Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

to think the retirement age should be LOWERED?

51 replies

hardhatdonned · 16/03/2011 22:26

It seems to me that the employment market is saturated with over 50+'s and an increasing number of under 25's (and in some areas under 30's) are seriously struggling to get work.

I am all for being equal and fair and non discriminatory but shouldn't that work both ways with the older workers considering their children's generation may need to work? Can't help but wonder why they keep raising it (other than the serious lack of pension)

OP posts:
jellybelly25 · 16/03/2011 22:28

No! YANBU it's short sighted I agree.

squeakytoy · 16/03/2011 22:28

No, because then you would have more pensions to pay out. People are living longer hence the reason they are raising retirement age. People also spend more years in education now too, which again reduces the amount of tax going into the economy.

FabbyChic · 16/03/2011 22:28

They keep raising it because people live longer, they cannot afford to pay the state pension below the current retirement age.

BabyDubsEverywhere · 16/03/2011 22:28

so who keeps the 50+ if they aren't working then?

Confused
LaurieFairyCake · 16/03/2011 22:29

Unfortunately yabu. We need to work til we are much closer to death, not 40 years away!

foreverondiet · 16/03/2011 22:29

Nice idea but unaffordable unless you are suggesting the oldies retire at 55 and don't get any pensions until 75.

My company just changed their pensions to a 65 retirement from 60 as 65 wasn't affordable.

hardhatdonned · 16/03/2011 22:29

Ok so the retirement age is nearing 70 and birth rates keep increasing. Where are all the extra jobs going to come from?

OP posts:
GetOrfMoiLand · 16/03/2011 22:30

YABU. I intend to work til I drop. We cannot afford pensions for people to live for perhaps 40 years or so.

hardhatdonned · 16/03/2011 22:31

So we pay them JSA at the other end instead GetOrfMoiLand? as that is the alternative that could realistically happen.

OP posts:
golemmings · 16/03/2011 22:37

obviously you are being totally and utterly unreasonable. Get rid of the elderly and infirm and allow young people to be paid for work when we can make them do it for free and call it 'work experience' or 'internship'??

Good god Hardhat? what do you want? A future for the young of this country?

southeastastra · 16/03/2011 22:41

but there won't be as many over 50s when the people in their 20s are that age

crystalglasses · 16/03/2011 22:47

Don't agree with Hardhat at all. In employment law there is no discrimination against young or old. If there is a job vacancy anyone can apply regardless of age. Anti-age discrimination laws have been hard won and it is plain wrong to treat anyone differently on grounds of age, gender, race, sexual orientation or sexuality.

Lack of adequate pesnions is going to be a real problem. That, coupled with a longer life span will leave many elderly people in poverty for years.

The retirement age was originally fixed at 60-65 when people were not expected to live beyond about 70, and so they would not be drawing the state pension for more than about 5 years. People are living healthy, active lives well into their 80s now and so need to be employed for as long as possible or the state will have to provide for them - unless we resort to euthanaesia, which is not acceptable in a civilised society.

TheSecondComing · 16/03/2011 22:51

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

hardhatdonned · 16/03/2011 22:51

Thats what i was thinking TSC.

OP posts:
AnnoyingOrange · 16/03/2011 23:04

If you have your children in your 30's or later, you will still be putting them through school/university in your 50's

Gottakeepchanging · 16/03/2011 23:10

Part of the current situation is because the last Tory gvt offered the public sector early retirement.

My parents both went at 55 with enhanced pension and bigger lump sums. They then didn't pay tax or ni for 5-10 years. Cost the country billions.

midnightservant · 16/03/2011 23:14

Well, presumably they paid tax on their pensions?

crystalglasses · 16/03/2011 23:17

No, birth rates are not rising, and there is a demographic time bomb with many more older people than younger, so we need to keep them employed for as long as possible because we would never have enough employed young people to support them in terms of state benefits and health care.

If we are going to blame and pick off certain groups as preventing employment opportunities for younger people, which ones should we choose? The over 55s? EU nationals? Other lawful immigrants? Mothers who go out to work? Arguably they could all be targetted.

Gottakeepchanging · 16/03/2011 23:18

Not as much as they would have paid working for another 10 years. Less than half as much. They also got 8-10 years additional pension at no cost to them.

southeastastra · 16/03/2011 23:18

blame canada

TheSecondComing · 16/03/2011 23:19

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

hardhatdonned · 16/03/2011 23:19

i prefer the blame France option myself. French can be blamed for everything.

OP posts:
Punkatheart · 16/03/2011 23:21

My poor MIL is approaching 70 and is forced to work, as her private pension investment went belly up. If she didn't work, she would lose her rented flat and be homeless. She has worked hard all her life and been a decent person - I don't think she should be penalised for the 'crime' of getting older and having bad luck.

basana · 16/03/2011 23:23

Great. Who pays for their pension?

crystalglasses · 16/03/2011 23:24

Gottakeepchanging, pensions are taxable so unless their pensions were below the taxable threshold, they would have paid tax.

I think the furore over the state sector and pensions is being whipped up by the media because most of these people were very low paid and by the governemnt's own admission the average state pension is less than £6500 a year, for which the employees have contributed.