State pension goalposts moved again

[anonymous-user]

Yipper said:

fblm said:

Yipper said:

The harsh reality is -- Britain is one of the poorest countries in the Western world...

Not true. Your net national wealth is huge (more than everyone except USA, China and Japan and they have a slight population advantage!). Half the households in the UK don't even have a mortgage. Smile you're rich.

It is completely true. Britain barely scrapes into the upper-quartile of GDP per head PPP on a worldwide ranking. Strip out rich London (<20% of the country) and the UK net wealth figures look much less rosy. Savings ratios are among the lowest in the world. Private debt is among the highest on the planet. Just a quick drive outside the Home Counties will show rows of boarded-up factories / shops, armies of underclass, and grinding poverty (by Western standards) from Northampton to Swansea to Birmingham to Liverpool to Glasgow to Belfast.

For comparison -- if the UK joined the US today, it would immediately be the poorest state in the whole Union. Poorer, even, than sh*tholes like Alabama.

Britain is cash-poor and it just cannot afford big pensions.

It's simply not true. Google net national wealth by country ffs. One of the poorest countries in western europe =/= upper quartile of GDP/head on earth, besides comparing UK gdp/cap to that of Luxembourg and Qatar is pretty daft for obvious reasons. Strip out rich London? Sure now strip out Paris, Munich, Milan.. pointless. Grinding poverty in Northampton? Household debt is high sure but so is income and assets; it's very far from the highest on the planet, nor unmanageable; that is utter nonsense ( https://data.oecd.org/hha/household-debt.htm ). Half of all households in the UK are unmortgaged FFS. Poorer than Alabama? Get a grip! By what measure? Finally pensions; I agree your current public sector pension liabilities are utterly excessive.

[markcoznottz]

Just take one thing , PFI. Massive inflation proofed repayments, there you go we are all poorer going forward. Everything you look at it's bad news.

[NRS]

Mr GrimNasty said:

Wow, I'm sure your bitter prejudiced experience is incredibly representative of real life.

Obviously older people will move into different roles - they won't be plasterers or brickies.

Older people have different softer skills that youngsters simple don't posses.

Just wondering what skills those would be? This is assuming the person is unable to do the job they have been doing earlier due to ill health. So most likely a lot of their skills they have learned are not relevant now in the way they were before. For example someone who has been a brickie their whole life will be better than a younger person at...? If it's softer skills that likely means better at contact with people... but the jobs there are decreasing because of internet shopping, self-checkout tills etc.

(Obviously it's a generalisation, but generally as we age will reduce our ability to keep learning, will forget more, and be less physically able.)

[bloomen]

I fully expect there to be no pension at all when I'm truly ancient and am planning accordingly. It's a ponzi and no ponzi lasts.

[XCP]

NRS said:

Just wondering what skills those would be? This is assuming the person is unable to do the job they have been doing earlier due to ill health. So most likely a lot of their skills they have learned are not relevant now in the way they were before. For example someone who has been a brickie their whole life will be better than a younger person at...? If it's softer skills that likely means better at contact with people... but the jobs there are decreasing because of internet shopping, self-checkout tills etc.

(Obviously it's a generalisation, but generally as we age will reduce our ability to keep learning, will forget more, and be less physically able.)

Turning up on time regularly. Reasonably presentable, able to shine a pair of shoes, and able to hold a civilised conversation. These things go a long way.

[NRS]

XCP said:

NRS said:

Just wondering what skills those would be? This is assuming the person is unable to do the job they have been doing earlier due to ill health. So most likely a lot of their skills they have learned are not relevant now in the way they were before. For example someone who has been a brickie their whole life will be better than a younger person at...? If it's softer skills that likely means better at contact with people... but the jobs there are decreasing because of internet shopping, self-checkout tills etc.

(Obviously it's a generalisation, but generally as we age will reduce our ability to keep learning, will forget more, and be less physically able.)

Turning up on time regularly. Reasonably presentable, able to shine a pair of shoes, and able to hold a civilised conversation. These things go a long way.

That's just doing what you should. And loads of young people do that too. It's just when people are young you have both those who are hopeless and the good ones getting their first job as there is nothing to judge them on previously. With a bit of time it becomes clear who the decent ones are and so the bad ones disappear and don't get proper jobs later (their CV will will show gaps/ lots of moving on as companies don't want to keep them etc). By the time people are older in the work place the bad ones have been sussed and so are not visible in good companies. However even if you do say old people are naturally? better at these things it still doesn't mean they can do that new job...

[eliot]

CoolHands said:

fk me that's good eh? My pension age has just changed from 67 to 68.

s

I've just been made to work an extra year by
only 9 days!

[eliot]

Mr GrimNasty said:

No reason why the average person shouldn't be fit enough to work to 70 or beyond these days, but it depends on them looking after themselves a bit.

Someone better tell the firemen then...

[Johnnytheboy]

To be honest this is fairly minor.

Anyone in their 40s (like me) who expects the State Pension to support them when they get to 68 is in for a rude shock, just one a year later than expected.

[sidicks]

eliot said:

Mr GrimNasty said:

No reason why the average person shouldn't be fit enough to work to 70 or beyond these days, but it depends on them looking after themselves a bit.

Someone better tell the firemen then...

]No reason why the average person shouldn't be fit enough to work to 70 or beyond these days, but it might entail a change of job as they get older.

[anonymous-user]

gooner1 said:

Millennials are lazy from every century.

[Murph7355]

eliot said:

CoolHands said:

fk me that's good eh? My pension age has just changed from 67 to 68.

s

I've just been made to work an extra year by
only 9 days!

If you ever thought that relying on the govt pension in your later years was a good idea at your age, I am afraid you are and have always been deluded.

[Welshbeef]

So I'm impacted great lost £8.5k.

As such assuming zero growth it's no different to saving £25-35pcm for the rest of your working life for those impacted. That's no insignificant amount.

Given plenty complain about Gym sky mobile charges.


Sadly it's impossible to stop paying into NI unless of course your earnings go below the minimum level.
Personally I dispise the fact this tax doesn't start at £0.01 of earnings so everyone pays in as everyone will benefit. Keep moving the goalposts up eliminating those who pay in at the lower end means higher retirement age for all.

[Hoofy]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

You ARE talking about 60-somethings with no tech ability.

If you're talking about 60-somethings in the future ie those in their 30s and 40s, they will probably be able to use whatever new version of Excel exists in 20-30 years' time. And those who are coding apps now will happily be able to code apps for whatever devices exist in 20-30 years' time.

For one start up I'm involved with, I'm both the oldest and the most technically capable. I usually have to provide support when the others are struggling. And our external tech support guy is about 5 years older than me.

[Murph7355]

Welshbeef said:

So I'm impacted great lost £8.5k.

As such assuming zero growth it's no different to saving £25-35pcm for the rest of your working life for those impacted. That's no insignificant amount.

Given plenty complain about Gym sky mobile charges.


Sadly it's impossible to stop paying into NI unless of course your earnings go below the minimum level.
Personally I dispise the fact this tax doesn't start at £0.01 of earnings so everyone pays in as everyone will benefit. Keep moving the goalposts up eliminating those who pay in at the lower end means higher retirement age for all.

NI doesn't cover pension costs, if that's the angle you're noting.

[Rovinghawk]

Hoofy said:

If you're talking about 60-somethings in the future ie those in their 30s and 40s, they will probably be able to use whatever new version of Excel exists in 20-30 years' time. And those who are coding apps now will happily be able to code apps for whatever devices exist in 20-30 years' time.

For one start up I'm involved with, I'm both the oldest and the most technically capable. I usually have to provide support when the others are struggling. And our external tech support guy is about 5 years older than me.

We can't all just tap away at computers- someone somewhere will actually have to do something in the real world.

[eliot]

Murph7355 said:

If you ever thought that relying on the govt pension in your later years was a good idea at your age, I am afraid you are and have always been deluded.

I've paid into my own pension continuously since starting work at the age of 18 - because that seemed to be the right thing to do - and as widely predicted the expectation that the state pension would be worthless. Sadly my pot is nowhere near what the shiny salesman predicted it would be 30 years ago.
Very few of my peers even pay into a pension now, let alone when they first started working.

Luckily I will have a house that's paid for which can be used to fund retirement via downsizing should I need to.
The time bomb is the people living in rented houses with no pension - how will they pay the equivalent of £500-1000 rent a month on a state pension?

[Welshbeef]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Oh but I need a big house and spare rooms for when family visit me. Govt you need to pay for that simple why should I have to move from my family home. ....

[PurpleMoonlight]

eliot said:

Luckily I will have a house that's paid for which can be used to fund retirement via downsizing should I need to.
The time bomb is the people living in rented houses with no pension - how will they pay the equivalent of £500-1000 rent a month on a state pension?

They will likely have to keep working until they drop.

[Welshbeef]

PurpleMoonlight said:

They will likely have to keep working until they drop.

OR do something about it now. Start saving up monthly.


Or move to a much cheaper area.