We're All In This Together .....

[Petrushka]

I can suggest some reasons.

First, our economic system depends on debt and consumption. Debt keep us in a weak economic sotuation. What better way of getting a compliant workforce that getting them all thoroughly indebted before ever doing a proper job? Also, the credit fuelled house price boom, still entraps them even further.

As to raising retirement ages, i strongly suspect that the very reason for this is indeed to keep the labour market as "competitive" as possible, with attendant falling wage rates.
Furthermore, there is a factor that I feel is little talked about. As pension age rises towards 70 and above, i suspect that many workers will opt for early retirement, on much reduced benefits, rather than slave on for a few more years. This has the effect of reducing the bill on the (company and government robbed) pension funds. A very neat trick.(the same applies to state pension, with NI contributions flowing in nicely as people contribute for 50 years plus).

I would very much like to retire at 60 (in two years time) but my final salary pension scheme (current deficit: £26m) after 24 years service will be much reduced and it's beginning to look like a non-starter. Furthermore, I yesterday received official notification from the DWP that I will not receive state pension until January 2020 (assuming I last that long). As things stand, although I have no mortgage I can muster only modest savings and feel horribly trapped.

[amateur51]

I would very much like to retire at 60 (in two years time) but my final salary pension scheme (current deficit: £26m) after 24 years service will be much reduced and it's beginning to look like a non-starter. Furthermore, I yesterday received official notification from the DWP that I will not receive state pension until January 2020 (assuming I last that long). As things stand, although I have no mortgage I can muster only modest savings and feel horribly trapped.

Very sorry to hear that, Petrushka :sadface:

[Petrushka]

Very sorry to hear that, Petrushka :sadface:

It's a tale that thousands of others can tell. It's the way things are these days.

[teamsaint]

they are attacking us every which way.

I have almost no pension fund. Its about £18k, just inside the "trivial pensions" limit.
Under the rules, you can draw this in cash, (subject to some tax deductions). Until recently this was age 50. Just before I reached 50, they increased the age to55...........I think I know what will happen in 5 years time !!

The cash would have gone a way towards paying my mortgage off, which is a sight more use than an £18k pension pot. But even this is denied. Brilliant.

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

yep it sure is and my partner, i am sure not alone in this, earns a pittance as a teaching assistant whereas the HRMC have multiplied her earnings by at least 1000 [i kid you not] and have demanded money with menaces .... it must be right it is on the computer innit is the only response from the call centre .... i would dearly like to make the whole cabinet get a weekly call or letter that scares them half to death and then say it is on the computer get lost .... she has had five such incidents these last few months the latest being yesterday morning ....

and the best to you on your new age teamsaint let us hope Soton win the league eh! [ahem ... or West Ham :whistle:]

[handsomefortune]

fair comment.........although , as you know, i meant directly , rather than indirectly.
As you imply, dave and his mates can make money out of any situation. Boom and bust keeps us economically fearful......and they make money at all stages of the cycle.
Nice work if you can get it !

although , as you know, i meant directly

i didn't know actually, but i see what you mean now teamsaint.

dave and his mates can make money out of any situation.

unfortunately, a4e (and other similar rip offs of the most vulnerable in society for enormous personal profit) began under nulabour :steam: which makes me feel physically sick tbh.....dave's' just 'developing' what gordon began.

Boom and bust keeps us economically fearful.

agreed, and perhaps there's the answer to petrushka's point, about the non logic of the retirement age increasing .... the 'plan' now seems to be to exlpoit more sections of people, and for as long as possible.

the concept that politicians actually sit there fretting about the future of the young; or older people (who've often actually had the chance to pay their dues, and in (slightly) better econ/soc circumstances) is getting a bit of a battering.

therefore 'a plan' is looking increasingly like a myth, nevermind a logical plan, such as laying off the old and employing younger generations.

it's an appalling image of current day politicians, yet people will bang on about 'the young not voting' ....can you really blame them in a sense? the guardian link almost makes US 'work fair' look 'posh', as i believe the scheme is not owned, directly profited from, by an individual, which imv is a specifically frightening aspect of the guardian article.


unfortunately, women typically come out particularly badly, as they have often not accrued as much at the time of retirement as men. not that anyone gets a particularly easy option of late.

as petrushka's post illustrates ..... for cameron to spring the change in retirement age on people at the tail end of their careers is horribly cruel, just when they should be relaxing the pace of work a bit as 'almost pensioners' they suddenly have to work for longer (and possibly harder), yet also dread the prospect of not much of a 'reward' on retirement. the difference is that 'almost pensioners' aren't accused of being 'cheats' in the way that the younger gens are ... (well not as yet anyway)! :grr:

[teamsaint]

when i say " dave and his mates", I would tend to include liberal and labour front bench politicians in that group !!

[handsomefortune]

thanks for the clarification teamsaint, think we're reading from the same prayer sheet right there! (ho hum)

[teamsaint]

Dave clearly has the" labour" party thoroughly onside, since the red leadership failed to support teachers in their attempt to have their retirement ages raised and pension rights reduce. Very socialist !!
What's more, the recent recruits to the labour front bench are all bank insiders........

Heads we win, tails you lose.

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

I attribute a large part of the blame for the lack of growth since the Coalition took office to George Osborne, David Cameron and Nick Clegg putting party interests ahead of country. On numerous occasions the trio variously claimed the economy was bankrupt, that we had somehow run out of money, and that we were comparable to Greece, which is totally untrue. Lies, damn lies and politicians. The UK has its own central bank and can print as much money as necessary, plus the Government can borrow long at negative real interest rates. Such foolish talk has cost jobs and effectively has driven down the share price of UK Plc and lowered business and consumer confidence well before the majority of the cuts have been implemented. If a country is bankrupt, why would any firm want to invest here?

Danny Blanchflower in today's Indie

[Petrushka]

Danny Blanchflower in today's Indie

Link doesn't work, aka.

[Lateralthinking1]

Can someone enlighten me as to why, if youth unemployment is as high as they are saying it is, the age of retirement is going upwards? This surely makes matters much worse for the young while those who want to retire (as I would love to do) are prevented from doing so thus blocking the way for the next generation. Government (taxpayer) will pay at either end anyway. It makes no sense to me.

The cost of pensions. That is why people like me lost their state jobs in their forties; why people like you are having to work longer; and why a lot of youth aren't getting jobs, even having been encouraged to go to university.

On encouragement of foreign investors, it might well be that if they weren't here there would be even fewer jobs. But imagine a country in which the burger chains and coffee shops pulled out. People here would have opportunities to set up new ones.

I am not going to opine on tax again. I make though these observations. People can make up their own minds:

1. This German model on a flat tax questions whether it could sustain a welfare state - http://ftp.iza.org/dp3142.pdf

2. The flat tax is UKIP policy. They believe it is compatible with the reintroduction of free dental treatment and free eye tests.

3. Tax incentives for new business arguably presupposes that most job sectors aren't already saturated.

4. Just for the record, income tax has been above 100% twice since WW2.

5. Huge income difference can be a disincentive to work, particularly now combined with the habitual breaking of contracts. Why put in 10 years for what some achieve in two months? That's how I feel. Many would agree. I accept families have little choice.

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

apologies hope this does!

[amateur51]

A primary school in the country's most affluent borough is making plans to cope with losing up to half its children in the wake of the benefits cap, which critics fear will make London unaffordable for thousands of families.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/mar/11/benefits-cap-school-loses-pupils?CMP=EMCSOCEML657

:yikes:

[PhilipT]

Can someone enlighten me as to why, if youth unemployment is as high as they are saying it is, the age of retirement is going upwards? This surely makes matters much worse for the young while those who want to retire (as I would love to do) are prevented from doing so thus blocking the way for the next generation. Government (taxpayer) will pay at either end anyway. It makes no sense to me.

The state pension age is going up as part of a long-term effort, by successive governments, to prevent public spending from getting out of control. (We could have a long discussion about how well-judged and successful those efforts have been, but that's beside the point.) Life expectancies are rising so fast that current retirement ages will become increasingly unaffordable.

It can only be true that this makes matters worse for the young if there is only a fixed amount of work to go around. This is the well-known "lump of labour" fallacy. The truth is that the amount of work that can be done is not limited. There is always scope for those not earning to work to provide some good or service - perhaps not conveniently, or pleasantly or lucratively, but scope nonetheless. If they do, the economy will produce more goods and services, which will be paid for (raising total income) and consumed (raising total living standards). Economic downturns do raise unemployment, but only temporarily, until those out of work find something productive to do. In the long run without a rise in pension ages there will be too few people working to produce the goods and services consumed by everyone, including those retired.