Fuming that they are talking of taking away pensioner bus passes and the triple lock

[jdoe8]

I'm still 40 years before I will get these, but I think we need to fight to keep these for future generations.

For many people they will have left school at 16 and worked until they were 65. Now after all those years of paying their taxes they aren't getting much back so the very least we need to do is allow them to travel and guarantee that their income will rise every year.

*Cheap housing, buy-to-let, final salary pensions. All of these are the privilege of those who were born in the post-war years, and have not been extended to the person in their 20s and 30s today.

It's not the fault of baby-boomers that they were able to enjoy these privileges. But it is a shame that, even with these great advantages, the young have to be squeezed ever further so that wealthier, older people can live more comfortably than they themselves will ever do.*

Well said.

I was born in 1955 and am part of the screwed over generation too. Commiserations to your sister

I think that generally the very young are more screwed over as a generation. I'm sorry if the lack of pension when expected has led to individual financial hardship however, that isn't fair .

Those now in their 90s had many more opportunities than young people today - they were conscripted to serve in WW2. Those in their 70s and 80s had the opportunity to learn to be frugal, as they grew up with rationing. Those in their 50s and 60s had the opportunity to start work once they left school, as university wasn't a possibility for many of them.

I can't be sad that this is being discussed. As others have said the system simply isn't workable now.

The triple lock bought votes but is no longer affordable.

In my opinion there needs to be some means testing element to the pension. A proportion which is universal, and a proportion (along with benefit like fuel allowance, bus pass) which is means tested even if the threshold is high.

As many have said the situation we're now living in means that many of those in their 20s and 30s especially are seriously struggling. Student loans combined with crazy house prices and mortgage multipliers have had a huge impact. When baby boomers bought houses these mortgage multipliers were tiny in proportion to now and some have become extremely comfortably off. I'm very well aware that this isn't not the case for all.

But. Many, many older people require social care. This is currently minimal via the state and this is also something that has to change. We needed a broader view by intelligent and rational policy-makers. Anyone?

Please explain why born in 1955 is the screwed over generation. I don't understand this.
Because they expected their pension and then the pension age was moved, when they were relatively close to the former pension age? Is that it?

If it is, why are they more screwed over than any younger women? Surely any private pension built up in previous years will be worth more than a pension built up now (if you can afford to pay into one, which many can't). And it's not as if younger women can 'plan' to work longer. How do any of us know whether we will be healthy enough to work at age 66, or whether the job will still be there?
Surely we have all been screwed over.

I'm 33 single no DCs. When I get to a certain age, I'm cashing everything in and going on a trip of a lifetime ending in a bed in Switzerland.

It's the state pension date that changed.

private pensions depend on the terms of the pension.

When the Govt introduced the changes those born in1954 were given a date which was staggered and not far off those born in the early 50s. Than they moved the goalpost again. Obviously those who are younger have to work longer but least they have time to make additional provision. However as an unemployed almost 63 year old her options are more limited.

I meant screwed over compared to people born a year or two earlier.

How about is bus passes were free to anyone retired, and not free but massively subsidised to not-retired who could show that they had no car registered to them or insured to be driven by them. That would help the environment and ensure that poor pensioners who can't afford to run a car get the help and wealthy ones don't unless they are also super-environmentally- friendly too.

I am in my 40s but I think it is right that the pension age should creep up and up. The mistake was not setting this in the policy right from the start. When the state pension was introduced most of the elderly were dead by their late 60s and a few lucky ones lived it their 70s and 80s or beyond was very rare.

Nowadays it's not at all unreasonable to expect to live well in to your 80s, and a good chance of doing so into your 90s.

Simple mathematics makes it obvious that if we want all our population to have 20-30 years of retirement on an income which, to ensure it's not spent in poverty, should be at least 75% of the average wage - but with each person only earning productively and paying taxes for 40 years - that can only be achieved if we either aim for exponential population growth (ie attracting overwhelming numbers of immigrants to come here and pay taxes) or we need to have around 46% of our collective income when we are earning going towards pensions.

Or if 46% tax just for pensions (with more on top for hospitals schools etc) seems too much we need a different strategy - which is the one we are pursuing. Pension age should increase gradually until it is within 5 years of average life expectancy and should continue to be pegged to that approximate point as life expectancy continues to increase.

I don't have a lot of sympathy with the middle class 60-75 yr old pensioners who own their homes, had social mobility, free tuition etc. They worked hard, yes, but they got rewarded for it. Free bus travel is ridiculous for many of them,who have far more disposable income than those of working age.

For many people they will have left school at 16 and worked until they were 65. Now after all those years of paying their taxes they aren't getting much back so the very least we need to do is allow them to travel and guarantee that their income will rise every year.

NRTFT - TL - however I'm a bit dubious about this mentality. Many people from the ages of 16 to 65 will never have worked, or paid a penny in tax, so going by this they wouldn't be entitled to a free bus pass.

The problem with the free bus pass for all is that it isn't means tested - my grandad has one, he also has several civil service/army/RAF pensions, no mortgage and his disposable income after bills is around £2,200 a month. There's so many more people who would need a pass before him. Not every pensioner is on the breadline and I agree with a PP they are not all saintly and have not all paid taxes their whole lives etc. I'd much rather see a means tested approach than a blanket approach. Every other group seems to be means tested before receiving any kind of benefit!

Agree though that in 40 years time, we'll be totally fucked state-funding wise. I've considered taking the money I pay into my pension each month and making a wise investment instead

Pension age should increase gradually until it is within 5 years of average life expectancy and should continue to be pegged to that approximate point as life expectancy continues to increase.

Christ that would out retirement at 75. Another 44 years for me. Me and dp would have to retrain at some point. There's no way we could continue doing what we do (both in nhs forensic mental health) at 75. And then what? 5 years, on average, of hopefully good, but probably slowly failing health before we peg it.

Ive no doubt that this will be the reality... And what an utterly depressing reality that is. And people wonder why the younger generation get a bit pissed at the older one.

CherryChasingDotMuncher and what do you means test it on? you wont be means testing it on the amount the bus companies get from the councils you would have to means test it on the rates the bus company would want to charge non pass holding pensioners.

Every bus company has its own tariff and there are huge differences in different areas even within the same bus company umbrella group I have done a lot of research into my own Bus company Southern Vectis part of the go ahead group, on the Island a single fare is £4.50, £10 for a 24 hour pass £24 for a weekly pass and £84 for a monthly on the mainland the same bus company charges difference rates in one region (with the same % of pensioners) its 2.00 single £5.80 for a 24 hour pass £15 or a weekly and £68 for a monthly

SO, unless there is an agreement with all bus companies that there would be a flat rate fare for non pass holding pensioners all means testing would have to be done at local level, PC as I have proved up thread is too narrow, with a pensioner couple on the old basic rate only getting £1.05 per week extra between them than the couples rates for PC and a single pensioner on the new rate getting 5p more a week than a single pensioner on PC.

I sat in a meeting with a representative of Southern Vectis who stated in front a packed room ' we are NOT a public service we answer to our shareholders' so I cant see them offering any sort of discounts or agreeing to a national flat rate fare, that's going to leave a lot of pensioners here isolated and lonely without being able to get to the shops, hospital, GP or the bank.

I would however like to see a return to the old ways where a pensioner had free travel in the area where they live and have to pay at least a discounted fare in other areas that would be fairer to the council tax payers in those areas especially in holiday regions like the Island, Devon and Cornwall.

Oh and don't forget if you are going to make pensioners pay full whack they would have every right to travel any time they want without the 9.30am restriction (In most national concession areas apart from London) so that's going to make buses more congested at peak times when people are going to work, school or college, isn't it better to have pensioners traveling at off peak times

Me and dp would have to retrain at some point. There's no way we could continue doing what we do (both in nhs forensic mental health) at 75

Yes everyone will need to start thinking in their 30s and 40s what their second career will be if their primary career isn't something that can be reliably done by a 65-75yo. Lots of careers including teaching, nursing etc are not going to be sustainable over that length of working life but neither is having almost as many years of pensioned leisure as active work. So rather than teaching/nursing/whatever throughout until retirement at 60, better to plan a 2-phase career from the start and move over to something less physically draining during your 50s or earlier so as to not burn out too soon

So where would the money come to retrain? And what would be peoples motivation to invest in a career knowing that in 20-30 years time you will have to start afresh from the bottom. I know a few people who have retrained in their 40s and it is not for the faint hearted. It's bloody hard work and often a huge financial hit to their families.
I truly found my vocation nursing. I can't imagine doing anything else. Never mind starting a whole new career when traditionally people are winding down their careers.

Like I said before, I don't doubt this is reality in the future. But fuck me it's depressing as hell.

Treasury publications and Analysis of government spending on welfare by people like Institute of Fiscal Studies shows how much goes on pensions etc. The much smaller slice of spending on welfare for people of "working age" has been cut disproportionately, saving government much less money than savings in the system for older people.

But there are far more older voters, so it's politically very difficult to make changes.

The problem is the sentiment around getting something back after paying in doesn't actually reflect reality. You aren't paying tax and NI into this big savings account to be paid out if it in retirement. Your tax & NI go towards current pensions and pensioner benefits (and everything else). So as a larger proportion of the population are pensioners, there are less paying tax meaning the pot has less far to go and it's got to case where it's either cut pensioner benefits or cut other stuff. Govts have cut most of the other stuff to the bone so now pensioner stuff has to be but unless we all pay shed loads more in tax. Pensioners are now better off on average than people of working age so many can afford to bare the cuts better than those of working age. However as they are a large population group and more likely to vote, the over 65s hold a lot of political power so no govt will have the guts for an overhaul necessary to deal with the realities of the aging population.

Christ that would out retirement at 75. Another 44 years for me. Me and dp would have to retrain at some point. There's no way we could continue doing what we do (both in nhs forensic mental health) at 75.

So what your plans go your career as you get older? I certainly couldn't do my role in my 50s. I have a plan!

It's going to take more than individual plans to sort this out.

The economy will have to grow to support older people in the workforce without creating more barriers to entry for young people.

There will also have to be growth everywhere, not just in the south east.

And then there is the reality that many people will still spend the last 10-15 years of their life in poor health and needing more care, both medical and social.

It's a massive issue, but at the moment the government seem to be otherwise engaged.

The plan at the moment is to move into community work, but even that is pushing it. Band 6 posts are being downgraded to band 5 and the caseloads are verging on unmanageable now and are only set to get worse.

So to be frank, fuck knows what we're going to do.

You do realise that there are no retired 60 year olds receiving a state pension? A person who is 60 today will not retire until ,66

They are 66.

Pensioners today are wealthier than they have ever been. Many retired in final benefit schemes in their 50s and are higher rate tax payers... they don't need the state pension at all let alone the triple lock!

For those saying it's the 'thin end of the wedge' and zealously hold to the 'no ifs, no buts, no public sector cuts' philosophy... thank god you don't govern this country as we'd be another Greece!

For all of those in need... a little something to help you spread that abhorrence, that simplistic message that sets one part of society pitilessly against another.

Pity more won't be able to use to spread a bit more in depth understanding.

Oh... Merry Christmas, goodwill and all that crap!