ChatterBank1 min ago
It's My Birthday On Monday. And I'm Bl00Dy Annoyed..........
39 Answers
............because I should be retiring. However, because the govt changed the rules last year, my wife should have also retired at the same time and now has to wait a further 3 years, so that's all my plans up the swanee! We made all our plans, then along comes Chopper Cameron.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by 10ClarionSt. 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.
Living longer is not a problem for pensions. No matter the demographics, at all times some will be employed and adding wealth to the country's coffers, others will be unemployed and in need of funding. It is irrelevant to the finances if the young are on welfare or if the old are on a pension. It is six of one and half a dozen of the other.
Morally though, those who have contributed ought to be allowed to make way for youth, whilst those who have not yet contributed should be given every opportunity to find employment. Withholding the state pension for years achieves the exact opposite.
The only reason I can think of for politicians to con everyone like this, by always considering the pension in isolation, is that they must hope folk will get fed up of the abuse and some will fund their own pension for a few years, effectively making a "voluntary" contribution to the State coffers.
It's a disgusting way to treat citizens and long term tax payers, and 10ClarionSt has every right to be Bl00Dy Annoyed.
Maybe there'll be a 'taxpayers rights' party standing at the next election. Never know your luck.
Morally though, those who have contributed ought to be allowed to make way for youth, whilst those who have not yet contributed should be given every opportunity to find employment. Withholding the state pension for years achieves the exact opposite.
The only reason I can think of for politicians to con everyone like this, by always considering the pension in isolation, is that they must hope folk will get fed up of the abuse and some will fund their own pension for a few years, effectively making a "voluntary" contribution to the State coffers.
It's a disgusting way to treat citizens and long term tax payers, and 10ClarionSt has every right to be Bl00Dy Annoyed.
Maybe there'll be a 'taxpayers rights' party standing at the next election. Never know your luck.
I never understood why the retirement age for women used to be 60 when it was 65 for men, especially as woman tend to live quite a few years longer than men. The bullet should have bitten at least 10 years earlier regarding increasing retirement ages, I feel. However I can also see that by older people working longer it may be reducing job chances for younger workers
I partly agree with you, VHG but not fully.
Do you feel people should be forced to leave work at 60/65 so that unemployed people can be accommodated into work? I think some old people would resent being forced to retire. I can see a case for giving more choice though.
I have skills that a young worker probably won't have and fulfill a role my employer finds difficult to fill. I will probably reduce my working week to one or two days a week at some stage (using my employer pension to support me) but carry on working longer until I get the state pension. That still leaves work for someone 3-4 days a week if they can develop the skills.
Do you feel people should be forced to leave work at 60/65 so that unemployed people can be accommodated into work? I think some old people would resent being forced to retire. I can see a case for giving more choice though.
I have skills that a young worker probably won't have and fulfill a role my employer finds difficult to fill. I will probably reduce my working week to one or two days a week at some stage (using my employer pension to support me) but carry on working longer until I get the state pension. That still leaves work for someone 3-4 days a week if they can develop the skills.
If you are like me and you pension plans depend on either an inherited pension right from a spouse or civil partner and or work spells when you paid a small stamp in the expectation of claiming on your partners payments, there is now initial guidance out on how this will be administered.
https:/
a warning, it takes some reading!!
https:/
a warning, it takes some reading!!
Hi factor,
Whilst loath to give government such control that they can demand a person retires when there is no reason except for age to do so, I still think there should be encouragement to do the right thing and not coercion to allow oneself to be flogged to death whilst others laze. Perhaps, and it's just a suggestion, not starting pension payments until full time employment has ceased maybe ? I'm sure the adjustments necessary to get this right are more than one can sort out during the course of typing a post though.
In any case I think it reasonable that an employer set a retirement age at the time of first offering the contract, in which case it would be the exception one negotiated an extension. Contracts tend to be for a limited time anyway. And age is simply one way of achieving an end point.
If you have skill a young worker probably won't have then 2 things occur to me. First, such removal of skill at one end and the need to train skill at the other is a natural process and should be accepted rather than trying in vain to prevent. And also it should be the responsibly of the company you work for to ensure you train others as the years go, by so there is no sudden crisis of skill shortage. It is bad management to neglect this. It ought not be an issue.
I'm sure a fair arrangement where there is a period of part time work can work out as long as employee and employer are in favour. But maybe this should start before the agreed retirement age ?
Whilst loath to give government such control that they can demand a person retires when there is no reason except for age to do so, I still think there should be encouragement to do the right thing and not coercion to allow oneself to be flogged to death whilst others laze. Perhaps, and it's just a suggestion, not starting pension payments until full time employment has ceased maybe ? I'm sure the adjustments necessary to get this right are more than one can sort out during the course of typing a post though.
In any case I think it reasonable that an employer set a retirement age at the time of first offering the contract, in which case it would be the exception one negotiated an extension. Contracts tend to be for a limited time anyway. And age is simply one way of achieving an end point.
If you have skill a young worker probably won't have then 2 things occur to me. First, such removal of skill at one end and the need to train skill at the other is a natural process and should be accepted rather than trying in vain to prevent. And also it should be the responsibly of the company you work for to ensure you train others as the years go, by so there is no sudden crisis of skill shortage. It is bad management to neglect this. It ought not be an issue.
I'm sure a fair arrangement where there is a period of part time work can work out as long as employee and employer are in favour. But maybe this should start before the agreed retirement age ?
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles3 mins ago
Iphone To Android Adapter - Not For...
Technology11 mins ago
Crosswords13 mins ago
ChatterBank15 mins ago
ChatterBank26 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.