Apologies for the delay, I was playing Angry Birds [Stage 1 Level 1-1 > 3-12 3 starred.]
What annoys me is that if we had been as far sighted as Norway (for Gods sake!) then we wouldn't be in this mess - they decided to take the money from their chunk of North Sea oil and create a massive pension fund so that the increasing numbers of old people in relation to the smaller number of younger working people wouldn't be a problem see - The Government Pension Fund of Norway - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia - instead of p1ssing it all away over the last 30 years. Deep sigh...
Its not without its own problems - but its a nicer type of problem.
I guess the main problem here is simple demographics. The 'baby boomer' generation is about to retire whilst the birth rate has been dropping (despite immigration) and thanks to advances in medicine people are living long than was ever anticipated. A perfect storm situation is appearing globally when over 65's are going to start accounting for a substantial percentage of the population.
Put simply there won't be enough people working to pay for those that are retired hence somethings's got to give. It doesn't help that politicians have lived hand to mouth and run the state pension like a ponzi scheme when we should have been saving money for the above scenario!
Admittedly hearing it from a £120,000 a year retired peer is a bit hard to swallow but unfortunately what he's stating is going to come down to simple maths. I'll probably upset people by saying this but anyone in their 20's or 30's is likely going to be seriously disappointed if they expect to retire before 70 and live on a state pension alone! And I say that as someone in their (early) 30's!
I'm under no illusions that LeBoyfriend and I will likely die at our desks. I suppose I'd rather die at my desk than alone in my house with no-one to care whether I'm alive or not, as my poor kittehs will have to eat me to survive.
In my life, I will likely pay more than £150,000 in national insurance. Say half of this goes to paying for my healthcare. The other half, £75,000, even if invested in a poor rewarding way it should return at least a further £10,000 in interest, so say £85,000. With the current 'full' national pension, that would be 16 years of money for pension.
ie. It should provide about £5k a year from the age 68 until age 84. Life expectancy is 80.4 years in the UK.
If the scheme had been run correctly and not mismanaged by successive governments, such as the last labour government raiding the pension funds to pay for their spending, then there wouldn't be any issues for it, at all.
So, the problem is not people ageing, it is poor management of the funds, plain and simple.
Fully support this. I've always worked for my living, always will.
I don't expect the state to pick it up anything for me. With good financial planning anyone could have the same attitude.
Now people are suggesting that the LGPS is raided to build homes... You just know it'd end up being a disaster somehow though. BBC News - Pension funds could finance new homes, report suggests
Have to say, my nan still works now in a charity shop in Germany. At 65, after 25 years with the private sector she was forced to retire, and before that she spent 24 years working as a "maid" and worked her way up for the Bundeskanzleramt (Chancellory building). She worked her way up from Maid to lady in charge of all maids and cleaners of the Bundeskanzleramt, and then moved into the banking sector in Osnabruck then Berlin. In all of her time, she saved, and her logic was, it was better for her to save, than the government to save for her, so she knew how much she had, rather than be dictated to and told how much she must have.
She is now 78, and she spent the last 13 years working in charity shops because it gets her out of the house, maintains her independence, allows her to socialise with "work friends" and allows her time away from the house. Every old person I know wants to be productive, and I say let them, but not at the expense of their pension being held to ransom!