson:

quote:

Clearly there should be exceptions

.....

Sorry. You lost me on that bit....

Low paid UK manual workers live on average to 71.

I bet you can still hear Barbara Castle, Baroness Castle of Blackburn turning in her grave as Gordon holds out against relinking the pensions to earnings.

I'd be interested to know what the actuary types think to this new raised age limit before pensions kick in. Will it be that average Joe Bloggs retires on his 67th birthday only to peg it before his 68th thus saving the nation having to pay out for years more?

And with all the talk that we're an obese nation in the making, will any of us actually make it to 67? That's the age, not the waist measurement, BTW

I think it's taking the piss, the simple factor being your date of birth determines whether you retire at 65 or 67. They should stop wasting money on crap schemes and plug the hole.

Justyn.

I read at the weekend that the UK govt bases its predictions on males living 21 years after retirement, whereas most european countries use a much more realistic 16 years. If the UK did the same there would not be any crisis at all.

Government figures suggest male life expectancey of anyone reaching current retirement age (65) is 86 at present, rising to 90 by 2050.

Policemen, firemen, etc etc could be retired from active, front-line duty at (say) 50 , but continue in associated civilian desk-jobs until standard retirement age. Then retire like the rest of us without index-linked, 2/3 final salary scheme pensions.

Cheers

Don

Don

People seem to think that indexed linked pensions are the end all and b all of pensions.

They are not that good. Wages tend to rise faster than prices so after even 10 years, an above average pension goes way down the pecking order. Add to the fact that most men die before thier wives which means the wife will only receive 50% of the original pension. At this stage, what was once a good pension is now a pittance.

The lesson is simple, do not reply on a pension, because it is not much good for the long term. You need extra provision such as equities and property etc.

The state pension is becoming less important and we must all make independant provision. If you rely purely on a company + state pension, your long term financial health is not good.

It will be fine for say 10 years and thereafter it gets a whole lot tougher.

Regards

Mick

Michael,

I am one of the "State workers" you refer to. Why should the government be allowed to devalue my pension after 22 years of contributions at 6% of Salary. They have already voted to protect their own pension rights before aiming to cut everyone elses.
State workers have never enjoyed the competitive salaries enjoyed in the private sector but have balanced this by generally having greater job stability and a solid pension.
It is not my fault the pensions fund is in disarray, so why should I lose the only real benefit my employment offers?

Steve O.

quote:

Originally posted by Mick Parry:

[...].

The state pension is becoming less important and we must all make independant provision. If you rely purely on a company + state pension, your long term financial health is not good.

[...].

Regards

Mick

Dear Mick,

Whislt I quite see that is true for the better off, it certainly does not solve the problem for the low paid. Let me say I have a vested interest here! In 1993 I was on five pounds an hour, and now I am on five ponds fifty which is a ten percent rise over twelve years, so I think one has to be careful generalising about wage rises! Let me also say that ten years ago I was putting into a private pension which at its peak was worth 28K GPB, and is cuttently worth all of 22K, so some investment I might think. If I could afford it I would say why bother? naturally I want to cash this pension and enjoy some fun now. I doubt if I shall survive to 67. Personally I think there should be no fixed pension provision at all. Work should continue until a doctor pronounces you unfit, whether that be at fifty of seventy eight. If you can find no gainful employment till signed off, then survive on unemployment benefit or savings...

That sounds tough, but think about it before you write the idea off completely.

All the bets from Fredrik

One typo edited out.

Fredrik

Why aren't you living in Norway where they have money coming out of their ears and social support is close to the world's best? Just wrap up warm and take your Philips light therapy screen and they'll look after you properly.

Dear Nime,

Even having a Norwegian mother would not qualify to get in there, sadly. TBH, I would not hesitate, as I think Britain is finished for the little man, with an honest heart, and a hard-working mentality.

That was a bit serious! Fredrik

The number of pensioners is set to rise from 11 million to 17 million by 2050. The number of people of working age per pensioner is set to drop from 3.5 million to 2.5 million in the same period.

This makes it seem that there will be an emergency, each worker will be paying for more pensioners.

Yet think of the whole population. At present, with a population of about 60 million, around 27 million workers support 32 million others. The 'non-workers' are pensioners, chlidren, students, the sick, unemployed etc... During the next 50 years this ratio 27:32 will remain the same..

The number of pensioners will rise but the number of school children is set forecast to fall.

Does anyone seriously think that the fat-cat CBI, or Blair or Brown will be slogging their guts out till 67 or 69. Life expectancy for the poorest section of British society is estimated to have risen by 1.7 years over the last 30 years. A rise of two years to claim state pension will wipe out this meagre gain.

Exceptions who should be allowed to retire younger? How about people with forty years in nursing, teaching, labouring, train driving, delivering mail, working in a supermarket etc...

I still see no reason why anyone should be treated differently. Simply find a less onerous job, such as cleaning or whatever if you have not accumulated a big enough pension pot from your chosen field of work. We have to acclimatise ourselves to the fact that the system will not cope with an ever decreasing number of working people keeping an ever growing retired poulation. Personally I think it wicked that people consider retirement a right when so many of working age are so badly paid. If you can gain employment that really allows for retirement without being a burden on the diminishing working population, then do so, but otherwise I don't see what the fuss is about. Only for the last century or so has retirement been a factor. We had better get used to the fact that a very great many more people are going to die in harness, as it were, over the next years then in the recent past.

If anyone can explain why this is not the case, I shall be open to the ideas. I have been saying this for the last twenty years and at my last pension consultation I asked the advisor if he could say I was wrong. He conceded the point was probably right enough. I put a stay on the pension...

All the best from fredrik

So this is why Blair doesn't want to ban smoking in places of work! It would mean more people living longer after 60.

Regards

Stephen

Personally I think things people enjoy should be encouraged, even if they do shorten life somewhat! I always enjoyed being with people who smoked - for example I always used to go in the smoking section of an airliner - and for my 35th birthday took it up. I personally hope it takes me before senile dementia gets me. And no I would never consider the knife (surgery) if I was in medical need of it. I would say time to go and take the necessary pain-killing measures! But then we seem fixateted on a long, rather than an enjoyable life, nowadays! Fredrik

quote:

I always enjoyed being with people who smoked - for example I always used to go in the smoking section of an airliner - and for my 35th birthday took it up.

You truly are certifiably insane.



Stephen

PS Actually, I agree (as long as it doesn't harm others, which smoking does). I plan to take up hang gliding and sky diving in my '70s. Or just have a lot of very young girlfriends.....

quote:

Originally posted by Fredrik_Fiske:
Personally I think things people enjoy should be encouraged, even if they do shorten life somewhat! I always enjoyed being with people who smoked - for example I always used to go in the smoking section of an airliner - and for my 35th birthday took it up. I personally hope it takes me before senile dementia gets me.

Indeed. If one spends enough of one's money on alcohol, tobacco and fine unhealthy food, one has the felicity of having no need of a pension. Voila. Problem neatly and enjoyably solved.

EW

I heard one economist poo-pooing the idea of needing to increase funding for pensions in future or the need to increase the retirement age. The standard of living is rising constantly for all those above minimum wage.
All it takes a a slight reduction in selfishness and a slight increase in taxation to adequately fund future pensions.
Of course he's talking total bølløcks and it'll never happen. Nobody will pay the increased taxation and the politicians will take the easy option to maintain their knife-edge thin mandates (and their property portfolios)

So, let the pensioners eat cake. It will be the only thing they can manage with the ever downward spiral in free dentistry.

Could get interesting if bird flu' takes a firm grip. It took out the young and fit last time. That would seriously skew the pension figures! We'll all be working until we drop unless it selectively attacks politicians? Not likely though. HE looks after his own.

I'm no economist (as this question will probably indicate) but can anyone tell me why we have to have a fixed retirement age at all? Why not have the retirement pension available at any age after 50yrs but rising in value the older you choose to start drawing it?

I know this does not solve the whole problem but it seems fairer and presumably the actuaries can calculate a system which effectively means that people like me (who intend to retire young, and have been able to make their own provision for it) will efecctively forego the state pension, helping to fund those that need it rather more.

Bruce

PS My plan of course assumes missing out on bird flu, which will take out the young the fit and the health care workers....

I wonder who the 11 million pensioners will be voting for at the next election? But remember promises made on an election manifesto are not enforceable by law.

quote:

Originally posted by Roy T:
I wonder who the 11 million pensioners will be voting for at the next election? But remember promises made on an election manifesto are not enforceable by law.

Couldn't we just poke them with pointy sticks instead?
The lying politicians! Not the poor pensioners.

The latter have little choice:
Heads your cat goes hungry. Tails you aren't allowed a cat!

I don't understand why pensions can't be linked to earnings.

Presumably tax income increases in line with salaries, which should be able to fund it?

cheers, Martin

quote:

Originally posted by Steve O:
Michael,

I am one of the "State workers" you refer to. Why should the government be allowed to devalue my pension after 22 years of contributions at 6% of Salary. They have already voted to protect their own pension rights before aiming to cut everyone elses.
State workers have never enjoyed the competitive salaries enjoyed in the private sector but have balanced this by generally having greater job stability and a solid pension.
It is not my fault the pensions fund is in disarray, so why should I lose the only real benefit my employment offers?

Steve O.

Steve

It certainly is not your fault. The blame lies with succesive governments, both labour and conservative. Nonetheless do you not consider it inequitable that a state worker can take earlier retirement than a worker in the private sector. Particularly after the devaluation of private pensions (charges, poor performance, brown's raid etc).

I would also add that judging by the rates of pay available in the state sector that there is a greater deal of equality these days than, say, ten years ago. I will also readily acknowledge that there are many low paid state jobs but likewise there are many low paid private sector jobs.

Nonetheless it would be patently unfair to enfore a higher retirement age on those who have worked for many years within the state sector. In my view a graduated scheme should be introduced. It could be along the lines of:

State employment now - 30 years - no increase in retirement age

State employment now - 20 years - 6 months increase in retirement age

State employment now - 15 years - 1 year increase in retirement age

State employment now - 10 years - 1 1/2 year increase in retirement age

State employment now - 5 years - 2 year increase in retirement age

State employment now - 2 years - 2 1/2 year increase in retirement age

State employment now - 0 years - 3 year increase in retirement age

OK I may not have applied too much science too this but surely this is equitable.

And you are right - the politicians should be the first to lead the way. Be an inspiration. Wow, look out of the window, so many of them, flying pigs that is.