The vast majority of people in this country do not have money to start businesses, its simply fallacy to suggest because lots more people working until 70 there will suddenly be more jobs.
Indeed, when the unemployment rate for the under 25a rises even more its actually MORE costly, you are creating a generation who have no work experience, what do you think that will do to the country?
Training them costs money, the government wont spend it, businesses are increasingly, as I said in another thread, shipping in cheap trained labour from across the world, and now you seem to be applauding 70 year olds in mcdonalds instead of the youngest getting some work experience.The long term ramifications are frightening.
In a tectbook world where we have jobs for all, its fine., This isnt a textbook world, its the real one, where economic theory has a habit of failing.
It is economics for idiots, as I said.
And interesting you mention saving. With the government keeping interest rates low on purpose, at 0.5% for most people. saving is not only rather pointless, it is actively discouraged by the people implementing this policy. That alone should hint at how ludicrously , monumentally stupid our political class are, never mind what they say from day to day, they have ongoing policies that contradict each other.
So why have we shipped in 6 million extra immigrants if there is no jobs?
This is an inept government that has not invested and we are going at a snails pace, we started from zero so of course against Europe our growth looks fair but in reality Osbourne has stifled any chance of real growth with his misguided policies and savage cuts that have strangled growth.
Been on the cards for years and Labour would have had to do precisely the same. Anyway are not the Labour supporters around here going on about the amount of 'benefits' going to pensioners?
Mind you there are two things that happened under Labour's watch which have reduced the value of pensions.
First was the £5bn raid on pensions when ACT was reformed, then as has been the case in every single Labour administration since the war - stocks lost value. It lost -26.3% and was the worst performing stock market in the world except Japan. The biggest investor in stocks are pension funds - and those investment fund everyone's pensions.
The vast majority of people in this country do not have money to start businesses, its simply fallacy to suggest because lots more people working until 70 there will suddenly be more jobs.
Indeed, when the unemployment rate for the under 25a rises even more its actually MORE costly, you are creating a generation who have no work experience, what do you think that will do to the country?
Training them costs money, the government wont spend it, businesses are increasingly, as I said in another thread, shipping in cheap trained labour from across the world, and now you seem to be applauding 70 year olds in mcdonalds instead of the youngest getting some work experience.The long term ramifications are frightening.
In a tectbook world where we have jobs for all, its fine., This isnt a textbook world, its the real one, where economic theory has a habit of failing.
It is economics for idiots, as I said.
And interesting you mention saving. With the government keeping interest rates low on purpose, at 0.5% for most people. saving is not only rather pointless, it is actively discouraged by the people implementing this policy. That alone should hint at how ludicrously , monumentally stupid our political class are, never mind what they say from day to day, they have ongoing policies that contradict each other.
i think calling it economics for idiots is a bit steep.
as i understand what you are saying there are a fixed number of jobs in the economy?
you don't think people working later in to life, having a higher disposable income for longer creates more jobs? like other economists do?
your plan is not a million miles away from arthur scargills full employment by 4 day working week theory.
Current pensions are already living longer. The problem exists NOW. Punishing 20 - 40 years olds by increasing retirement age doesn't save one penny until over 20 years in the future.
This is more about dismantling the welfare state than dealing with the deficit. If Osbourne really needed to cut the pension bill, he would cut the pensions being paid now, not in two decades time. Means testing the state pension could be brought in immediately if it wasn't going to hit Tory voters!
At least they are getting decent 30/40 years notice of those changes coming in...plenty of time for planning/saving accordingly...some of us were well into our fifties before we got told we would have wait longer.
Been on the cards for years and Labour would have had to do precisely the same. Anyway are not the Labour supporters around here going on about the amount of 'benefits' going to pensioners?
Mind you there are two things that happened under Labour's watch which have reduced the value of pensions.
First was the £5bn raid on pensions when ACT was reformed, then as has been the case in every single Labour administration since the war - stocks lost value. It lost -26.3% and was the worst performing stock market in the world except Japan. The biggest investor in stocks are pension funds - and those investment fund everyone's pensions.
All politicians have ballsed up pensions Lawson with his Tax on pensions surpluses my company stopped paying in as it had a surplus but i still had to, and Brown with his raid too.:mad::mad:
Anyway are not the Labour supporters around here going on about the amount of 'benefits' going to pensioners?
The fact is that a huge majority of the welfare bill is spent on pensioners, that is an undeniable fact. However, the Tory government have steadfastly ignored this fact and blamed the huge cost of the welfare bill on the unemployed, sick and disabled.
The amount of benefits pensioners receive is not the relevant point, the truth is.
I wouldn't get upset at the moment, governments chance and so do policies. I think expecting people to work until they are 70 is ridiculous, certainly in some jobs it would not be possible. At the moment we have too many young people not working and those at the other end of the age scale are paying the price which is where the benefit reforms may help. Too many young people, especially from dysfunctional homes are not educated to an acceptable standard, some have behavioural issues, and others are content to breed like rabbits, this all needs to be addressed to take the pressure off the older generation of workers.
All politicians have ballsed up pensions Lawson with his Tax on pensions surpluses my company stopped paying in as it had a surplus but i still had to, and Brown with his raid too.:mad::mad:
Nothing matches the £100-£150bn that Brown's raid cost - and it precipitated the ending of most final-salary pensions schemes.
I wonder how long it will take for this to influence our property market - as in, I expect lenders to encourage 35-40 year loan periods. Politically this would be a triple win - younger borrowers on the banking hook for decades, house prices rising to accommodate this increased borrowing, 50+ voters exempt from all these reforms enjoy another boost to housing wealth.
i think calling it economics for idiots is a bit steep.
as i understand what you are saying there are a fixed number of jobs in the economy?
No, I never said that. I said that we have a finite number of jobs, and we will never have full employment.
Thus more at one end means less at the other.
Pretending companies will train youngsters when they havent for 30 odd years and its becoming even easier to import ready trained staff, pretending people at 70 years old are as capable as they are at 50, or even 60 and it wont cause issues in the workplace (I'm fairly sure if I had 70 years old in the workshop at my business I'd be paying some seriously increased employers and public liability premiums) is exactly how these policies get as far as they do, but that is not the reality of our world at all.
We cant afford pensions not only because people are living longer, but because the original funded system was hijacked by politicians as a free pot of money to be used to buy votes whenever they felt like it and now with decreased tax take via high unemployment and falling wages there isnt enough left to pay for it all.
We have successive governments that not only make saving unfavourable via artificially low interest rates but actively discourage it - we are currently using tax money to fund a scheme to get people half a million pounds mortgage debt for instance - whilst bemaoning the fact no one is saving for their own retirements.
THAT is why its idiocy, because it is contradictory populist nonsense that doesnt even mesh with the other populist nonsense.
As long as we have a political class pandering to the corporate world encouraging ever falling wages we will have debt issues as it equals falling tax intake as well, this alone would be bad enough, but our brand of 'capitalism' also wants high cost of essentials such as housing to go with it, thus ensuring the vast majority not only barely scrape by but have no chance of adequately preparing for retirement because they simply do not have the spare cash to ever do so.
The 'pension crisis' is one almost entirely of our political class' making (all of them of all parties)and they are not making it better, they are sacrificing our young for the mistakes and people are lapping it up.
Twenty five years from now, most of the Baby Boomers will be dead, and we will have a bit of a lull before the next elderly bulge, but of course life expectancy will have continued to rise, that is why this rise in pension age needs to occur, nothing to do with the problem now or the next decade or two.
retire at 70 its all a Con
in your 20's worrying about not retiring until your 70
with the NHS and Free health care gone by then
no body will live until there 70
Current pensions are already living longer. The problem exists NOW. Punishing 20 - 40 years olds by increasing retirement age doesn't save one penny until over 20 years in the future.
20 - 40 year olds?
People coming up to 50 having already contributed for a possible 30 plus years, with the expectancy of receiving a pension at 65, will also have to work an extra 2 years.
Believe me the war is on everyone who is not in the top 1% with the older and disabled people suffering just as bad as the young.
Well said chinchin, agree with your earlier post as well. I'm the same as you, coming up for 60 and far from affluent - I have to work to support myself, but nevertheless was looking forward to retiring at 62 until the goalposts were moved and I now have to wait till I'm 65.
But no doubt this post will be ignored as have yours, far be it from us to explode the myth perpetuated by the "bash the over 50's" brigade.
And to the poster who said Baby Boomers will all be dead in 25 years time - not me! I have every intention of still being alive at 85 and beyond, if only to annoy the hell out of the insufferably pompous young.
So why have we shipped in 6 million extra immigrants if there is no jobs?
That is the economics of idiots !
6 million people seeking a better life have come to the UK.
Some for a lifetime, some short term.
The short term are happy to work for less pay. share housing costs in the UK and send money home.
Well that's whjat the East Europeans I work with have and still do.
Economy of idiots screwing those who were born in the UK who have not got skills desirable in world markets, thus unable to escape this nation where they feel 3rd class scum.
You really don't understand this do you? i mean i know partly you are bending the truth to make a point be really you don't understand it do you.
when should people who are now say 40 years old be told what their retirement age will be?
what would you do?
I'm sure I understand at least as well as you. There is no need to be patronising.
People 40 years old have been told what their retirement age will be since they were able to comprehend the English language. For decades, the retirement age was 65, for everyone, people in their 20s, 30s, 40s, 50s and 60s. We all had the same finishing line for our state pension.
We are now told we have to cut the welfare state as it is unaffordable (not that I believe much that any of the main parties tell me), so now we have multiple finishing lines based on people's current age.
There were many alternative solutions to address the issue of increasing life expectancy. As I mentioned earlier, means testing the state pension would have cut the cost immediately rather than 20 years in the future.
But the baby boomer generation can't be asked to make any sacrifices. Free universities, huge pensions, massive increase in house values and running up a massive deficit are all OK as long as the next generations pay for it all.
The reaction by some to this is rather ott when you consider what the proposal appears to be and the timescales involved. The change is to bring forward from the mid 2040s to the mid 2030s the gradual increase in the age at which the state pension is paid from 65 to 68 and the idea it may rise to 69 is not a new one. You also have to make such changes well in advance for blatantly obvious reasons and can't make them for people who it will impact in the short term and therefore have no chance to plan for them.
The whole focus is on reducing the cost of providing the state pension in the future, which is understandable bearing in mind the amount it costs and the state of the public finances, but the implications of that are largely ignored by all parties. The obvious one is if people work longer then they occupy jobs for longer and that must impact younger people. Another is occupational pensions which these days are a shadow of what they once were in most sectors of the economy so the value of the state pension becomes more important.
As for means testing the state pension no party is proposing that as it is seen as a universal benefit that everyone pays towards and the political fallout would be huge. However that should be looked at in terms of how much would it save for those who have no need of it.
One thing that is not an option is ignoring the fact people are living longer and leaving the state pension system as it is without very significant cuts in spending elsewhere and/or very significant increases in taxation.
The reaction by some to this is rather ott when you consider what the proposal appears to be and the timescales involved. The change is to bring forward from the mid 2040s to the mid 2030s the gradual increase in the age at which the state pension is paid from 65 to 68 and the idea it may rise to 69 is not a new one.
The whole focus is on reducing the cost of providing the state pension in the future, which is understandable bearing in mind the amount it costs and the state of the public finances, but the implications of that are largely ignored by all parties. The obvious one is if people work longer then they occupy jobs for longer and that must impact younger people. Another is occupational pensions which these days are a shadow of what they once were in most sectors of the economy so the value of the state pension becomes more important.
As for means testing the state pension no party is proposing that as it is seen as a universal benefit that everyone pays towards and the political fallout would be huge. However that should be looked at in terms of how much would it save for those who have no need of it.
One thing that is not an option is ignoring the fact people are living longer and leaving the state pension system as it is without very significant cuts in spending elsewhere and/or very significant increases in taxation.
Some alternatives:
1) Means testing (I don't know why people keep writing that no party is suggesting this. Are we only allowed to repeat ideas already promoted by political parties, or are we allowed to think for ourselves?)
2) Encourage saving (compulsory pension contributions by employees and employers), tax incentives (for both companies and individuals), reduce fees, government guarantees that pension funds are protected.
3) Collect more tax to pay for pensions: Actually get the major corporations to pay tax in the UK on profits made in the UK. Clamp down on tax avoidance schemes by individuals.
Comments
So why have we shipped in 6 million extra immigrants if there is no jobs?
That is the economics of idiots !
Been on the cards for years and Labour would have had to do precisely the same. Anyway are not the Labour supporters around here going on about the amount of 'benefits' going to pensioners?
Mind you there are two things that happened under Labour's watch which have reduced the value of pensions.
First was the £5bn raid on pensions when ACT was reformed, then as has been the case in every single Labour administration since the war - stocks lost value. It lost -26.3% and was the worst performing stock market in the world except Japan. The biggest investor in stocks are pension funds - and those investment fund everyone's pensions.
i think calling it economics for idiots is a bit steep.
as i understand what you are saying there are a fixed number of jobs in the economy?
you don't think people working later in to life, having a higher disposable income for longer creates more jobs? like other economists do?
your plan is not a million miles away from arthur scargills full employment by 4 day working week theory.
At least they are getting decent 30/40 years notice of those changes coming in...plenty of time for planning/saving accordingly...some of us were well into our fifties before we got told we would have wait longer.
All politicians have ballsed up pensions Lawson with his Tax on pensions surpluses my company stopped paying in as it had a surplus but i still had to, and Brown with his raid too.:mad::mad:
The fact is that a huge majority of the welfare bill is spent on pensioners, that is an undeniable fact. However, the Tory government have steadfastly ignored this fact and blamed the huge cost of the welfare bill on the unemployed, sick and disabled.
The amount of benefits pensioners receive is not the relevant point, the truth is.
Nothing matches the £100-£150bn that Brown's raid cost - and it precipitated the ending of most final-salary pensions schemes.
It was disgusting, stealing hard working peoples money like that.
Their whole tenancy in office was a complete disaster for this country.
I hope they never get back into office and Gordon Brown should be sued for what he did.
No, I never said that. I said that we have a finite number of jobs, and we will never have full employment.
Thus more at one end means less at the other.
Pretending companies will train youngsters when they havent for 30 odd years and its becoming even easier to import ready trained staff, pretending people at 70 years old are as capable as they are at 50, or even 60 and it wont cause issues in the workplace (I'm fairly sure if I had 70 years old in the workshop at my business I'd be paying some seriously increased employers and public liability premiums) is exactly how these policies get as far as they do, but that is not the reality of our world at all.
We cant afford pensions not only because people are living longer, but because the original funded system was hijacked by politicians as a free pot of money to be used to buy votes whenever they felt like it and now with decreased tax take via high unemployment and falling wages there isnt enough left to pay for it all.
We have successive governments that not only make saving unfavourable via artificially low interest rates but actively discourage it - we are currently using tax money to fund a scheme to get people half a million pounds mortgage debt for instance - whilst bemaoning the fact no one is saving for their own retirements.
THAT is why its idiocy, because it is contradictory populist nonsense that doesnt even mesh with the other populist nonsense.
As long as we have a political class pandering to the corporate world encouraging ever falling wages we will have debt issues as it equals falling tax intake as well, this alone would be bad enough, but our brand of 'capitalism' also wants high cost of essentials such as housing to go with it, thus ensuring the vast majority not only barely scrape by but have no chance of adequately preparing for retirement because they simply do not have the spare cash to ever do so.
The 'pension crisis' is one almost entirely of our political class' making (all of them of all parties)and they are not making it better, they are sacrificing our young for the mistakes and people are lapping it up.
I certainly call that idiocy.
in your 20's worrying about not retiring until your 70
with the NHS and Free health care gone by then
no body will live until there 70
20 - 40 year olds?
People coming up to 50 having already contributed for a possible 30 plus years, with the expectancy of receiving a pension at 65, will also have to work an extra 2 years.
Well said chinchin, agree with your earlier post as well. I'm the same as you, coming up for 60 and far from affluent - I have to work to support myself, but nevertheless was looking forward to retiring at 62 until the goalposts were moved and I now have to wait till I'm 65.
But no doubt this post will be ignored as have yours, far be it from us to explode the myth perpetuated by the "bash the over 50's" brigade.
And to the poster who said Baby Boomers will all be dead in 25 years time - not me! I have every intention of still being alive at 85 and beyond, if only to annoy the hell out of the insufferably pompous young.
This is yet another policy which shows we're not all really in this together.
6 million people seeking a better life have come to the UK.
Some for a lifetime, some short term.
The short term are happy to work for less pay. share housing costs in the UK and send money home.
Well that's whjat the East Europeans I work with have and still do.
Economy of idiots screwing those who were born in the UK who have not got skills desirable in world markets, thus unable to escape this nation where they feel 3rd class scum.
I'm sure I understand at least as well as you. There is no need to be patronising.
People 40 years old have been told what their retirement age will be since they were able to comprehend the English language. For decades, the retirement age was 65, for everyone, people in their 20s, 30s, 40s, 50s and 60s. We all had the same finishing line for our state pension.
We are now told we have to cut the welfare state as it is unaffordable (not that I believe much that any of the main parties tell me), so now we have multiple finishing lines based on people's current age.
There were many alternative solutions to address the issue of increasing life expectancy. As I mentioned earlier, means testing the state pension would have cut the cost immediately rather than 20 years in the future.
But the baby boomer generation can't be asked to make any sacrifices. Free universities, huge pensions, massive increase in house values and running up a massive deficit are all OK as long as the next generations pay for it all.
This is what worries me - keeping (or encouraging) more people in work until 70 means that they remain in jobs far longer.
The whole focus is on reducing the cost of providing the state pension in the future, which is understandable bearing in mind the amount it costs and the state of the public finances, but the implications of that are largely ignored by all parties. The obvious one is if people work longer then they occupy jobs for longer and that must impact younger people. Another is occupational pensions which these days are a shadow of what they once were in most sectors of the economy so the value of the state pension becomes more important.
As for means testing the state pension no party is proposing that as it is seen as a universal benefit that everyone pays towards and the political fallout would be huge. However that should be looked at in terms of how much would it save for those who have no need of it.
One thing that is not an option is ignoring the fact people are living longer and leaving the state pension system as it is without very significant cuts in spending elsewhere and/or very significant increases in taxation.
I dont disagree its not unfair, however you could always put it down to an increased life expectancy due to how brilliant the NHS is.
The projections for elderly seems to now grow.
http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/npp/national-population-projections/2012-based-projections/rft-table-a1-2-principal-projection---gb-summary.xls
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baby_boomer
I'm just waiting for the first Labour mouthpiece to suggest that a bankers bonus tax will fund pensions in the future.
Some alternatives:
1) Means testing (I don't know why people keep writing that no party is suggesting this. Are we only allowed to repeat ideas already promoted by political parties, or are we allowed to think for ourselves?)
2) Encourage saving (compulsory pension contributions by employees and employers), tax incentives (for both companies and individuals), reduce fees, government guarantees that pension funds are protected.
3) Collect more tax to pay for pensions: Actually get the major corporations to pay tax in the UK on profits made in the UK. Clamp down on tax avoidance schemes by individuals.