work until you die of old age in the u.k

reply to post by Painterz


i knew this [lord ] ? and all he had to do once a year was turn up i london and sign his name in a book for £50+ thousand and that was 15 + years ago .

they found a rare bluebell on ground he was going to cut trees down on and some heritage fund payed him £250.000 not to cut it down the wood was only worth a few thousand on that ground .

how the other half live

reply to post by brace22


"a lot of people are spongers, we all know that" i don't, i see droves of people locked into unfulfilling and exploitative work. We don't live to work for them, we work to live for us. That you seem to think we must all work hard and receive low wages in order to help the economy and that is sad. You may not believe this, and i hope you don't... the amount saved from the welfare bill in terms of rebalancing the economy (which i would argue against the need for anyway) is very small. this is about the upper class keeping the workers busy...
My opinion, with respect.

geobro
reply to post by Painterz

 

i knew this [lord ] ? and all he had to do once a year was turn up i london and sign his name in a book for £50+ thousand and that was 15 + years ago .

they found a rare bluebell on ground he was going to cut trees down on and some heritage fund payed him £250.000 not to cut it down the wood was only worth a few thousand on that ground .

how the other half live

If it is any consolation I suggest to you that you consider that very wealthy people have just as much misery in their lives. Money does not buy happiness in and of itself. You are making a mistake if you think money will make everything ok for you. I am sitting on a stash I cannot be bothered to spend because materialism does not light my fire. Having that stash is not making me happy. I am more interested in having a loving partner. That has eluded me to date so all the cash in the world is not going to help me on that quest is it.

After reading the replies on this thread I am happy to have things the way they are in terms of the economy. I prefer that to the brutal and non workable ideas (if you can call them that) being expressed here.

What, no welfare??? Where are all these population boomers among the working class girls you so deride? The population of native British people is dwindling. If you are going to survive I think it is a good idea those girls are having babies.

Oh yes, the backbone of Britain, the good old working class. There was not a whole lot nice about where I grew up. It was a brutal and violent upbringing. That's my experience of the good ol' British working class.

If you guys were dictating policy we'd be right up the proverbial creek without a paddle. No revolution here folks. It is better the way it is while people are so cruel, jealous and unfit to govern themselves. At least the people that are running the show care enough to have a welfare state in the UK. They know that it keeps at least some standards of health, hygiene and housing for vulnerable people.

Taking away welfare from the young would not solve the aging population problems of funding people after they are no longer able to work. It would just create a social catastrophe for the working class people you are so supposed to be sticking up for.

It is not possible in the market conditions today to not have welfare. You would have starving and naked children roaming round. Diseases would raise their ugly heads. The whole tone of life would be brought down.

Where would the fail safe be for you when you get ill, too? You think like you are immune to the economic problems because you happen to be in employment right now. It might not always be that way for you.

reply to post by geobro

Reality check (apolitical by the way). Post ww2 there were 10 workers per pensioner now there are 4. Current pensions are paid for out of current taxes, hence the tax burden due to pensioners has increased. This is set to get worse as lifespans carry on increasing. Either you increase immigration to have more people working to pay the taxes to provide pensions OR you increase the pension age to increase the number of workers and decrease the number of pensioners.

As per usual for a rant there are distortions and or cherry picking in the OP. The fact is that post ww2 the average worker died within 4 years of retirement. Today people live for 20 years after retirement. This is not exactly the same in every town across the country there are regional variations. BUT the overall population is living much longer than they did.

This is an unsustainable situation something must change.

Oh and please, don't start the typical Daily Mail rant about people who never work blah blah blah. They are a small minority of people. The vast majority of people work. The majority of welfare goes to pensioners and people in work on low pay (which is really a subsidy for company that should not be in business....think about it)

yorkshirelad
reply to post by geobro

 

Reality check (apolitical by the way). Post ww2 there were 10 workers per pensioner now there are 4. Current pensions are paid for out of current taxes, hence the tax burden due to pensioners has increased. This is set to get worse as lifespans carry on increasing. Either you increase immigration to have more people working to pay the taxes to provide pensions OR you increase the pension age to increase the number of workers and decrease the number of pensioners.

As per usual for a rant there are distortions and or cherry picking in the OP. The fact is that post ww2 the average worker died within 4 years of retirement. Today people live for 20 years after retirement. This is not exactly the same in every town across the country there are regional variations. BUT the overall population is living much longer than they did.

This is an unsustainable situation something must change.

Oh and please, don't start the typical Daily Mail rant about people who never work blah blah blah. They are a small minority of people. The vast majority of people work. The majority of welfare goes to pensioners and people in work on low pay (which is really a subsidy for company that should not be in business....think about it)

This is very true, there is a serious problem. It's actually one of the main reasons why I'm so in favour of immigration, and why I think New labour were so in favour of immigration, it was/is bringing a lot of young people into the country.

And I think the economics of dealing with this upcoming pensions crisis is exactly why immigration was being encouraged. And why Tory efforts to 'crack down' on it, aren't actually cracking down on it, because they know perfectly well we desperately need the immigrants.

This upsets me, especially when people die shortly after retiring. How unfair is that!?!

60 should be the absolute maximum for everyone, with the option to work on if you want to. It's not rocket science.


Grrrrrrrr!!!!

My thoughts is its up to people, the real citizens to stop their asshat behaviors, by really angry phone calls, meetings in persons in groups, and really detailed letters, and organizing to remove them from office for even thinking outloud, let alone writing a bill, detailing any form of crimes against humanity or repulsive crapola. That would mean lose all benefits including dental for them, and firing. People need to do something!

reply to post by geobro

as a retired plasterer and not by choice i might add , i found that employers did not think that someone of sixty years of age would be able to handle site work anymore , even though i was producing a higher quality and faster amount of work than the other men in their 30,s and 40,s doing the same job .

there must be many similar stories like mine out there but the government should realise that it is not a case of one size fits all .

if people want to work past the retirement age then they should be allowed to , but it should also be realised that if every one is forced to work past the retirement age, then there will less jobs for the young people that are just starting out .

I have been talking about this for ages, even before Cameron and his little bitch boys got into No 10. I have said for years that only the rich will be allowed to retire, only those who can line the pockets of the rich will be allowed to retire. Yes I'm saying allowed to retire. its the way the world works now.

We had a rubbish riot that rather than putting a point across a large group of thugs decided to trash places, attack Prince Charles car while he was driving through one of the streets and then the next day the Politicians weren't demanding the kids be sorted out, they weren't condemning their actions outright, they were just saying Oh they were doing it to show how angry they are at the system and these idiot kids believed them.

Its how it works, politicians talk one way in front of the camera and another behind. I remember before my granddad died a few years back, he was watching television and a bloke on the news said that he foresaw that there would be no retirement age, that you work your entire life, you pay your taxes and then that would be it you'd die on your feet sweating your arse off. My granddad, sat up and laughed and he said, If the kids of today are like they were when i was young they would demand a fair pension, and a reasonable retirement age. he said that if he were young today (or then) he would storm down their and demand an audience with the Prime Minister, he said he would argue that he has a right to retire and a reasonable age.

But sadly that wont happen now, kids will just trash shops and politicians will say Oh the poor babies. I've done what i can, sent a bunch of letters off, to my local Minister, to the Prime Minister, to Camera, Milliband even Clegg the Pleb but i know my words will do nothing and go nowhere. they'll read it and probable have a good laugh at us POOR people.

We will not be represented until someone who didn't grow up with a silver spoon in their arses...ur i mean mouths is Prime Minister but again that wont happen because the law in the UK seems to say you have to have gone to Eton to run for Prime Minister.

reply to post by Danny85


That is so true, I can't think of many MP's who actually fight for us...Tony Benn was a decent sort.
How do we get a person not from Eton and the boys club into power when It takes money to get into that power?.
Maybe we should start out slow and get involved in local politics?.
I always wanted to be Mayor I would wear the bling and hat all the time even in bed (jk).

You can tell that those who are proposing this have never done a hard days graft in their lives.

I don't know many brickies, steel erectors, welders etc who are fit enough to work past 60 let alone up to 70.
And why on earth should they?

And it's in stark contrast to the realities of industry and the world today - more and more companies are forcing people into early retirement around the mid-50's and any 40+ unemployed person will tell you it's nigh on impossible to gain employment once past that figure.

Surely as a progressive and compassionate country we should be encouraging people to retire earlier thus giving them more quality time in the autumn of their lives and helping create more vacancies for the younger generations?

A tip for anyone who is getting older and need to change jobs (plus young uns leaving school etc) If you want a job for life get into care, more and more people need looking after every year, the rate of dementia cases is going to treble in the next 30 years so more carers are needed.
Plus it is a satisfying job

geobro
reply to post by boymonkey74

 

the 500 billion they are talking about saving with this could easy be taxed out of the city of london and the offshore trusts they have hidden .

my mother worked for the city of westminster council library and got a shock when i showed her that the queen bows to boris johnstone at the city of london and asks his permission to enter the square mile .

i think us plebs need to take to the streets again and show them who is boss

You mixed that up a bit, it is the Lord Mayor of the City of London, not Boris the mayor of London but the point is generally correct none the less. Indeed the City is an older country than England or Scotland, it is independent of the UK and the last attempt at reforming it into the UK, in the late 1800s, failed.

You can probably see by now why many of us Scot are going to be voting yes, renationalisation, earlier pensions. etc. We can vote to become free men, as opposed to having to be chosen by the aldermen of the City as it stands at present.

reply to post by Revolution9


AND YET THERE IS MORE working people in poverty now than unemployed people the devil box announced the other night but pensioners are faring better thankfully .

listen to any charity that deals with handing out food and they have seen a increase of 100%s in the people looking for help from them even people who you would imagine to be in well paid jobs .

how are people to save for a pension when there has not been wage increases in some sectors for 10 + years and bills are sky rocketing .

especially in things that the public used to own transport/ heating etc etc

reply to post by geobro


Pension? Iam 40 and have none, I earn just above minimum wage and can't afford one.
My plan is when Iam 60 do a jewel/gold heist and bugger off to Canada, If I get caught I will have three meals a day and a roof over my head.

reply to post by boymonkey74


you think my kind of way boymonkey i often say what is the worst they can do put you in a room and give you three meals a day and free pool

Retirement is a fairly new concept. "Work until you die" is what most people have done in the history of the earth. In fact, the retirement age of 65 was set by the German Kaiser in response to labor unrest. He instituted a pension system, but it was nowhere near what we think of as pensions today. First of all, the average life expectancy was (wait for it) 65, so the idea was that if you managed to outlive the longevity tables, you would have a little something to pay for your food and incidentals, but your relatives were expected to take care of you and give you a place to live until you actually died. In other words, actuarially speaking, you were dead by 65, so that was the "retirement" age.

But today longevity has extended so that it is 78 (for men in the US), but if you reach 65, it's 83. People are now living far beyond the original "retirement" age, and they expect government pensions to not only pay for food and incidentals, but the lifestyle they have grown to expect. "Family" is no longer expected to provide. The government has taken over being the family. Naturally, all this comes out of the public coffers, and with booms and busts in the birthrate over the years, is unsustainable.

It is so unsustainable that even if you confiscated ALL the so-called "1%ers" wealth, it would not be enough to pay for it. People seem to think that if you simply "fixed the disparity" in wealth, everything would be okay, but we are so far beyond that in terms of national debt, including pensions, that it's laughable. Of course, people still feel entitled, and what will happen is that they will bleed us dry until there's nothing left for anyone.

reply to post by schuyler

The government has taken over being the family. Naturally, all this comes out of the public coffers, and with booms and busts in the birthrate over the years, is unsustainable.

You do know about State Earnings Related Pension Scheme, SERPS, and it's replacement State Second Pension, S2P?

en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...

Yes, it's public coffers but it in essence that money has been leant to the government by every taxpayer on the condition it will be paid back come retirement in the form of a weekly payment.

Of course, people still feel entitled, and what will happen is that they will bleed us dry until there's nothing left for anyone.

People feel entitled because they are entitled - it's their money!
Many people who will be effected by this will have paid into the pension scheme for a hell of a lot of years.

As for your point about people living longer - yes they are but that doesn't mean to say that they are physically able to carry out many, many jobs.

I have absolutely no idea what you do for a living but can you imagine laying bricks in the cold of winter when you are approaching 70 years old, or working on in heavy engineering or any other of the multitude of physically demanding jobs.....and why should they have to?

Freeborn
reply to post by schuyler

 

You do know about State Earnings Related Pension Scheme, SERPS, and it's replacement State Second Pension, S2P?

en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...

Yes, it's public coffers but it in essence that money has been leant to the government by every taxpayer on the condition it will be paid back come retirement in the form of a weekly payment.

Yes, of course, but when you add up what you have contributed and compare that to what you take out, what you take out far exceeds your contribution, on average. I'll let you do the math for your system, of course, but generally speaking your contribution is completely used up well before you die. That means your payments after a couple of years don't come from you at all, but from younger people still paying into the system. And when you get a "baby boomer" scenario, it's simply untenable because fewer younger people are available to pay an excess of older people.

I think you have an underlying issue there which you didn't mention, but with which I agree. It's a confiscatory system and had you the sophistication and wherewithal to save your contribution in a safe "prudent man" investment, you probably could do better. That begs the big question of your capability, of course, and if that were the system, you'd win because you're so smart, but lots of people would lose because they aren't, therefore the mandatory part of the system.

There are lots of inequities to these systems. That your contributions aren't part of your estate, for example, is one of them. In any private system, what's left over is. In a public system, it disappears into the pool. We could go on and on and on on these sorts of points, of which there are many.

But the bottom line is this: These systems are untenable. They absolutely MUST be changed because there isn't enough money--anywhere--to sustain them.

BTW, I'm an older baby boomer who will benefit from this set of circumstances. I am not a young person lamenting the fact that baby boomers had the gall to be born. But I see the problem.