Retirement Age being scrapped

[SYNACK]

I can say 'I think there is a secret race of people that live on a planet 2 trillion light years from here'

 

Shhhh, its supposed to be a secret...

[teejay]

Funny that you accuse me of ageism when the entire premise of the OP is based on ageism.

 

No it's not. The post is about the retirement age being removed, would you say it's ageist if I didn't agree with the minimum working age being removed as I don't believe 5 year olds should be working?

 

Within the working ages limits, I have no qualms about what age the person is, it's whoever is best for the job. What I am querying is whether this upper age limit should be removed, I personally don't think it should.

[ZeroHour]

I tbh can feel the pain for employers due to this reversal. I think a middle ground needs to be found but needs to be a way to encourage some in/out of jobs.

I am not saying people 65 years old and a day are worthless, far from it but the problem with blanket rules/non rules is there a lack of common sense.I know someone for example runs a construction firm and he has employee's who are far less capable due to age but since they have been employed for years, in times of rescission he has had to use a last in first out policy to deal with redundancies otherwise he fears being taken to court for ageism. He couldnt apply common sense of who was fully fit for the job as the older employees, although slower and struggling more with construction (I am trying to be as PC as possible ) had been there longer and would attempt to sue for ageism. Before this reversal he at least had a way to clear the way for new employees at a certain point without huge bills. Now though at 65 he will have to offer a golden handshake or the likes to clear the way for newer, faster employees who are more capable of the job or hire new staff and keep staff on he cant use.

I just think better approach should be taken which applies common sense to the entitlement to work in your specific job when over 65 (fit for task) if not in general tbh. If your working on a PC you can be as agile as a 25 year old but when it comes to moving bricks and mortar I think no one could say the average 65 year old would be better suited (not to say *exceptions* dont occur)

[jamesb]

No it's not. The post is about the retirement age being removed, would you say it's ageist if I didn't agree with the minimum working age being removed as I don't believe 5 year olds should be working?

 

Within the working ages limits, I have no qualms about what age the person is, it's whoever is best for the job. What I am querying is whether this upper age limit should be removed, I personally don't think it should.

 

The problem comes in with average lifespan increasing, since each year someone lives after retirement they are using money without generating it. In most cases that's a pension, which then becomes a zero-sum game, which works for everyone. As life expectancies rise though the amount people put aside will not increase proportionally, as they will be spending a greater amount of time in retirement.

 

So if someone lives to be 105, and starts their pension at 25, they then work for forty years. If they want a reasonable pension they then need to put away enough to provide them support for another forty years. Not an easy task.

 

There are other considerations as well. Working later in life has been correlated with reducing or delaying dementia, and any reduction here would save a lot (not only money but suffering). Many people do want to continue working after retirement as well.

 

I'm unsure whether I agree or disagree with the idea, just wanted to put forward a few more arguments on the matter.

[gizmo2005]

one of the onlya ways i could see this working is bringing back service for your country, that way the younger people get experiance and taught a trade and the elderly people get to continue working, we will be adding value to the country.

[localzuk]

one of the onlya ways i could see this working is bringing back service for your country, that way the younger people get experiance and taught a trade and the elderly people get to continue working, we will be adding value to the country.

 

Define service for your country.

[gizmo2005]

Define service for your country.

 

military or even into the health service!!!! they do this in different countrys and it works well!!!

[DrCheese]

I don't see why I should have been forced to put my career on hold to be forced into national service. You can't proclaim to live in a free society if your forced past adult age to do something you don't want to do.

It should be optional, if you can't get a job within X time on benefits then it's suggested you sign up for it.

[ZeroHour]

I don't see why I should have been forced to put my career on hold to be forced into national service. You can't proclaim to live in a free society if your forced past adult age to do something you don't want to do.

It should be optional.

 

But imagine if they made service for over 65's, that could be rather logans run if you were sent to Afghanistan

[jamesb]

Define service for your country.

 

Isn't it normally defined as national service?

 

In which case you've got a potential method of population control rolled in.

 

I'm very much against the idea of national service myself - largely because I want to minimize in all ways my chances of getting shot, blown up or poisoned. I also don't like being shouted at by people who can order me to be shot, blown up, etc.

 

Now some paid work creation schemes (we could do with more cycle tracks, and a few of the Sustrans tracks were built this way) might be a more effective option. Not compulsory work as such, but a bonus to basic benefits applied to those who can demonstrate a willingness to contribute in return.

[gizmo2005]

maybe but if we were brought up being told that when we reach 16 we either go into national service or care. we would not known any different would we lets be honest if society had seen this coming this could have been implemented years ago, its only a opinion DrChees were all entitled to say what we think would be a good idea

[jamesb]

military or even into the health service!!!! they do this in different countrys and it works well!!!

 

No. I have no interest in being any sort of miliary official, and no interest in working in the health service. Nor for that matter do I want anyone in the health service who may hold my life in my hands who is not there willingly.

 

Maybe if soldiers were paid a better wage more people would choose to go into military service, but forcing people to do so is immoral.

[gizmo2005]

ok but the point is if the country don't do anything then the young are gunna be unemployed and the eldery are going to still be emloyed, there has to be a change somewhere!!!!

[jamesb]

ok but the point is if the country don't do anything then the young are gunna be unemployed and the eldery are going to still be emloyed, there has to be a change somewhere!!!!

 

Not necessarily. Entry level jobs are less likely to appeal to experienced older people who are unwilling to work their way back up from square one, so they'll be available. The way that advancement beyond that point happens would change, but people in the main are still going to want to retire from work when they can.

 

There seems to be an assumption that removing the retirement age would automatically mean no one ever again left their job. Some people already work on past retirement, some retire early, and some retire at the retirement age. You may even find that the actual numbers involved would barely change, it just expands people's options and changes the expectations on them.

[gizmo2005]

cant really argue with that one jamesb :getmecoat:

[torledo]

A good argument for means testing the state pension me thinks.

 

In general I agree with this move. It should be up to the individual to choose when they wish to retire and not the state/company to push them out the door and on to the scrape heap because they have reached a predetermined age that lets face is actually quiet young now given modern life expectancies.

 

Also, given modern life expectancies I don't think it's that outragous that the state pension age is put up either. I think men and women should have the same state pension age and that is probably around 70 years. That and means testing will save the country a few £££'s towards the old deficit and do so in a much farer way than raising VAT. (IMHO )

 

there's already means testing in the form of the pension credit, which effectively 'tops-up' the basic state pension. what they should do is extend the means testing to things like the winter fuel allowance. it's a nonsense to pay it to every pensioner above a certain age, regardless of income/savings/assets.

 

a universal state pension should stay, and the condems have restored the link with earnings. But in all honesty, i don't think the current generation approaching retirement, 55-65....are at all in bad financial shape. Inspite of any inter-generational wealth transfer.

 

It's not as if they don't have a mountain of housing equity, and there does exist pension credit for those without the full salary or private pension or BTL empire ;0)....all in all for most, state pension and means tested benefits isn't that bad as a basic level of income. Plus, on pension credit mortgage interest relief was until recently paid at 6.08%!!! benefiting tens of thousands of pensioners who bizarrely still have a mortgage, despite 15 years of house price inflation. must be all that MEW! and the wealth transfer i mentioned above.

Edited July 29, 2010 by torledo

[broc]

Means testing is fine in theory, but for benefits such as winter fuel allowance it would probably cost more to administer than the savings that might be made.

 

Also, don't forget that many 'baby-boomers' may be 'asset-rich' but remain 'cash-poor', having spent years putting all their money into house purchase & raising a family & making sacrifices along the way. My children where teenagers before we could afford to take them on a foreign holiday.

 

Selling the family home may release asset value, but you still need somewhere to live.... how would it be if baby-boomers sold their big expensive family homes & bought up starter homes, driving up the prices of these?

[Andrew_C]

I've come to this one late, excuse me if it has been covered already.

 

We are facing a demographic crisis, and not just the UK. The baby boom is long over, and those babies are nearing retirement. There are not enough kids being born today to support tomorrows ageing population. If those ageing continue to work, and if we continue to attract economic migrants, that stress on the economy will be lessened.

 

There are many conflicting pressures on the economy (broadest sense) and I suspect it will only become apparent with hindsight which pressure was the greatest.

[tmcd35]

Means testing is fine in theory, but for benefits such as winter fuel allowance it would probably cost more to administer than the savings that might be made.

 

I think you do have a point there, but I can't help thinking that if the benefits system was simplified then that might off-set some of the cost of administering means-testing. If there was a single means tested saftey net pension paid at a livable wage then their shouldn't really be any need for winter fuel allowances or means testing these extra allowances.

 

Selling the family home may release asset value, but you still need somewhere to live.... how would it be if baby-boomers sold their big expensive family homes & bought up starter homes, driving up the prices of these?

 

I do understand that people work all their lives to buy their homes and want something to leave to their family when they are gone, but I also think that the welfare state should be a saftey net and not a god given right. If I was to find myself in an asset-rich cash-poor situation when I come to retire then I'd feel morally bound to free up some of those assets before going cap in hand to the state. There are schemes that free up to 75% of the value of your home once you retire and let you live their rent free. Of course it does mean that you have no house to leave to your kids when you die.

[broc]

I think you do have a point there, but I can't help thinking that if the benefits system was simplified then that might off-set some of the cost of administering means-testing. If there was a single means tested saftey net pension paid at a livable wage then their shouldn't really be any need for winter fuel allowances or means testing these extra allowances.

There already is, it is part of the taxation system. If your income exceeds your personal allowance you pay tax...... even as a pensioner.....

[Andrew_C]

If I was to find myself in an asset-rich cash-poor situation when I come to retire then I'd feel morally bound to free up some of those assets before going cap in hand to the state.

My folks are retired now, and have a fair sized house (when the grand kids were smaller, we did squeeze 14 in, I slept under the dinning table), both drawing occupational and state pensions. If they were to down size, they couldn't have the family to stay. Is really what you'd do in their place? I suspect that your (and my) perspective will evolve as we near the age when we (might) draw a pension if there is anything left!

[tmcd35]

There already is, it is part of the taxation system. If your income exceeds your personal allowance you pay tax...... even as a pensioner.....

 

I'm having a "Tim nice but dim" moment - I'm not sure I'm following you here.

 

I can't see the relationship between the personal income tax allowance, the basic state pension which everyone gets after state pension age, and the winter fuel allowance.

 

What I'm saying is that the basic state pension should only be paid to those that really need it, and it should be for an amount that covers the winter fuel allowance with that being a seperate applied for benefit.

[tmcd35]

My folks are retired now, and have a fair sized house (when the grand kids were smaller, we did squeeze 14 in, I slept under the dinning table), both drawing occupational and state pensions. If they were to down size, they couldn't have the family to stay. Is really what you'd do in their place? I suspect that your (and my) perspective will evolve as we near the age when we (might) draw a pension if there is anything left!

 

I'm sure you are right, by the time I'm due to reture my opinions my well shift. But right now I still don't see it has fair placing an extra burden on society because I made the wrong financial choices. If I put all my money into buying my home and none into a pension pot that could make living their affordable then why should society has a whole bail me out? I have money tied up in the home I bought I should releae some of it to pay my way.

 

If life throws some duff cards my way and I couldn't afford to build a pension pot and I loose my home - well that's what the safety net of the welfare state is for, to stop people - especially pensioners - from having to live and beg on the streets.

 

But, like I say, that is just my POV

[torledo]

Means testing is fine in theory, but for benefits such as winter fuel allowance it would probably cost more to administer than the savings that might be made.

 

quite possibly. but i don't look at means testing of benefits purely from a cost-vs-savings point of view. it's a question of fairness, that is ultimately what benefits and taxes are about. And means testing, when done properly.

 

Also, don't forget that many 'baby-boomers' may be 'asset-rich' but remain 'cash-poor', having spent years putting all their money into house purchase & raising a family & making sacrifices along the way. My children where teenagers before we could afford to take them on a foreign holiday.

 

that's why i acknowledged the intergenerational wealth transfer. Or housing equity recycling in the case of boomers helping their children onto the housing ladder.

 

Selling the family home may release asset value, but you still need somewhere to live.... how would it be if baby-boomers sold their big expensive family homes & bought up starter homes, driving up the prices of these?

 

that sounds like a plan. There's a real dearth of quality 3/4-bed family homes in my area, a few more boomers 'downsizing' to put such properties on the market would be very good for the local market...what's the alternative ? Next to zero family homes within existing communities are being newly built, and i bet that situation is replicated in many areas.

 

they'd be ideal houses for young families looking for an extra bedroom and decent sized gardens for young kids to play in. I'd rather that outcome than having one retirement age for asset rich boomers today, a higher age for when later generations retire and in the meantime more fuel allowances, state funded care at home, mortgage interest payments or whatever public funded bright ideas are dreampt up next for the current near-retirees. But you can bet won't be anywhere near as generous for future retirees.

 

I don't want to pay for all this via a loss in my standard of living today via high house prices, grey ceiling at work etc. and in the future via higher taxes and more years in work. why on earth shouldn't these properties fund such retirement expenses [beyond a basic state provided level of income/care], while they still have these inflated values ?

[broc]

I'm having a "Tim nice but dim" moment - I'm not sure I'm following you here.

 

I can't see the relationship between the personal income tax allowance, the basic state pension which everyone gets after state pension age, and the winter fuel allowance.

 

What I'm saying is that the basic state pension should only be paid to those that really need it, and it should be for an amount that covers the winter fuel allowance with that being a seperate applied for benefit.

 

People pay into the 'system' based upon their earnings to fund their retirement. If they are fortunate enough to work all their 'working' life they pay into the system all their life.... the state funds these payments for unemployed people when they claim unemployment benefits.

 

When people retire, they receive universal benefits which are taxable along with any other income they have from savings, pension income from employment etc. Many pensioners don't claim all they are entitled to, sometimes because they are ignorant of their entitlement, sometimes it's pride... but at least universal benefits payable to all ensures that the money reaches people that need it most & the Govt can claw back some of it that is paid to wealthy people who don't need it via taxation

 

Things like housing benefit, council tax relief etc are means tested already.