The tories V the pensioners

At what point does it become unreasonable? Lets say we all accept that we have to wait until 67 to get a pension. This saves the government money as there are two more years they don't have to pay out and if we are working, another two years of tax they can collect.

What if they put it up to 70... then 75? Perhaps 90? Do we just accept this because they said that's how it will be?


Steve.
 
Steve Smith said:
At what point does it become unreasonable? Lets say we all accept that we have to wait until 67 to get a pension. This saves the government money as there are two more years they don't have to pay out and if we are working, another two years of tax they can collect.

What if they put it up to 70... then 75? Perhaps 90? Do we just accept this because they said that's how it will be?


Steve.
Click to expand...
What if they don't have the money to pay for it? Best is to make your own provisions.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ST4
Llamaman said:
Yes. Until the next election.
Click to expand...
The problem is they make all the very unpopular "laws" at the very start of the term, hoping that after 4 & 1/2 years later, most people would have forgotten.

Cynical of MK.
 
Cobra said:
The problem is they make all the very unpopular "laws" at the very start of the term, hoping that after 4 & 1/2 years later, most people would have forgotten.

Cynical of MK.
Click to expand...
You aren't old enough to fall in that category :kiss:

At least you all can exercise your voting rights. I can only vote with my residency.
 
Steve Smith said:
At what point does it become unreasonable? Lets say we all accept that we have to wait until 67 to get a pension. This saves the government money as there are two more years they don't have to pay out and if we are working, another two years of tax they can collect.
Steve.
Click to expand...
Look at it another way, you will probably be earning a lot more than whatever the pension payment will be. Let's for arguments sake call the difference £100/week. When you reach 65 you obviously won't be needing to spend that £100 as you would normally have expected to have retired. Save it, two years later you will have £10,400
 
nilagin said:
So if you decide to take early retirement, let's say 60, obviously you'll have to wait until 67 to get your state pension, but I take it, because of the breach in your contract, you won't mind taking a reduced pension.
Click to expand...
which under the original system would have happened, if you'd not paid a full amount of contributions, you wouldn't receive a full pension, so it's exactly what Steve signed up for 33 years ago.
 
nilagin said:
He probably meant you were well passed it. ;)
Click to expand...
Nah, I've got photographic evidence to the contrary. Maybe I should post it so the others know what I mean :)
 
What is the minimum number of years worked now, to qualify for the full state pension? (when you reach 67)
 
Cobra said:
Yeah I guess its well over due YET ANOTHER airing :p
Click to expand...
Well you know, it would be rude not to follow an order :p Always shouting abuse at me ;):kiss:

_6060184.jpg
 
OldCarlos said:
What is the minimum number of years worked now, to qualify for the full state pension? (when you reach 67)
Click to expand...
I believe there's no minimum number of years contributions for the new scheme.
 
AFAIK it's 30 years at present. It was 44 for my dad and 39 for my mum, they've made it much easier . I anticipate that 30 years increasing sometime given there's 50 potential years you could be working..
 
Steve Smith said:
At what point does it become unreasonable? Lets say we all accept that we have to wait until 67 to get a pension. This saves the government money as there are two more years they don't have to pay out and if we are working, another two years of tax they can collect.

What if they put it up to 70... then 75? Perhaps 90? Do we just accept this because they said that's how it will be?


Steve.
Click to expand...

You have to realise that times change. When was the 65 pension age bought in? Probably when the life expectancy was say 72 or similar. Now, with the population increasing massively and with the expectancy around 84, something has to change, and seeing as we are healthier now than before (less smokers, better healthcare), people at 70 now are probably like people at 60 were 50 years ago.
 
I thought it was 35yrs to get full state pension and minimum of 10yrs to get anything at all.
As I mentioned earlier, as people will have to work on for another two years, save all that extra money you will be earning over and above the state pension, as you are obviously going to be able to live without it, invest it all in a tax free isa, you'll have a nice little nest egg, plus the interest each year will probably pay for your winter fuel allowance.
 
cambsno said:
You have to realise that times change. When was the 65 pension age bought in? Probably when the life expectancy was say 72 or similar. Now, with the population increasing massively and with the expectancy around 84, something has to change, and seeing as we are healthier now than before (less smokers, better healthcare), people at 70 now are probably like people at 60 were 50 years ago.
Click to expand...
Which is fine for office workers, and others with less physical jobs, but the average 70 year old couldn't lift patients in a hospital, fill an Amazon pick cart in the time required, erect scaffolding etc. etc.

There's a disconnect between how long we'll live and what we're capable of achieving in our old age. Politicians swept aside the issue for policemen and firemen suggesting they'd progress to desk jobs, but a; not all of them would be suitable for the role and b; there wouldn't be enough roles even if they were. So they will be in effect ejected,
 
Phil V said:
You're probably right, tired fingers. :)
Click to expand...

I don't actually know, Phil. Hence asking the question. When you said there may well be no minimum, it just surprised me.

Phil V said:
There's a disconnect between how long we'll live and what we're capable of achieving in our old age.
Click to expand...

Apart from the professions you mentioned, don't forget the likes of the teachers feel they won't be able to cope. :rolleyes:
 
onomatopoeia said:
Some of the old ones were the best (and most terrifying) when I was at school.
Click to expand...
But terrifying teachers are a thing of the past.

It shows the disconnect between policies still though. An old teacher is less likely to embrace change and accept modern ways of working, how will the DofE feel about that?
 
On a serious note your NI contributions are paying the current pension bill. When you are retired its the NI contributions of those working who pay your pension.

Thus when you pay NI you are not paying for your pension but those in retirement and thus you're not in a contractual agreement with the government.
 
ST4 said:
On a serious note your NI contributions are paying the current pension bill. When you are retired its the NI contributions of those working who pay your pension.

Thus when you pay NI you are not paying for your pension but those in retirement and thus you're not in a contractual agreement with the government.
Click to expand...
Yes that's about right, however I do not think any tax has a specific sector anymore. They are just taxes and all go into one pot. They are fazing it out.
 
Last edited:
rjbell said:
Yeah i could be wrong too.
Click to expand...
What the hell is wrong with you two? This is OOF. No-one is EVER wrong. Stop being so goddam reasonable and start behaving like a stubborn toddler right now, or I'm calling a Mod. :p
 
Llamaman said:
What the hell is wrong with you two? This is OOF. No-one is EVER wrong. Stop being so goddam reasonable and start behaving like a stubborn toddler right now, or I'm calling a Mod. :p
Click to expand...

to be fair I was wrong a couple of years ago ... it was when I thought I was wrong but I wasn't ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top