Leekbrookgull
Well-known member
Free Bus Pass what a joke that is.
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
State pension age increased to 68 from 2037....
- Thread starter narly101
- Start date
Why's that a joke ?
Iggle Piggle
Well-known member
- Sep 3, 2010
- 5,952
From a maths perspective you can't argue whatever your morals. My old man has been retired for 18 years on a Final Salary pension scheme. Whilst I am delighted he is still here (and he is the most generous person I know) his pension was based on the maths they were only expecting to pay him for about 2.
The maths were clearly wrong for him and thousands of others with war deaths, medical advances and shit predictions skewing the numbers. Good luck to those taking advantage but the government of any persuasion has a hard time here. An ageing population is going to need looking after. I might go and invest in my own care home....
beorhthelm
A. Virgo, Football Genius
- Jul 21, 2003
- 36,014
the statistic is that when pensions began only 1 in 3 made it to 70, now only 1 in 3 dont.
pasty
A different kind of pasty
Wasn't there also some ridiculous thing some 30 odd years ago when it was 60 for women but 65 for men, if a wife reached 60 before her husband was 65, she could not claim her pension until her husband was 65. Or something like that anyway I seem to remember affecting my parents.
Weststander
Well-known member
A harsh truth.
For someone working from 22 to 65, 43 years, provision or funding has to be made somehow for their retirement which might last 25 years up to 90. It's easy to gliby say that governments or the young working should, but in ageing population the sums simply don't add up. The monies needed to fund 25 years of retirement are huge. Like almost every other nation, there are no public funds, only national debt. So the only solutions are to increase the taxes significantly, ensure that people save far more for retirement, raise the state pension age, or a combination of these.
Iggle Piggle
Well-known member
- Sep 3, 2010
- 5,952
My old neighbour was a financial advisor. Whilst he was considerably richer that me and had more money than sense he showed me the sums why you need 1 million plus pre 60 to retire and how people with a Final Salary pension should thank thier luck stars.
I almost topped myself on the spot.
LamieRobertson
Not awoke
My Dad (hopefully) will have been drawing his final salary scheme for 30 years next month ..and like you my Dad is the most generous person I know ..the trustees of the scheme definitely weren't bargaining on him still being around
Don't worry, Jezza will promise you a fairer deal, a bigger and earlier pension all in exchange for your vote. Never mind, he will never carry it through, or your kids will pay for it!
- Apr 13, 2015
- 3,858
250k over a career in a pension pot.... you can retire happily... though not a luxury lifestyle...so start early... prepare... like I did... it's not about wealth.. it's about preparation.... about 6k a year... some from you.. some from the employer...easy if you have a bit of a view of the future.
Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk
- Apr 13, 2015
- 3,858
Of course.. those who Corbyn has lured into his false premise of free everything, are the very people who will need to pay that debt back once they themselves are in their 40s, 50s and even 60s... reap what you sow.
Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk
Wrong-Direction
Well-known member
- Mar 10, 2013
- 13,634
If the government started spending the money (that is there) correctly there'll be enough to fund everything will need, wake up, we're being robbed by the people in charge of us
Sent from my SM-A310F using Tapatalk
Sent from my SM-A310F using Tapatalk
- Apr 13, 2015
- 3,858
Barking up the wrong tree..... wrong direction you might say.
Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk
AZ Gull
@SeagullsAcademy @seagullsacademy.bsky.social
Which is exactly why such pension schemes are becoming as rare as rocking-horse shit.
I'm one of the lucky ones - I got my bus pass on my 60th. birthday, just before they started mucking about with the age limit, and I just managed to get to 65 in time to start collecting my OAP at that point (I actually delayed claiming it for 6 months to get an extra 1%). Yes, I worked hard, but I'm still grateful.
I do appreciate the difficulties for he government (any government) though. In the 1940s, when the scheme was introduced, a bloke retired at 65 and pottered around for his few remaining years; the model wasn't based on him (or at least, not many of him) lasting another 20 or 30 or even more years. Both parties need to get together and sort out a long term plan for this. Obviously, the pension age has to be increased (and I really feel for those who now have to work longer than they expected) - but it needs to be planned long term, and agreed by both parties, whoever is in power. I can imagine nothing more horrible for younger people than having their pension goalposts continually moved by successive governments. That, frankly, is psychological abuse.
The next problem is the nature of work. In the 1940s, many men were in manual work, and physically would have struggled to go on much longer anyway. Although there is less manual labour these days, it still exists. If you're a skilled chippie, plumber, roofer, whatever, it will be getting to be pretty hard work when you're 65 - having to carry on until 75 would in many cases not be possible, so they'll be 'on the sick' (and thus paid for by the state) anyway.
The other problem is youth unemployment. What jobs will be available for youngsters if the oldies are having to hang on to the jobs for another 10 years or more?
A last thought - I said at the beginning I felt I was lucky to have got past the 60 and 65 year goalposts just in time before they started being moved. Well, yes, but on reflection I'd still swap it for being 20.....or 30.....or 40 years younger! No more than that - I don't want to be doing my f***ing 'A' levels again!
I do appreciate the difficulties for he government (any government) though. In the 1940s, when the scheme was introduced, a bloke retired at 65 and pottered around for his few remaining years; the model wasn't based on him (or at least, not many of him) lasting another 20 or 30 or even more years. Both parties need to get together and sort out a long term plan for this. Obviously, the pension age has to be increased (and I really feel for those who now have to work longer than they expected) - but it needs to be planned long term, and agreed by both parties, whoever is in power. I can imagine nothing more horrible for younger people than having their pension goalposts continually moved by successive governments. That, frankly, is psychological abuse.
The next problem is the nature of work. In the 1940s, many men were in manual work, and physically would have struggled to go on much longer anyway. Although there is less manual labour these days, it still exists. If you're a skilled chippie, plumber, roofer, whatever, it will be getting to be pretty hard work when you're 65 - having to carry on until 75 would in many cases not be possible, so they'll be 'on the sick' (and thus paid for by the state) anyway.
The other problem is youth unemployment. What jobs will be available for youngsters if the oldies are having to hang on to the jobs for another 10 years or more?
A last thought - I said at the beginning I felt I was lucky to have got past the 60 and 65 year goalposts just in time before they started being moved. Well, yes, but on reflection I'd still swap it for being 20.....or 30.....or 40 years younger! No more than that - I don't want to be doing my f***ing 'A' levels again!
Guy Fawkes
The voice of treason
- Sep 29, 2007
- 8,295
Yet when a political party pledges to stop public money being spent on millionaires and 'the rich' with things like stopping the winter fuel allowance (because of course people like Alan Sugar really needs it) or free school meals for their kids when their parents could easily afford to pay for it themselves, meaning the public money they do spend can go towards help who those more in need - they get attacked and the usual cries of them being evil, etc all start. (the joke being that the other party want to tax the same 'rich' people more so they can continue to give it back to them through he types of schemes mentioned above (and have all the extra bureaucracy that brings, wasting more public funds to administer, etc..)
I believe it was announced in 2010 by the Treasury, when the task of governing the country was handed over to the Tories, that there wasn't any money left.
Pavilionaire
Well-known member
- Jul 7, 2003
- 31,263
Today's announcement was inevitable, but I worry for the manual workers. As an accountant most of those I see who have spent their lives lifting, loading, carrying, up and down ladders are scaling back when they hit 60 and are done at 65.
Tokyohands
Well-known member
By the time i'm 67 no doubt the rules would've changed again anyway and i'd be surprised if cash state pensions actually still exist. Fortunately, from the age of 27 I realised it was probably futile to bank on having a state pension anyway and started to make other preparations, I would recommend any younguns out there do the same.