[Misc] Big day for ladies of a certain age today

[Ernest]

The Tories want to reduce tax to a minimum, which means getting as many people off benefits as possible.
Pensions are now classed as 'benefits' and are now being vilified is some areas. I've even seen some nasty comments about it old people being 'spongers' here & there. It will get worse under this lot in power.
People who are dying being called in for interviews to see if they're fit for work, under universal credit.

And Labour proposal to have a proper social security system

 

[Gwylan]

The average age in our country hasn't increased that much. If you're not retiring until 70-75, when are you going to enjoy the benefits?

Male ife expectancy in the UK when the old age pension was introduced was 52, it's not 86. I'd say a 34-year increase in a 100 years is a pretty hefty one.

 

[darkwolf666]

Yeah. I'm not quite sure why the OP said raising the pension age to 75 was a lunatic suggestion - life expectancy is in the mid-80s now and is set to rise more (some biologists think the first 150-year-old has already been born). At the same time, the birth rate in the UK has been stubbornly low for about 40 years.

We've masked the effects of this by immigration but the process needs to be stepped up. We need to increase the birth rate (which isn't going to happen); massively increase immigration or raise the pension age, not by a year or so but by five or six years (and then by 10).

It's either that or the Logan's Run solution ...

So, at the age of just 59, when my body aches first thing when I get out of bed, where my joints creak and I can’t stay in any one position for too long before the discomfort sets in - but it will be expected for me to continue to work until I’m 75... please don’t use the simplistic reply of “you should have saved/planned” to allow me to retire when I wanted, as not everyone earns the sort of wages that allow them to make those grandiose plans.

 

[darkwolf666]

Male ife expectancy in the UK when the old age pension was introduced was 52, it's not 86. I'd say a 34-year increase in a 100 years is a pretty hefty one.

Sorry, male life expectancy in the UK is 79, so 4 years to enjoy all that hard work of the previous near 60 - lovely.

 

[Brovion]

Yeah. I'm not quite sure why the OP said raising the pension age to 75 was a lunatic suggestion - life expectancy is in the mid-80s now and is set to rise more (some biologists think the first 150-year-old has already been born). At the same time, the birth rate in the UK has been stubbornly low for about 40 years.

We've masked the effects of this by immigration but the process needs to be stepped up. We need to increase the birth rate (which isn't going to happen); massively increase immigration or raise the pension age, not by a year or so but by five or six years (and then by 10).

It's either that or the Logan's Run solution ...

It's a valid point and I got roundly abused for making it last time this topic came up. Regardless of the unfairness of how the pension age is being increased it does need to go up. The 60/65 limit was set over 70 years ago when the average life expectancy for men was about 60 - so they weren't expecting that many to reach it! If state pensions didn't exist and were being brought in now the male age would be set at about 85 - maybe even higher.

 

[Mellor 3 Ward 4]

They lost and rightly so.

Pension age has to increase more. Too many old people in the country now, fantastic developments in medicine and treatments has seen to that. Makes total sense to raise the pension age. And complete sense that the age should be the same for men and women.

You can't have your cake and eat it.

Agree about treating both sexes the same.

But this was about the notice period given regarding the changes.

 

[Mellor 3 Ward 4]

The Tories want to reduce tax to a minimum, which means getting as many people off benefits as possible.
.

You say that like it's a bad thing.

 

[Fungus]

I thought the problem was that the government suddenly brought forward the age increase for one group? My wife got her pension at at just under 63, but her slightly younger friend has to wait until 66. She knew it wouldn't be 60, but was suddenly given an extra 3 years to work. The BBC reports don't make that clear.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

You say that like it's a bad thing.

It is when dying people are having their money stopped and called in for interviews to see if they're fit for work.

The press today has said DWP bosses are getting £17K bonuses. At what cost?

My father in law contributed all his life but only received his State pension for 8 months as he died aged 65.

 

[Gwylan]

Sorry, male life expectancy in the UK is 79, so 4 years to enjoy all that hard work of the previous near 60 - lovely.

I meant that life expectancy at current retirement age is 86: so that's about 11 years to enjoy retirement.

But I was talking about raising it 75 in the future, not now. Life expectancy could well be about 90

(although as was pointed out earlier, it's possible that this could slow down or even fall)

 

[Diablo]

And Labour proposal to have a proper social security system

Do you believe this lot under Jeremy Corbyn would be good for the country if they were running it ?
Do you believe a labour government would be able to do and pay for the many things they are promising ?

I`m not asking if you think they`d be better than Boris and co because you obviously do.

 

[The Clamp]

After hearing some lunatic MP wants the retirement age to be raised to 75 for Men and Women because after all equality is equality a very important verdict should come through today on whether or not Women were discriminated against , in 1995 ish , the retirement age (state pension due ) for Women went from 60 to 65 , the case hears that the Ladies were not given ample time to adjust or prepare for such a drastic change .

I know of somebody that the change almost destroyed and i would imagine i'm not alone in knowing someone affected by the change , if they lose the case the government say it will cost them 218 billion smackers but surely if that's what it cost then that's what they saved ? Good luck ladies



https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-49907727

Worked to death to support the 1%.

Either way, I hope to put in a solid 80/85 years (at life, not work) and say my goodbyes. Life gets pretty messy for most after that age.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Do you believe this lot under Jeremy Corbyn would be good for the country if they were running it ?
Do you believe a labour government would be able to do and pay for the many things they are promising ?

I`m not asking if you think they`d be better than Boris and co because you obviously do.

I am not a Labour supporter, but do you know the Tories have doubled the national debt? The Brexit spend is over £1B alone.

 

[Diablo]

I am not a Labour supporter, but do you know the Tories have doubled the national debt? The Brexit spend is over £1B alone.

National debt is about £1,800 billion which is about 85% of GDP. If you take the country as a business. Businesses that have borrowings of less than turnover would be considered very sound.
Yes it would be great to have no borrowings,sadly I like most others have. But compared with the mid seventies when money cost in the region of 15%,interest rates at a near historic low debt is not to much of a worry.

 

[Hastings gull]

The Tories want to reduce tax to a minimum, which means getting as many people off benefits as possible.
Pensions are now classed as 'benefits' and are now being vilified is some areas. I've even seen some nasty comments about it old people being 'spongers' here & there. It will get worse under this lot in power.
People who are dying being called in for interviews to see if they're fit for work, under universal credit.

All very vague -presumably this is deliberate to lend credence to your bias?

 

[Hampster Gull]

The drive for equality on all fronts at pace was always going to cause pain somewhere. Regulation is always a blunt tool but is needed when speed is of the essence. I really feel for those impacted

 

[Thunder Bolt]

All very vague -presumably this is deliberate to lend credence to your bias?

There's nothing vague about it. Cases are in the news with names and facts. I don't have a bias, I'm just reacting to what I have seen.

 

[Icy Gull]

Do you believe this lot under Jeremy Corbyn would be good for the country if they were running it ?
Do you believe a labour government would be able to do and pay for the many things they are promising ?

I`m not asking if you think they`d be better than Boris and co because you obviously do.

Complete waste of time. Labour good, Tories shitheads. All black and white with no grey is all you’ll ever get from Ernest on politics.

 

[Sorrel]

When pensions were first introduced, in 1908, they were for people age 70 and above. It was changed to 65 in in the mid 1920s - though neither of these were completely universal. The difference in age between men and women was introduced so that married couples could both get a joint pension, the age difference because the women was usually younger than the married man.

Back in 1990 the European Court of Justice ruled that occupational pension schemes should no longer discriminate against men and various legal cases have been banging around giving lots of money to lawyers since then, arguing over what age pensions should be equalised at. It's been 24 year now since the 1995 Pensions Act, with it's equalisation between 2010 and 2020.

As no-one disputes that pensions need to be equalised, the only problem is when it should happen and over how long a time. It's now changing for both men and women to 66 and during 2027 will go to 67. In 2044 (but I bet it will be earlier) it's supposed to go to 68. The timetable meant that women had to be equalised with men before both ages were raised to 66. If the transition from 60 to 65 had been replayed, then so would the move to 66 happening now.

 

[Wrong-Direction]

It's pretty disgusting the system we've created means the majority of people work for most of their lives

Sent from my SM-A600FN using Tapatalk