Work til you drop

[Worthy Nigelton 1,063]

Looks like the state pension age is going up to 71. You know the private pension minimum age will go with it to maintain a 10 year gap.

I get all the funding arguments, but what an utterly miserable prospect. What's the point of it all if you have to work until you're too old to enjoy your life anymore? If working until you're very old is inevitable (I don't think it is) then there needs to be 3 or 4 day weeks or something. Capitalism can't just keep taking people's lives, services and leisure time without ever giving anything back.

I wonder if we will ever get a politics that tries to make life more pleasurable and happier for people? I can't recall a single piece of political news that improved my mood for years and years and years.

[ricardo 7,400]

When I started work the working week was 42.5 hrs and we had two weeks paid holiday.

 when I finished it was down to 37.5hrs and we had five weeks plus two days paid holiday.

Difficult to argue there wasn't progress.

 

[Nuff Said 5,176]

1) There is no proposal as such to raise the state pension age to 71, someone has merely said that if we want to keep the same ratio of retired to working people, it would be necessary. There are lots of other potential options, including more immigration, reduced pension, tax on pensioner related benefits that aren’t currently means tested, increased business taxation and so on. Even improving the general health of the population so more people are actually able to work until pension age and contribute to the tax take rather than claim benefits.

2) When the state pension was first introduced, the average time people lived after taking it was something like 5 years. Now it’s 20+.

Having said that, the idea of most people working to 71 seems regressive - and unrealistic in many cases. I’m not sure I’d want a 70 year old fireman turn up to rescue me.

Edited February 6 by Nuff Said

[Rock The Boat 1,332]

You don't have to work until 70 if you save enough into a pension pot during your working life. Make sensible life choices.

[wesforprimeminister 25]

17 minutes ago, Rock The Boat said:

You don't have to work until 70 if you save enough into a pension pot during your working life. Make sensible life choices.

can tell what sort of prat you are, obviously never faced any issues or hardships with money, sure karma will do you one day.

[TheGunnShow 5,995]

I'm perfectly happy with the idea of doing so, but I thoroughly enjoy my work as a translator. It would keep my mind nicely ticking over, possibly reducing the risk of dementia in old age too. I do accept that this is not remotely an option in many more physically arduous professions. Rocky's comment re. pension funds doesn't hold much water as far too many people are not able to earn enough to regularly pay into one to start with. If we have a problem with people getting on the housing ladder, then it stands to reason that they're not going to have enough to have kids/save up in a pension fund etc.

Nuff's made the key point really, the system was designed at a time when we didn't tend to live much over 70 years of age and not only are far more people reaching pension age and beyond, they're living far more years beyond it. Don't think cutting the pension is a good idea though - the UK pension isn't great by European standards at all.

I'm inclined to think a more preventative strain of thought re. healthcare should become much more de rigeur, empowering people to live healthier lives.

Edited February 6 by TheGunnShow

[Yellow Fever 3,825]

1 hour ago, Nuff Said said:

1) There is no proposal as such to raise the state pension age to 71, someone has merely said that if we want to keep the same ratio of retired to working people, it would be necessary. There are lots of other potential options, including more immigration, reduced pension, tax on pensioner related benefits that aren’t currently means tested, increased business taxation and so on. Even improving the general health of the population so more people are actually able to work until pension age and contribute to the tax take rather than claim benefits.

2) When the state pension was first introduced, the average time people lived after taking it was something like 5 years. Now it’s 20+.

Having said that, the idea of most people working to 71 seems regressive - and unrealistic in many cases. I’m not sure I’d want a 70 year old fireman turn up to rescue me.

Quite agree. All it's really flagging is the intergenerational unfairness that's now going on that needs addressing.

Edited February 6 by Yellow Fever

[dylanisabaddog 4,983]

2 hours ago, ricardo said:

When I started work the working week was 42.5 hrs and we had two weeks paid holiday.

 when I finished it was down to 37.5hrs and we had five weeks plus two days paid holiday.

Difficult to argue there wasn't progress.

 

I'm sure you're very grateful to the Labour Party and the EU for that. 

[Nuff Said 5,176]

1 hour ago, Rock The Boat said:

You don't have to work until 70 if you save enough into a pension pot during your working life. Make sensible life choices.

Translated:-“I’m all right Jack and I lack the imagination to conceive how difficult other people’s lives may be”.

[Nuff Said 5,176]

13 minutes ago, Yellow Fever said:

Quite agree. All it's really flagging is the intergenerational unfairness that's now going on that needs addressing.

I’m not sure I think there is “generational unfairness” other than many older people have benefited from rising living standards and related economic effects, like a rise in house prices, which have now stalled or gone backwards. They were simply in the right place at the right time (although it didn’t seem like it in the 80s when interest rates were over 14%).
 

Asking those who benefited to give up their gains for the young is understandably not going to be popular, when younger those who are now comfortable wouldn’t have felt particularly well-off either. Without seeing into the future we don’t know whether today’s young will at some point enjoy a similar increase in wealth. If they do, taking it away from “boomers” to give to them now would be premature - and unfair. 
 

What does seem to me like a fairer way to transfer unearned gains more equitably would be to increase tax on the estates of those who die, which is ironically the opposite of what many on the right are asking for. They seem to believe they have an entitlement to perpetuate inequality.

[Yellow Fever 3,825]

3 minutes ago, Nuff Said said:

I’m not sure I think there is “generational unfairness” other than many older people have benefited from rising living standards and related economic effects, like a rise in house prices, which have now stalled or gone backwards. They were simply in the right place at the right time (although it didn’t seem like it in the 80s when interest rates were over 14%).
 

Asking those who benefited to give up their gains for the young is understandably not going to be popular, when younger those who are now comfortable wouldn’t have felt particularly well-off either. Without seeing into the future we don’t know whether today’s young will at some point enjoy a similar increase in wealth. If they do, taking it away from “boomers” to give to them now would be premature - and unfair. 
 

What does seem to me like a fairer way to transfer unearned gains more equitably would be to increase tax on the estates of those who die, which is ironically the opposite of what many on the right are asking for. They seem to believe they have an entitlement to perpetuate inequality.

What I'm pointing out is exactly the untaxed benefits (no NI on earnings is my 'pet' gripe if above the limit) - all those pensioner landlords and investments.

We have a demographic group (far from the poorest if taken as a whole) that feel entitled to all the benefits (care, NHS) that they promised themselves but haven't generally in their working lives ever saved or paid enough tax to make good on their promises. The issue was flagged decades ago!

By the way - interest rates jumped to 15% for less than a day (from 12% and back was it  - and recall we had MIRAS (tax relief) and generally much smaller mortgages too - mine was 3 times my salary to buy a three story town house in near central London! Mortgage 'affordability' I think is worse now than ever.

[WD40 720]

1 hour ago, TheGunnShow said:

I'm perfectly happy with the idea of doing so, but I thoroughly enjoy my work as a translator. It would keep my mind nicely ticking over, possibly reducing the risk of dementia in old age too.

Technology will 100% replace your role as a translator before you retire. This is the other angle to it.

[WD40 720]

23 minutes ago, Yellow Fever said:

generally much smaller mortgages too - mine was 3 times my salary to buy a three story town house in near central London! Mortgage 'affordability' I think is worse now than ever.

What area…that is absolutely sickening as a house poor millenial

[ricardo 7,400]

56 minutes ago, dylanisabaddog said:

I'm sure you're very grateful to the Labour Party and the EU for that. 

More to do with the ASLP and the NGA.

****all to do wuth the EU or Labour Party.

Edited February 6 by ricardo

[WD40 720]

1 hour ago, Yellow Fever said:

Quite agree. All it's really flagging is the intergenerational unfairness that's now going on that needs addressing.

 

40 minutes ago, Nuff Said said:

I’m not sure I think there is “generational unfairness” other than many older people have benefited from rising living standards and related economic effects, like a rise in house prices, which have now stalled or gone backwards. They were simply in the right place at the right time (although it didn’t seem like it in the 80s when interest rates were over 14%).
 

Asking those who benefited to give up their gains for the young is understandably not going to be popular, when younger those who are now comfortable wouldn’t have felt particularly well-off either. Without seeing into the future we don’t know whether today’s young will at some point enjoy a similar increase in wealth. If they do, taking it away from “boomers” to give to them now would be premature - and unfair. 
 

What does seem to me like a fairer way to transfer unearned gains more equitably would be to increase tax on the estates of those who die, which is ironically the opposite of what many on the right are asking for. They seem to believe they have an entitlement to perpetuate inequality.

Right place right time is another way of saying generational unfairness. Paying into a system that is and has benefited the older generation but not the working generation is unfair. 

[dylanisabaddog 4,983]

16 minutes ago, ricardo said:

More to do with the ASLP and the NGA.

****all to do wuth the EU or Labour Party.

Please provide a list of all the things the Conservative Party has done for ordinary working people like you over the last 100 years. Without them you wouldn't have the NHS and you wouldn't have your pension. 

To be really blunt, if it wasn't for the Labour Party you'd be dead. 

Edited February 6 by dylanisabaddog

[ricardo 7,400]

30 minutes ago, dylanisabaddog said:

Please provide a list of all the things the Conservative Party has done for ordinary working people like you over the last 100 years. Without them you wouldn't have the NHS and you wouldn't have your pension. 

To be really blunt, if it wasn't for the Labour Party you'd be dead. 

Yes, I still recall Gordon Brown's pension increase of 75p. My mum was very grateful for that. 

I also recall his tax raid on pension funds. One of the most short sighted actions of modern times. The tax now raises almost nothing because it forced pension funds to stop holding shares in UK companies

https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/comment/article-13041677/HAMISH-MCRAE-Time-fix-Gordon-Browns-pension-errors.html

[Aggy 766]

2 hours ago, Nuff Said said:

I’m not sure I think there is “generational unfairness”

If you’re not yet retired and are paying towards a state pension for someone who has had those 20 plus years (on average) of being retired which you mention, would it be fair if the retirement age shifted up so you have significantly less than those 20 years (on average) of retirement when you get there?

You would also have contributed for longer as well given the later retirement age. Contribute longer, get less…

 

 

[Virtual reality 716]

3 hours ago, Rock The Boat said:

You don't have to work until 70 if you save enough into a pension pot during your working life. Make sensible life choices.

There’s always one…

[TheGunnShow 5,995]

1 hour ago, WD40 said:

Technology will 100% replace your role as a translator before you retire. This is the other angle to it.

It almost certainly won't as language will always change quicker than machinery can keep pace. What you will in all likelihood get is a hybrid which we're already seeing and indeed in the profession it's known as MTPE (machine translation post-editing). On top of that, any agency worth its salt will have two translators on a job anyway with one doing the translation and one reviewing it.

[TheGunnShow 5,995]

2 hours ago, Yellow Fever said:

What I'm pointing out is exactly the untaxed benefits (no NI on earnings is my 'pet' gripe if above the limit) - all those pensioner landlords and investments.

We have a demographic group (far from the poorest if taken as a whole) that feel entitled to all the benefits (care, NHS) that they promised themselves but haven't generally in their working lives ever saved or paid enough tax to make good on their promises. The issue was flagged decades ago!

By the way - interest rates jumped to 15% for less than a day (from 12% and back was it  - and recall we had MIRAS (tax relief) and generally much smaller mortgages too - mine was 3 times my salary to buy a three story town house in near central London! Mortgage 'affordability' I think is worse now than ever.

Re. the bit in bold, I read somewhere recently, think it was from Schroders, that house prices on average are now 9 times the average salary and the last time this was so high was back in the 1870s.

[sonyc 5,541]

29 minutes ago, Virtual reality said:

There’s always one…

 

[KiwiScot 1,460]

5 hours ago, ricardo said:

When I started work the working week was 42.5 hrs and we had two weeks paid holiday.

 when I finished it was down to 37.5hrs and we had five weeks plus two days paid holiday.

Difficult to argue there wasn't progress.

 

Yes with the paid holidays. Plently of working weeks are more than 37.5 though and is that paid 37.5 while working 42.5

I laughed with dismay at one of the justifications for raising the working age to 71 was that people near retirement keep getting ill or dying so there are less workers to prop up the system.

Edited February 6 by KiwiScot

[Worthy Nigelton 1,063]

My biggest issue with this is that it is not progress. What's the point of living longer if it just means working longer and having all of your unhealthy years in retirement. I'd rather die at 75 but retire at 50, than live until 100 but work until I'm 75. Our governments and the system has failed people if living longer means more work and less healthy free time. If that is the case, a fundamental change in the way society is ordered has to occur, or we should act like the French and start setting fire to things. I really mean it (maybe not the fire part) but if this what capitalism and western culture demands, then civil resistance is the only way and things need to get serious... it is totally unacceptable.

[Nuff Said 5,176]

2 hours ago, Aggy said:

If you’re not yet retired and are paying towards a state pension for someone who has had those 20 plus years (on average) of being retired which you mention, would it be fair if the retirement age shifted up so you have significantly less than those 20 years (on average) of retirement when you get there?

You would also have contributed for longer as well given the later retirement age. Contribute longer, get less…

 

 

I’m not denying things are different now, unequal even. But is that “unfair”? Semantics possibly.

And until today’s workers retire, we don’t know that things won’t work out in their favour too. (Unlikely I know).

[Yellow Fever 3,825]

4 hours ago, WD40 said:

What area…that is absolutely sickening as a house poor millenial

E15. Right next to West Ham Parish Church! Gated, garage too!

 

[Yellow Fever 3,825]

15% Mortgage Rates. A myth.

I often see this quoted by us oldies when trying to say to the young it isn't as bad as in our day! I actually think we're getting senile as the actual 'mortgage rate' payable never really went up (in those days most of us where on variable rates but they moved about a month after any changes).

For the record (wiki)

At 10:30 am on 16 September, the British government announced an increase in the base interest rate, from an already high 10%, to 12% to tempt speculators to buy pounds. Despite this and a promise later the same day to raise base rates again to 15%, dealers kept selling pounds, convinced that the government would not keep its promise. By 7:00 pm that evening, Lamont announced Britain would leave the ERM and rates would remain at the new level of 12%; however, on the next day the interest rate was back to 10%.^[14]

It was later revealed that the decision to withdraw had been agreed at an emergency meeting during the day between Lamont, Major, foreign secretary Douglas Hurd, president of the Board of Trade Michael Heseltine, and home secretary Kenneth Clarke (the latter three all being staunch pro-Europeans as well as senior Cabinet ministers),^[15] and that the interest rate hike to 15% had only been a temporary measure to prevent a rout in the pound that afternoon.

[ricardo 7,400]

I had mortgages from 1968 to 1998. The rates may come as a shock to some.

https://www.listwithelizabeth.com/mortgage-interest-rates-historical-perspective/

[Nuff Said 5,176]

30 minutes ago, Yellow Fever said:

15% Mortgage Rates. A myth.

I often see this quoted by us oldies when trying to say to the young it isn't as bad as in our day! I actually think we're getting senile as the actual 'mortgage rate' payable never really went up (in those days most of us where on variable rates but they moved about a month after any changes).

For the record (wiki)

At 10:30 am on 16 September, the British government announced an increase in the base interest rate, from an already high 10%, to 12% to tempt speculators to buy pounds. Despite this and a promise later the same day to raise base rates again to 15%, dealers kept selling pounds, convinced that the government would not keep its promise. By 7:00 pm that evening, Lamont announced Britain would leave the ERM and rates would remain at the new level of 12%; however, on the next day the interest rate was back to 10%.^[14]

It was later revealed that the decision to withdraw had been agreed at an emergency meeting during the day between Lamont, Major, foreign secretary Douglas Hurd, president of the Board of Trade Michael Heseltine, and home secretary Kenneth Clarke (the latter three all being staunch pro-Europeans as well as senior Cabinet ministers),^[15] and that the interest rate hike to 15% had only been a temporary measure to prevent a rout in the pound that afternoon.

That’s the bank base rate. Mortgages were (and still are) higher than the base rate. And as we’ve seen recently, they go up quickly and come down slowly. I seem to remember 14, possibly 14.5%, but not 15. And the general point still applies, they were waaaay higher than they are now. I don’t think anyone is claiming that means people aren’t struggling now, or it was harder in the 80s than it is now, but it definitely wasn’t all bread and roses. Plus we only had three or four channels on the tele! 

Edited February 6 by Nuff Said

[ricardo 7,400]

If memory serves the lowest rate I ever paid was 7% and the highest was 14%..

The long term average over the last 50 yrs is around 8%.

The recent very low rate was fairly short term aberration.