to think everyone should retire at 60 and the state pension should be a livable amount

[pollyis]

Hi,

I was one of the lucky ones that got to retire at 60, but now this this being raised to 66. I think this is very unfair and downright wrong. If anything it should be lowered for both men and woman so they can spend their last few years with some hard earned rest.

Also the amount is much lower than countries like France and Germany. My pension is 146 pounds a week. Hardly a decent amount and I'm expected to live off this for another 20-30 years!

I think we should all support each other to get the age lowered and increase the amount to the same as Germany. Sok about 320 a week per pensioner. Do you agree?

Polly

YABU. Your premise is too stupid to merit a proper response. That is all.

I surely can't be the only person who thinks the op is winding everyone up?

I'd hate to retire at 60. I love my job. I'd like to keep going till 70 and put a bit more in my pension pot.

Last few years? All but one of my grandparents lived into their 80s. Two lived into their late 80s. All but one were 'fit' until age 75 and the three longest lived were the ones who didn't have healthy lifestyles.

Grandparents OP...and I'm in my 30s.

I would like to have the option to retire 'young'. I am therefore planning my savings & investments accordingly. I may still not manage and I might not want to retire young, but I do recognise that if I want 20 healthy years of going bugger all, I need to fund it myself.

I do not plan to 'retire'
I just plan to work for less months a year

The state pension is based on the oldest sort of pension scheme (I forget what it's called) where the current workers support the retired workers. So anyone thinking they should get their own NI conts back is being ignorant. Your pension is paid by the current workers' NI conts, and theirs will be be paid by those working when they retire.

It's sustainable as long as those working can afford to keep those unable to work in livable standards. Unfortunately when the retirement ages of 60 and 65 were introduced the government were too short sighted to realise that mortality rates would improve and people would therefore need to be paid pensions for longer. The retirement ages should have been increased from the outset, to ensure that those retiring didn't have a pension paid for too long and put a strain on the workers. Obviously this didn't happen and they realised too late and have now started raising it.

Overall it is a problem with no solution really, as the workforce is increasing as people retire later, but job numbers are decreasing. Hence we have a large number of unemployed 20 somethings and those in their late 50s/60s unable to retire yet, staying in their jobs when 40 years ago they would have left, making space for those in their 20s.

Best bet for those working now is to save for your retirement if you can afford to.

The State pension (like the Teachers pension scheme, the MOD pension scheme, the Civil Service pension scheme, the NHS pension scheme and the MPs pension scheme)
is Unfunded
that means
there is no pension scheme pot

its all actually a Ponzi scheme
with new payroll deductions paying pensions for people who put in far, far less
OK so long as the merry go round keeps spinning
a bugger when it stops

I was reading this with interest OP until you said "It's much easier to buy a house these days" - b**llocks!

I am probably around your age (early 60s) and it was much easier for us to buy a house than our children.
Admit it was very basic, no central heating or double glazing but it doubled in value in 18 months, helping us by something better.
I know some things were worse then (maternity leave etc.) but you seem to be denying that ours was an extremely lucky generation. Grants for university, fairly easy to get work.

However to the people aged 42 who are saying that they know now that 60 will feel too young to retire-wait and see how your health holds up.
I developed a chronic auto-immune disease which affected my breathing and made my last few years at work hard work. My husband kept going until 65 with heart problems and nasty ulcers on his legs. For some people the increased life expectancy means living with compromised health.

This is going to become a big problem as the retirement age rises further.

Much, much sympathy Garlic

I think I might know who your pension embezzler was. A corporate sociopath if ever there was one. :(

We all think we will have the same level of health and energy when older as when we're younger, but it doesn't always work like that - as some already know, and as the govt and current working population will find out.

People are not numbers in a spreadsheet. Raising the state pension age will create as many problems as it purports to solve. Private pensions are also hard to build up in current conditions, particularly after tax changes like this one and others in the pipeline. There are no simple answers.

I'm not sure what the answer is but- I know of 2 people receive national health pensions and gave been doing so for many more years than they ever worked. Both retired in their 50's. Their pensions are more than my earnings and although I've never not worked, I find myself unable to afford a pension at the age of 42.

The real joke will be when it's realised that the present generation of very old people only reached those great ages because they were half-starved for much of their lives. I don't think my lot (50s) will do it and on present showing younger people are even less likely to.

I would love the state pension from 60 but unfortunately I'll be 66.

Oh and I would also like naturally straight hair and a pony.

What do you mean flippy about people being half starved?

I wouldn't WANT to retire at 60, thank you very much. I'd be bored witless. The number of people I have known who had to take compulsory retirement from their firms and died within 12 months is quite staggering. I'm not sure it is healthy for a lot of people. They need that stimulation, or activity, or routine, or contact with other people, whatever.

I'm 40, so the retirement age will probably be 70 by the time I get round to it. As long as I am fit and well, I want to retire when I want to retire. I can't imagine just stopping. I'd have to at least get myself a part-time job in a shop for three afternoons a week.

I am in my 50s, and have already retired - but I don't expect to be funded by the taxpayer for it: I worked hard, saved up for it and still pay a lot of tax.

If you want to live at taxpayer's expense then 67 or 70 seems like a fair retirement age as most people in their 60's are well and fully able to work and it would be strange to expect youngsters with families and no homes to support their leisure lifestyle.

My stepdad retired a couple of years ago at 56 on a very nice final salary pension. He will most likely be retired for longer than he actually worked. They're absolutely destroying the pension scheme for new entrants (even more so than the previous downgrades for new entrants) and a good part of the need to do that is they've been letting people retire ludicrously early on very generous pensions who then go on to live for 30+ years. No wonder the schemes can't cover that.

MIL retired at 57, but she can't access any form of pension (state or her super meagre occupational pension) until she's 67. She will definitely be retired for far longer than she worked.

Neither of them retired because they were not able to work. They just couldn't be arsed any more. They're in perfectly fine health. My mum is annoyed that she can't retire yet, and is quite embarrassingly vocal about how she's worked all her life and is entitled to, etc, etc. Not only is she overstating her case quite a lot, but she doesn't seem to realise that DH and I (and our children) really will work all our lives. A bit like the OP really.

We're under no illusion that they'll keep increasing the retirement age and downgrading our pensions. And we're pretty certain that we won't get a state pension at all, partly because they'll have raised the age to 80 or more and partly because we're sure they'll start means teasting it. So the occupational pension that we've saved for (and which will almost certainly be absolutely shit by the time they eventually let us have it - if we live that long) will disqualify us from it. It wouldn't be so bad if it weren't for all those people in our scheme who've been allowed to retire early on generous enhanced final salary pensions that will exceed what they've paid in many times over. It does suck to be paying for that knowing you're going to get very little back yourself.

Thanks OP - I really needed that laugh this morning! I'm presuming this was a joke, right?

OP, some v useful posts here which will hopefully leave you better informed.

DH had his main pension with Equitable Life .

My state pension age is 66. I hope still to be in paid employment then.
I don't know what planet the OP is on if she thinks the country can afford people to retire at 60 and be paid that sort of money for the next 20 or 30 years.

I saw this going around a few years ago, it's an amalgamation of two such things but sounds like such a great idea in principle!
Dear Mr. Cameron,
Please find below our suggestion for fixing England 's economy.
Instead of giving billions of pounds to banks that will squander the money
on lavish parties and unearned bonuses, use the following plan..
You can call it the Patriotic Retirement Plan:
There are about 10 million people over 50 in the work force.
Pay them £1 million each severance for early retirement with the following
stipulations:

1. They MUST retire. Ten million job openings – unemployment fixed
2. They MUST buy a new British car. Ten million cars ordered – Car Industry fixed
3. They MUST either buy a house or pay off their mortgage - Housing Crisis fixed
4. They MUST send their kids to school/college/university - Crime rate fixed
5. They MUST buy £100 WORTH of alcohol/tobacco a week ….. and there's your money back in duty/tax etc
6. Instead of stuffing around with the carbon emissions trading scheme that makes us pay for the major polluters, tell the greedy so and so's to reduce their pollution emissions by 75% within 5 years or we shut them down. It can't get any easier than that! P.S. If more money is needed, have all members of parliament pay back their falsely claimed expenses and second home allowances If you think this would work, please forward to everyone you know. If not, please disregard. Grumpies of the World Unite Also……….. Prisoners Let's put the pensioners in jail and the criminals in a nursing home. This way the pensioners would have access to showers, hobbies and walks. They'd receive unlimited free prescriptions, dental and medical treatment, wheel chairs etc and they'd receive money instead of paying it out. They would have constant video monitoring, so they could be helped instantly, if they fell, or needed assistance. Bedding would be washed twice a week, and all clothing would be ironed and returned to them. A guard would check on them every 20 minutes and bring their meals and snacks to their cell. They would have family visits in a suite built for that purpose. They would have access to a library, weight room, spiritual counseling, pool and education. Simple clothing, shoes, slippers, PJ's and legal aid would be free, on request. Private, secure rooms for all, with an exercise outdoor yard, with gardens. Each senior could have a PC a TV radio and daily phone calls. There would be a board of directors to hear complaints, and the guards would have a code of conduct that would be strictly adhered to.

The criminals would get cold food, be left all alone and unsupervised.
Lights off at 8pm, and showers once a week. Live in a tiny room and pay
£600.00 per week and have no hope of ever getting out.

Yes I think that would be fair to stop pensioners from getting their rent and council tax paid. I worked bloody hard to own my own home, wouldn't have not bothered if I knew the government would pay your rent for you in retirement.

I predict people with private pensions would say the same to you.

?
Retirement age is rising so people are expected to work for longer, but there aren't enough jobs to go around as it is. Increasingly things done by people are done by robots and computers so there is less and less work to be done yet we want people to work for longer?

The problem is that the elite few at the top of society are hoarding all the money and preventing the rest of us from sharing in the prosperity which results from technological advance. ?

This infographic shows the ratio of median house price to median income since 1997 - I'd guess you probably bough before then, but look at the change just since then

If you look at the stats comparing the income of first time buyers to the house prices, since 1992 it's jumped from 2.6 to 4.2.

If you look at the stats comparing the income of first time buyers to the house prices, since 1992 it's jumped from 2.6 to 4.2.

Because interest rates are massively lower.

The problem is that given a shortage of housing, the price of houses is bid up to whatever people can afford. Mortgages cost about half what they did, per thousand, as in the 1990s. Hence prices double, so that repayments stay about the same.

We need to build a lot more houses. Watch the howls of outrage from people whose financial planning relies on houses being appreciating assets.

Real women earn their own money and fund their own pensions. They don't rely on the state pension. Or else they keep working.