Jump to content
  • Sign up for free and receive a month's subscription

    You are viewing this page as a guest. That means you are either a member who has not logged in, or you have not yet registered with us. Signing up for an account only takes a minute and it means you will no longer see this annoying box! It will also allow you to get involved with our friendly(ish!) community and take part in the discussions on our forums. And because we're feeling generous, if you sign up for a free account we will give you a month's free trial access to our subscriber only content with no obligation to commit. Register an account and then send a private message to @dave u and he'll hook you up with a subscription.

Pensionable Age


JohnnyH
 Share

Recommended Posts

Some of you will have noticed the rather pleasant and restrained conversations been had on the “Strike” thread about the upcoming teachers strike. I was going to start this conversation there, but decided against it as there was too much going on there at the moment.

 

I had a look at that PCS website that was linked there, and while I appreciate that they will very much be coming from one side of the debate, it was still quite interesting.

 

One thing that did take my attention was that the current age of retirement for a teacher is 60. Part of the pension reform seems to be moving this to 65 initially with a long term plan of moving it to 68.

 

Now I am not looking for a discussion on whether or not his is what is actually planned, or if some teachers are already going to be working to 65. What I am wondering is people’s opinions on the pensionable age in general.

 

I’m in the private sector and the pension I pay into pays out when I turn 65. Retiring at 60 is not an option. I have already considered whether or not I should, like my father had to who was also private sector, work beyond 65. My dad worked until he was 71 due to a financial clown (now well known in Irish TV circles) losing his pension. He didn’t want to do that, but such is life.

 

In the private sector, 65 seems to have been the standard for retirement for many years. However, people are living a hell of a lot longer now and state pensions are having to pay out for a lot longer then even 20 years ago. So with state pensions should the age of retirement be pushed out across the board to a minimum of 65 with a consideration towards 68?

 

What’s the view?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that the retirement age should be firstly increased to 68 and then to 70 after a few years.

 

My reason for saying this is not only are people living longer as you have said, but people are also healthier in old age as they eat better and people smoke less, so therefore there are less respiratory illnesses.

 

It will benefit the economy if people are working longer until retirement, and surely it can be good for the individual as it keeps them active and on the move.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is the cause of many a debate in our house. My bloke is due to retire at 55 (if he's not dead by then), having worked about a million hours a week since he graduated. I can't see the point of killing yourself and having no life for 35 years just to retire early. He wants me to retire when he does (I'll be 45), and is coming up with grand plans to pay almost everything I earn into a pension for the next 10 years to make this possible.

 

I have absolutely no wish to retire at 45. I want to keep working for as long as I can. I'm sure I'll be the type of person who retires and is dead within a year. On the flip side, I look at my own Mum who is 59 and has diabetes/high blood pressure and other ailments. She doesn't work through ill health, and there's no way she could work till she's 68.

 

I suppose in an ideal world, I'd like to work full-time until I'm about 60, and then part-time for as long as I'm able.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some of you will have noticed the rather pleasant and restrained conversations been had on the “Strike” thread about the upcoming teachers strike. I was going to start this conversation there, but decided against it as there was too much going on there at the moment.

 

I had a look at that PCS website that was linked there, and while I appreciate that they will very much be coming from one side of the debate, it was still quite interesting.

 

One thing that did take my attention was that the current age of retirement for a teacher is 60. Part of the pension reform seems to be moving this to 65 initially with a long term plan of moving it to 68.

 

Now I am not looking for a discussion on whether or not his is what is actually planned, or if some teachers are already going to be working to 65. What I am wondering is people’s opinions on the pensionable age in general.

 

I’m in the private sector and the pension I pay into pays out when I turn 65. Retiring at 60 is not an option. I have already considered whether or not I should, like my father had to who was also private sector, work beyond 65. My dad worked until he was 71 due to a financial clown (now well known in Irish TV circles) losing his pension. He didn’t want to do that, but such is life.

 

In the private sector, 65 seems to have been the standard for retirement for many years. However, people are living a hell of a lot longer now and state pensions are having to pay out for a lot longer then even 20 years ago. So with state pensions should the age of retirement be pushed out across the board to a minimum of 65 with a consideration towards 68?

 

What’s the view?

 

Haven't got time to type out a big response now Johnny, but there are a few professions where a 68 year old person simply couldn't do it. 66 year old fireman? 65 year old policeman?

 

Whilst there will be some who are fit at this age, I know quite a few people in their 60's who would really struggle doing a job like that. Of course, they could do desk jobs, paperwork and the like, but after working for the government for years they are likely to be on a larger wage for doing these types of jobs than a new employee would be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I want to keep working for as long as I can.

 

I suppose in an ideal world, I'd like to work full-time until I'm about 60, and then part-time for as long as I'm able.

 

Pretty much sums it up for me too. I can't ever see myself not working (once i reach the ob i want to be in) Once i've hit what ever the retirement age is and i'm sidelined I'd still work, just in a voluntary capacity.

 

A woman who was of great inspiration for me worked all her life as a midwife, when the job became to physically demanding she went into teaching, retiring and went on to volunteering within the maternity field, this woman will still pick up her home phone in a voluntary role and because of that i know many families are still in one piece as a result.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Haven't got time to type out a big response now Johnny, but there are a few professions where a 68 year old person simply couldn't do it. 66 year old fireman? 65 year old policeman?

 

Whilst there will be some who are fit at this age, I know quite a few people in their 60's who would really struggle doing a job like that. Of course, they could do desk jobs, paperwork and the like, but after working for the government for years they are likely to be on a larger wage for doing these types of jobs than a new employee would be.

 

Absolutely. I am using board brush strokes. I don’t want to see some septuagenarian with a zimmer frame trying to hobble after some hoody with a can of special brew he’s just robbed, or trying to shimmy up a ladder to save a cat from a burning tree.

 

I mean this very much in the general sense. For the people currently scheduled to retire at 60 who would still be fit and healthy and in the same shape when they are 65 or 70 (I think of my father who is almost 80 and plays 18 holes of golf 5 days a week and has a mind sharp as a tack.) should these ages be re-thought?

 

As others have said, I’d hate to retire at 55. I’d be bored out of my mind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some account also needs to be taken of these rising life expectancies not effecting everyone equally. People in physical, or even just poorly paying jobs have a much lower life expectancy. I think 65 is probably an okay average (not including those who have physically strenuous jobs, and other similar exceptions). I'm not sure it really is necessary to look at raising it above that yet. Our population may be aging, but the amount of work that is done by the average person has sky-rocketed due to technological advances, especially since the advent of first the computer, then the internet. So perhaps the workers should share these benefits with their employers by being able to have something of a retirement.

 

I'm not sure I get the public vs private row - the private sector is amoral, nowt wrong with that it's supposed to be. The only way to ensure that they treat the employees decently is by making them do so. The public sector should not be looking to emulate the private sector, rather it should be a beacon of good employment practices, that forces the private sector to follow suit. Current arguments about the gap between public and private sector pensions should be highlighting the poor provision that is being made, and bring in some stronger rules.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure I get the public vs private row - the private sector is amoral, nowt wrong with that it's supposed to be. The only way to ensure that they treat the employees decently is by making them do so. The public sector should not be looking to emulate the private sector, rather it should be a beacon of good employment practices, that forces the private sector to follow suit. Current arguments about the gap between public and private sector pensions should be highlighting the poor provision that is being made, and bring in some stronger rules.

 

we're being told the private sector should have pensions on par with the public sector and clearly that would be the ideal but its not feasible is it?

 

playing devil's advocate, would those in the public sector accept some changes in their pensions if the changes meant that those in the private sector with shitty pension entitlements got improvements to their terms?

 

not going to happen is it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

we're being told the private sector should have pensions on par with the public sector and clearly that would be the ideal but its not feasible is it?

 

playing devil's advocate, would those in the public sector accept some changes in their pensions if the changes meant that those in the private sector with shitty pension entitlements got improvements to their terms?

 

not going to happen is it?

 

Why not? The public sector pensions aren't the wonders that they have been painted. The average public sector pensioner isn't out drinking champagne and eating cavier every night. They are managing. That isn't too much to ask, a dignified retirement where we don't expect our elderly to live in poverty. The same can and should be applied to all employers, and can be done so by law.

 

There was much talk of the minimum wage being unaffordable before it was implemented. Before rules coming in making them, a huge number of employers didn't pay into a pension at all for their poorer employees.

 

As for public sector workers taking a lower pension to provide for the private sector, that doesn't make sense any more than the private sector taking cuts in pension to provide for the public sector. The pensions don't compete with each other. If the anti-union laws were revoked, I'm sure they would be prepared to come out in solidarity for you if you were fighting for better pensions with your employer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From when I started work in 1970 we were always told to "put a bit away for your retirement". So I did, as soon as I could afford it. This wasn't until after the Thatcher years when I didn't know from one weeks end to the next whether i'd be made redundant (I worked in electrical contracting at the time). I did 15 years at a local foods manufacturers and they had a cracking pension scheme, final salary, until they took a holiday and after about 7 years announced there was a black hole and they were closing the scheme to new members, luckily for me I got out and ended up with the pension frozen and I joined a bigger firm with an even better final salary pension, and yes, they are closing the scheme for a money purchase from January so i'll have 6 years there frozen and the remaining 10 years or so, until i'm 65 to accrue as much as I can in the money purchase scheme. I won't have a fortune to live on when I retire, and now my missus, who joined the public sector around 10 years ago, is trying to stop having her pension affected by the government.

By the time she retires she'll have put in 50 years of work, from 16 to 66 as it will be, and both of us have had our pension dreams shattered whether private or public sector.

We'll still be better off than some, but I guess the moral is this, no fucker who's been trusted with our investment has prepared for this properly, hence we all suffer, while the VP at the wife's place will walk away in his retirement with about £100k a year and our Chairman pocketed £1.6M bonus last year so he won't be short when he retires either. And you can bet that those who serve us in government, regardless of political persuasion will also be in clover.Thems the breaks folks and there's really fuck all we can do about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm semi retired already, having worked in the NHS. I planned to work in the private sector, earning the same money for less hours. It worked for the first 12/18 months and then we had a general election. My plan was to work a reduced number of hours until my state pension kick in, then just work a couple of days a week; thinking that I would go daft at home.

 

Since Christmas I've had very little work, not good financially, but I have to say I could get used to it other than that. Last year I earned more than I planned; and also put some aside for tax. I've been living off that for months, topped up by the bit of work that has come along.

 

During my working life I've been forced to contribute to at least three government supplementary pension schemes, which have then been shut down and scrapped; with no refund.

 

The main problem as I see it, is that the welfare state was set up wrong, doomed to fail from day one. They took money from peoples wages that first payday, and payed it out the following week. It depends entirely on the contributors out numbering the claimants, that hasn't happened for decades. The welfare state is like communism, a great theory; until you factor human beings into it. Within a generation freeloaders had found the cracks in the system and were abusing it.

 

If on that first day of the welfare state, the money had been taken out of your wage, and put aside for you; it would not have been an instant fix, but it would have been sustainable; assuming the money was managed properly.

 

The frustrating part for my age group, is that we've paid our way, and now that money is being used to supplement other areas, wars that have nothing to do with us, foreign aid that we can't afford without dipping into the pension fund, asylum seekers who've broken every rule put in place for their well being just to live off our generosity. A program last week showed refugees from north Africa trying to come ashore in Italy, they were only allowed in because they promised to keep going to the UK. The rules for asylum seekers quite clearly state you must go to the nearest safe place to your home, not keep going to your destination of choice.

 

I have no problem helping the next guy in his time of trouble, if and when his problems are real, and not of his own making. Also we need to be in a position to help; which at present we're not. We gave billions to India last year and parliament voted to do the same next year. During that time India will spend 3 billion on space research. They will also pay America 4.5 billion for Nimrod type aircraft. aircraft we can't afford apparently. If that makes sense to you, good for you, because I'm fucked if I can find any.

 

The problems that arise from people living longer are simply being used as an excuse for gross mismanagement at the highest levels. Why should I wait for or maybe even do without my pension, when the money is being paid in bonuses to some cunt in a bank who obviously couldn't run a piss up in a brewery.

 

Rant over!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I'm still working at 65 something has gone drastically wrong. No way do I want to be working then.

Life is for enjoying, I want to be able to enjoy retirement in good health for as long as possible. If the powers that be had their way they'd have us grafting while we were stinking of piss and shitting ourselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do think it's unfair that men will have to retire at the same age as women. Obviously women should work longer, because they're always bleating about how they should be treated as equals, about how they can multitask and do any job as well as a man and how they're mentally superior. I reckon they should have to do at least 15 years longer than us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have no problem helping the next guy in his time of trouble, if and when his problems are real, and not of his own making. Also we need to be in a position to help; which at present we're not. We gave billions to India last year and parliament voted to do the same next year. During that time India will spend 3 billion on space research. They will also pay America 4.5 billion for Nimrod type aircraft. aircraft we can't afford apparently. If that makes sense to you, good for you, because I'm fucked if I can find any.

 

This is about using public money for private sector investment in the indian economy for shits and giggles in some vain hope we can piggy back off some success and some rich people can get richer, hidden as AID.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do think it's unfair that men will have to retire at the same age as women. Obviously women should work longer, because they're always bleating about how they should be treated as equals, about how they can multitask and do any job as well as a man and how they're mentally superior. I reckon they should have to do at least 15 years longer than us.

 

Fair do's you didn't mention the time off for maternity ect to be added on at the end of the working life.

 

 

 

 

Are people not bothered by how bored they'll be once they retire? I've got nothing on between now and September other then camping and a couple of festivals. I'm bored off my cake. I'm actually looking forward to the strike tomorrow so i've got the kids with me and we can actually do something.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure I get the public vs private row - the private sector is amoral, nowt wrong with that it's supposed to be. The only way to ensure that they treat the employees decently is by making them do so. The public sector should not be looking to emulate the private sector, rather it should be a beacon of good employment practices, that forces the private sector to follow suit. Current arguments about the gap between public and private sector pensions should be highlighting the poor provision that is being made, and bring in some stronger rules.

 

You can't legislate away an economic problem. Bringing private sector pensions in line with final salary public schemes would require massive wage reductions, redundancies or placing a heavy burden on younger workers through higher contributions. The money simply isn't there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...