Quizzes & Puzzles1 min ago
Retirement Age
If 50% of babies born today are destined to reach 100 what should the retirement
age be set at?
age be set at?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by rov1200. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
It’s a fine theory, jake, and one that is often pedalled by those eager to see this country absorb even more numbers. But it does not stand up to even the simplest scrutiny.
It may well appear to be the answer to our prayers. But alas, even the “keen young settlers” whom you cite as being desirable eventually get old, and even if they do not live to be one hundred they will require funding in their dotage. So we will be in the same position as we are now, but with an even larger, ageing population. Therefore we will need to ship in some more “keen young settlers” to fund the first lot. They also get old, etc. etc (probably living longer than the first lot). I’m sure you get my drift.
In short the strategy is unsustainable even now, and will be even more so if the population is allowed to grow either via the birth rate or through immigration.
The answer to the problem is threefold:
1. Reduce the population by halting immigration and encouraging people to have fewer children.
2. Ensure that people make provision for their own retirement via properly funded private or State pension systems. (The current State system is not properly funded). The private funds should not be plundered by government to fund those who have made no provision for themselves.
3. Ensure that those already here do some useful work (and hence stand a chance of funding their own retirements) before shipping in more labour to do the tasks that the settled population “will not” do (because they are more comfortable sitting at home or in the pub or in the bookies).
It may well appear to be the answer to our prayers. But alas, even the “keen young settlers” whom you cite as being desirable eventually get old, and even if they do not live to be one hundred they will require funding in their dotage. So we will be in the same position as we are now, but with an even larger, ageing population. Therefore we will need to ship in some more “keen young settlers” to fund the first lot. They also get old, etc. etc (probably living longer than the first lot). I’m sure you get my drift.
In short the strategy is unsustainable even now, and will be even more so if the population is allowed to grow either via the birth rate or through immigration.
The answer to the problem is threefold:
1. Reduce the population by halting immigration and encouraging people to have fewer children.
2. Ensure that people make provision for their own retirement via properly funded private or State pension systems. (The current State system is not properly funded). The private funds should not be plundered by government to fund those who have made no provision for themselves.
3. Ensure that those already here do some useful work (and hence stand a chance of funding their own retirements) before shipping in more labour to do the tasks that the settled population “will not” do (because they are more comfortable sitting at home or in the pub or in the bookies).
""3. Ensure that those already here do some useful work before shipping in more labour to do the tasks that the settled population “will not” do""
Immigration should not be used to fill unwanted positions. In the Times today it was reported that Japan's workforce includes over a quarter of million ROBOTS. This is bound to increase here.
Immigration should not be used to fill unwanted positions. In the Times today it was reported that Japan's workforce includes over a quarter of million ROBOTS. This is bound to increase here.
It doesn't make sense to reduce the number of years contributions you have to make in order to get a full state pension
A person retiring this year this year or in previous years had to have 44 years of contributions, paid or credited to get the full pension, from next year they will only need 30, 14 years not paying into the system to get the same pension, Why?
A person retiring this year this year or in previous years had to have 44 years of contributions, paid or credited to get the full pension, from next year they will only need 30, 14 years not paying into the system to get the same pension, Why?
Because, sandbach, as I said earlier, the State pension scheme is not properly funded.
The reduction to 30 qualifying years is being made principally to increase the pensions of women who gave up work to raise children or those who paid the much reduced “married woman’s” NI contribution. (Many who opted for this suggest that the pension implications of paying a reduced rate were not explained to them, but most of them are being economical with the truth). Many of these women will now have “qualifying years” (during which they made no contributions) added under the “Home Responsibilities Protection” scheme.
Apart from the 39/44 or 30 year rule there is no link between contributions made and benefits drawn. As an illustration, a worker earning £10k in this current year would pay £470 NI. One earning £50k would pay £4,260. One earning nothing and living on benefits would pay nothing.
Despite one paying in ten times that of the other (whilst earning only five times as much) all of the above will ultimately receive the same basic state pension at retirement age (in the case of the last hapless soul it may be termed “pension credit”, but what’s in a name?)
If any future government of any persuasion is to tackle the State pension problem it needs to establish a link between money paid in and money paid out, and invest the funds on behalf of the contributors so that it grows to meet their retirement needs. At present it is “invested” in large numbers of people who have paid in little or nothing.
Lastly, you cannot, of course, draw your pension after contributing for the minimum period (at, say, 48) and most people will continue to contribute for up to 20 years with no further accumulation of benefits.
The entire system is an unmitigated dog’s breakfast which, among its many faults, f
The reduction to 30 qualifying years is being made principally to increase the pensions of women who gave up work to raise children or those who paid the much reduced “married woman’s” NI contribution. (Many who opted for this suggest that the pension implications of paying a reduced rate were not explained to them, but most of them are being economical with the truth). Many of these women will now have “qualifying years” (during which they made no contributions) added under the “Home Responsibilities Protection” scheme.
Apart from the 39/44 or 30 year rule there is no link between contributions made and benefits drawn. As an illustration, a worker earning £10k in this current year would pay £470 NI. One earning £50k would pay £4,260. One earning nothing and living on benefits would pay nothing.
Despite one paying in ten times that of the other (whilst earning only five times as much) all of the above will ultimately receive the same basic state pension at retirement age (in the case of the last hapless soul it may be termed “pension credit”, but what’s in a name?)
If any future government of any persuasion is to tackle the State pension problem it needs to establish a link between money paid in and money paid out, and invest the funds on behalf of the contributors so that it grows to meet their retirement needs. At present it is “invested” in large numbers of people who have paid in little or nothing.
Lastly, you cannot, of course, draw your pension after contributing for the minimum period (at, say, 48) and most people will continue to contribute for up to 20 years with no further accumulation of benefits.
The entire system is an unmitigated dog’s breakfast which, among its many faults, f
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles5 mins ago
Crosswords11 mins ago
Crosswords21 mins ago
ChatterBank81 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles90 mins ago
