Retirement age and associated benefits*

[Poisson]

Just covered this in Geography and it set me wondering what everyone else thought.

The old age pension and the retirement age implemented when life expectancy was lower than 70 years old. The cost therefore was not too high on the economy as on average someone was supported for less than 5 years on the old age pension.

Now we have people living to be 100+, should the retirement and pension age be increased due to the HUGE cost on the economy and the longer life expectancy?

I believe it should be raised due to the cost to everyone else and by 2050 50% of the population of the UK will be retired if the same age is maintained and life expectancy raises at the current rate of a 5 year increase in life expectancy every 30 years.

Discuss!

(*Associated benefits is the old age pension and free bus pass etc)

Sent from my GT-S5830 using Tapatalk 2

 

[D4n]

No. Most certainly not. Though the retirement age is being pushed upwards and upwards at an alarming rate and both you and I can probably expect to be working into our 80s at the current rate. Regardless of people living longer that doesn't mean that they'll be in any way fit to work or, indeed, able to get jobs in later life and what you propose would essentially just mean a lot of seniors living in poverty for their twilight years. I don't want that to happen to me, and that you're proposing it for yourself implies to me that you don't really know what you're talking about.

There are other, heavier burdens upon the economy and quite a few of them fall towards the other end of the spectrum in my opinion. Granted, it's quite an extreme viewpoint but I think that families should be restricted to only receiving full benefits for one child because the current system (on some level) is resulting in a population which really is expanding at an alarming rate, and equally is a drain upon government funds. This is still far from ideal however, if the situation becomes that desperate in terms of funds then that's the route that we should be going down.

People aged 70+ shouldn't be pressured into working and, indeed, it's highly unlikely that anybody would employ them even if they wanted a job. It's a non-starter, in my opinion.

 

[Jonathan]

The retirement age is fine as it is now, so why change it? Plus, if it's raised, youth unemployment's only going to get a whole lot worse than it already is!

 

[John]

Our ageing population is a very serious issue. Our life expectancy has increased enormously over the past 100 years or so, but the sad fact it that for many people the quality of our last few years is often very poor, with a large number of elderly people suffering from physical and mental health problems. The cost of health and social care for the rapidly increasing number of elderly people is going to rise significantly over the next few decades as more and more people live much further beyond the current retirement age. The money to pay for all this has to come from somewhere.

In addition to this, there will be fewer people of working age as the overall UK population is not projected to increase significantly, therefore I feel it is inevitable that the retirement age will creep upwards to try to compensate for this.

 

[DiogoJ42]

There's an old Cat saying,
"It's better to live one hour as a tiger, than a whole lifetime as a worm."

I always find it odd that we spend our whole lives slaving away, saving up for our retirement, but when we get there, we are too old to do anything with our time.

 

[Meat Pie]

Granted, it's quite an extreme viewpoint but I think that families should be restricted to only receiving full benefits for one child because the current system (on some level) is resulting in a population which really is expanding at an alarming rate, and equally is a drain upon government funds.

What an utterly amoral stance that is. Even if you feel that parents are being unfair to expect the state to pay for their children (something which I would massively disagree), by restricting the benefits to one child, you actively seek to persecute innocent children born into a family that can't afford to support them. You're not cutting the parents, you are cutting the children. If you support this measure then you must have no problem with seeing children with clothes that don't fit them, children that are malnurished or even homeless. It's the most callous and cruel measure that I worryingly hear advocated more and more. It must be easy to condemn children who by the lottery of life were born into poverty, when you are sitting comfortably in your ivory tower.

Equally, we have no right to force old people to work for a ridiculous length of time. You won't see those lucky people from the rich end of society having to work into their 70s. Screw the burden on state, it should be a burden on those high society darlings lapping up their champagne and quales eggs which they can only afford because their lowly workers are willing to work hard for a pittance.

Tax the wealthy, tax the finance sector, tax mansions and close tax loopholes. That is how you can afford to give everyone the justice they deserve, whether they be young or old.

 

[Poisson]

proposing it for yourself implies to me that you don't really know what you're talking about.

D4n I can reassure you I know what I am on about. I propose this for myself as I believe that it is the logical way forward to work later if you live older and receive benefits later on.

is resulting in a population which really is expanding at an alarming rate, .

Ah now this is a tricky one. Without wanting to sound racist at all, the indigenous White British birth rate is less than 2.1 thus causing a fall in the amount of WBRI people. It is immigration and that immigrant families a lot of the time have more children that population is rising . I believe that if immigration was sorted, this will be a lesser issue, but that is another topic to discuss elsewhere

 

[Martin]

"Not being racist but OMG there's less white people and immigrants are pushing up the population, it's all their fault!"

Or have I missed something?

 

[Meat Pie]

Without wanting to sound racist at all, the indigenous White British birth rate is less than 2.1 thus causing a fall in the amount of WBRI people. It is immigration and that immigrant families a lot of the time have more children that population is rising .

That simply isn't true. Published as part of the "key findings" in the report into 2011 birth rates by 'The Office For National Statistics' found that only 25.5 percent of births were to mothers born outside of the UK. That means 74.5 percent are born to British mothers.

 

[Poisson]

Without wanting to sound racist at all, the indigenous White British birth rate is less than 2.1 thus causing a fall in the amount of WBRI people. It is immigration and that immigrant families a lot of the time have more children that population is rising .

That simply isn't true. Published as part of the "key findings" in the report into 2011 birth rates by 'The Office For National Statistics' found that only 25.5 percent of births were to mothers born outside of the UK. That means 74.5 percent are born to British mothers.

Thank You Meat Pie for bringing these figures I had not known in. I withdraw my statement on the grounds of being factually incorrect. My bad.

 

[Pixie-Ro]

Granted, it's quite an extreme viewpoint but I think that families should be restricted to only receiving full benefits for one child because the current system (on some level) is resulting in a population which really is expanding at an alarming rate, and equally is a drain upon government funds.

What an utterly amoral stance that is. Even if you feel that parents are being unfair to expect the state to pay for their children (something which I would massively disagree), by restricting the benefits to one child, you actively seek to persecute innocent children born into a family that can't afford to support them. You're not cutting the parents, you are cutting the children. If you support this measure then you must have no problem with seeing children with clothes that don't fit them, children that are malnurished or even homeless. It's the most callous and cruel measure that I worryingly hear advocated more and more. It must be easy to condemn children who by the lottery of life were born into poverty, when you are sitting comfortably in your ivory tower.

Equally, we have no right to force old people to work for a ridiculous length of time. You won't see those lucky people from the rich end of society having to work into their 70s. Screw the burden on state, it should be a burden on those high society darlings lapping up their champagne and quales eggs which they can only afford because their lowly workers are willing to work hard for a pittance.

Tax the wealthy, tax the finance sector, tax mansions and close tax loopholes. That is how you can afford to give everyone the justice they deserve, whether they be young or old.

I think the intention is to stop people from having child after child without thinking about how they are going to pay for them. Normal people like myself - and I certainly don't sit in an ivory tower - have to think incredible carefully before starting a family. Can I afford a child? Can I afford the pay cut that comes with maternity leave? Can I afford childcare? The benefit system as it stands mean that some people don't even have to think about money because they know damn well that everything will be paid for them. Obviously any change to the system would have to carefully thought out to ensure that existing children don't suffer, but we certainly should be putting a stop to the breeding farm mentality of some parents. I have heard mothers admitting that they have children so they don't have to go to work - should we really be condoning attitudes like that?
I get really infuriated by the whole 'tax the rich scumbags' argument...where is the motivation to work hard and earn good money if you are just going to get half of it taken off you while people stand around and judge you for doing well and making something of your life? Success, hard work and ambition should be celebrated, not condemmed. And as for pensions, at the moment I will have to work until I am 68 before I can get my pension. I am a primary school teacher - how many 68 year olds do you know who are fit to be primary teachers? I know I won't be, but hey, why should I complain? I only work 9-3.15 and spend all my holidays rolling around in my money in the luxury of my ivory tower.

 

[Meat Pie]

First of all, it's a right wing myth that there is significant numbers of mothers having children purely to avoid work. The benefits you get if you have a child is minimal and barely covers the cost of living. I am extremely surprised to hear that you have heard even one mother 'admitting' to having children out of convenience. I have lived on a poor ex-council estate for my entire life and I know lots of mothers, many of which would be prime candidates for the contemptible stereotypes that a comfortable middle class daily mail reader would label them. Never once have they ever indicated that they had children for any financial reason, they had children because they love the idea of having a family.

Those lucky enough to earn a decent salary have the right to give birth to many children, so how dare anyone suggest that just because you are poor you shouldn't also be able to have children without the fear of not being able to provide for them? It is elitism at it's worst.

Also, any cap on benefit may well encourage poor people to have less children (I somewhat view this concept with extreme skepticism) but there will be cases where a child is born anyway. Are you really going to deny that innocent child the right to basic material need? Are you willing to let them suffer because you are so paranoid about people playing the system? I think that's a disgraceful position.

Population growth is a problem, but persecuting children from a poor background is morally wrong.

As for the second part of your post where you defend the supposed deserving rich in society from being taxed, I ask you... Why do you assume that people at the bottom working hard to get by don't deserve to be rewarded? Why is it only those lucky enough to secure a job higher up the chain that get all the perks in life? The man delivering your mail works just as hard as a bank manager, they just take out different functions. The reason for taxing the rich isn't to punish them. It's to spread the gains made through inequality to those who also deserve a decent quality of life.

And by the way, I absolutely agree with you about your pension. We all deserve the right to an economically comfortable life way before our age makes us inappropriate to carry out our jobs. How can we afford to stop rising pension ages? By filtering the inappropriately large sums of money made at the top of society back down to normal people. You can bet your bottom dollar that Phillip Green will be retiring before 68.

 

[Dar]

I think pensions should be withheld if you continue to work. Why should you receive a state pension if you're still working a full time job?

The state pension should also be means-tested. If you have a large company pension, or reasonable private one, then you should receive proportionally less than someone that doesn't.

The trouble with age is that it affects different people in different ways. There are some people that are nearly 90 that are as fit and healthy as me and would be quite happy to keep working, there are some that can only do certain easier jobs, like checkouts in a supermarket and there are those that deteriorate rapidly and require financial support.

[Off-topic: I also disagree with the idea of massive taxes for rich people. If I work hard for most of my life, I go to uni to secure a better a job and more financial stable future for my partner and myself, I'd be mighty annoyed if it turned out that, despite my hard work and self application to better my situation, I was earning not a great deal more than someone that hasn't.

I find it poignant that you mention bankers and wonder if you mean only taxing certain rich people that you don't agree with? You would probably make a darn sight more money if present loopholes were closed, rather than raise taxes. After all, that just makes more people to exploit them!

I had this discussion with Sam at fireworks, well, kind of, it got a bit deep for the Thirteen queueline so we decided to talk about something else. Like religion.]

[EDIT: Paragraphs, dear chosen deity, paragraphs]