Crosswords0 min ago
Be Careful What You Wish For......
23 Answers
https:/
You want equality? you got it!
You want equality? you got it!
Answers
The age for retirement, was originally the same as life expectancy (1938- 60 years old for both). The only people who could expect to retire at all, were genuinely "elderly" (ie above average life expectancy). Life expectancy has gone up and up, but retirement age hasn't, and we have got to the point, where people are either in full-time education or retired,...
09:55 Thu 03rd Oct 2019
If they want to complain or a great pension robbery then they should include the delaying of it from 65 to 66 to 67 to .... to 798 to 799 ...
I'm not without sympathy for those caught on the hop by an unpredicted change in an agreement though. The whole thing was a farce. A rip-off. We don't have 100% full employment, we have jobless, the age for a pension should have been equalised at 60, or even 55.
I'm not without sympathy for those caught on the hop by an unpredicted change in an agreement though. The whole thing was a farce. A rip-off. We don't have 100% full employment, we have jobless, the age for a pension should have been equalised at 60, or even 55.
The age for retirement, was originally the same as life expectancy (1938- 60 years old for both). The only people who could expect to retire at all, were genuinely "elderly" (ie above average life expectancy).
Life expectancy has gone up and up, but retirement age hasn't, and we have got to the point, where people are either in full-time education or retired, for about as long as they are actually working. And that is assuming every person works full-time, with no breaks, unemployment, etc. It clearly can't carry on, and the pension age should have been increased ages ago, at a much slower rate.
This obviously isn't "equality" as men are not in the same situation where they need to suddenly provide for extra years.
But it is something that has been a long time coming. A few generations have been very lucky, because of the disorganisation, but it has not been handled well and should really have been thought about around 50 years ago, when it was obvious.
Life expectancy has gone up and up, but retirement age hasn't, and we have got to the point, where people are either in full-time education or retired, for about as long as they are actually working. And that is assuming every person works full-time, with no breaks, unemployment, etc. It clearly can't carry on, and the pension age should have been increased ages ago, at a much slower rate.
This obviously isn't "equality" as men are not in the same situation where they need to suddenly provide for extra years.
But it is something that has been a long time coming. A few generations have been very lucky, because of the disorganisation, but it has not been handled well and should really have been thought about around 50 years ago, when it was obvious.
The number of available jobs don't change so one should accept that pensions rather than dole takes over as priority as the population ages. In any event tax collected (from those employed mainly) needs to be sufficient to cover the nation's bills, regardless. Keeping folk in work to a greater age doesn't change that, and refusing them a pension, stopping them passing their job on to someone younger just creates throwing some folk out of work without decent support and the other folk forced to remain employed when they may not be so capable, and others that would be more capable remaining unemployed. It shouldn't have happened at all let alone be a long time coming. It's government disavowing it's duty to the people.
Og, it is an ever-increasing and ever-aging population. The number of jobs does increase with a higher population, but we have fewer and fewer "workers" compared to those who aren't.
Pensions are not particularly a better way, as even private ones are paid for by the company, which affects the payment of those working for them currently. All money has to come from somewhere.
Pensions are not particularly a better way, as even private ones are paid for by the company, which affects the payment of those working for them currently. All money has to come from somewhere.
Yes, it comes from the wealth generated by the workers. Same as the money for any public spending does. Finding excuses to dump people at an age when they've done their bit, or alternatively force them to continue while others aren't employed, is no way to treat citizens. The government should feel shame at this alleged "solution".
This is neither... it is giving a bigger choice.
I looked after a 98 year old man, who retired at 60, on a full pay pension until he died. He worked there for 30 years and then got another 33 years of over £36k per year. Even he said it was "ridiculous". They could have employed another staff member instead.
I looked after a 98 year old man, who retired at 60, on a full pay pension until he died. He worked there for 30 years and then got another 33 years of over £36k per year. Even he said it was "ridiculous". They could have employed another staff member instead.
Nobody needs to "flog themselves into old age". That is a little dramatic. People nowadays are not just elderly and frail once they hit 60. They used to be... but not now and don't deserve to be written off- and don't need to be supported necessarily either. Obviously, this doesn't include people who "can't" work- that is treated separately anyway. This is otherwise healthy active people.
Nobody is owed a living by everyone else, and while we still have so many short-staffed companies and job vacancies, it makes sense for people to support themselves as much as they can. No? X
Nobody is owed a living by everyone else, and while we still have so many short-staffed companies and job vacancies, it makes sense for people to support themselves as much as they can. No? X
TTT, the argument is not about the concept of 'equality', it is in the way in which this was done.
My wife, and millions others like her, were told in their late fifties that their pension age was being put back, and they all had insufficient notice or time to make adjustments to the change in their financial situations.
That is what this fight is about - the unfairness of depriving working women of up to six years of pension payments, and doing it in a way that does not allow them to make some arrangements to cover that shortfall.
The government advises it wrote to every woman in the country advising her of these changes, and has written several times since.
My wife has not received any letters of any kind, and neither have any of her very large circle of similarly aged friends.
The case is about proper treatment of working women, care, and respect, no 'equallity'.
My wife, and millions others like her, were told in their late fifties that their pension age was being put back, and they all had insufficient notice or time to make adjustments to the change in their financial situations.
That is what this fight is about - the unfairness of depriving working women of up to six years of pension payments, and doing it in a way that does not allow them to make some arrangements to cover that shortfall.
The government advises it wrote to every woman in the country advising her of these changes, and has written several times since.
My wife has not received any letters of any kind, and neither have any of her very large circle of similarly aged friends.
The case is about proper treatment of working women, care, and respect, no 'equallity'.
I fall into that category but I knew in advance when I could retire. I was working so I carried on. I wasn’t suddenly without any income. If I had been on benefits I would have carried on claiming. There was a lady on TV this morning who had to rely on friends to feed her dog because she could not claim her pension at 60. How did she feed the dog before she was 60?
Andy has said it for me. The way it was handled was a dog's breakfast. When I was trying to get the facts on what would happen to see if I should buy extra years or what, I kept getting told different things by the pensions office. The people were really lovely and helpful and I kept getting told "this is what we have been told so far but we know it will change so keep checking" I was told that I definitely wouldn't need to buy extra years as I could claim on my late husbands contributions and then was told that this had changed and I would not be able to do this. I am also of the generation of wqomen who was told that they could pay a "small stamp" so as to be able to contribute more to the household while earning on the basis that I would be able to claim pension based on my husband's contribution. Essentially we made our decisions based on what we were promised and then the promise was broken.
Boto - // How did she feed the dog before she was 60? //
From her earned income would be a sound guess.
Income that ceased when she reached sixty.
A lot of companies have compulsory retirement at that age - BT did, but they scrapped it before I got to the age, so I stayed on to sixty-two and left when it suited me - millions of others did not enjoy the luxury of that choice.
From her earned income would be a sound guess.
Income that ceased when she reached sixty.
A lot of companies have compulsory retirement at that age - BT did, but they scrapped it before I got to the age, so I stayed on to sixty-two and left when it suited me - millions of others did not enjoy the luxury of that choice.
