Those 5 o’clock shadowed migrant ‘children’ we took in couple of years ago (the ones it would have been against their 'uman rites to age them dentally 
)had better remember their DoB’s after all or they’ll be 85/90 before qualifying for the pension. 
Juddian:
Those 5 o’clock shadowed migrant ‘children’ we took in couple of years ago (the ones it would have been against their 'uman rites to age them dentally
Why would they want to live on a pension when they’re (most likely) getting more from benefits now?
Santa:
If you look at this from the other side, why should hard-working taxpayers, who put a good percentage of their own incomes into a pension, continue to support those who choose not to make any provision for their own retirement?.
Does that mean those no longer eligible to claim any state pension get all their contributions back under your Tory utopia.Oh wait those who you’ve described actually get the state pension ‘in addition’ to their private pension.
As for provision for retirement.Give us some figures like expected disposable income left to buy consumer stuff to keep the economy moving.After paying rent/mortgage,food,raising a family,commuting,and saving for retirement and how much are you budgeting for each,from let’s say £ 20,000 pa and how much are you projecting for retirement allowing for inflation.While by your own logic why should those who are single have to contribute to the costs of education and the health care of others’ families.
Let me guess your idea of Capitalism is Socialism when it suits you and not when it doesn’t.In which case why would anyone with any sense want to contribute to such a rip off and how will people pay for a proper retirement income at current wage rates.
Probably get a better deal from Corbyn.Maybe the Cons are actually hoping we get a labour government at the next election. 
FFS there is no plan to put up the retirement age to 75. It was a right wing think tank who are allowed to come up with pie in the sky ideas same as left wing think tanks.
The Tories rely on the grey vote, there is no way they would implement it.
ETS:
Anyone else find it ironic that the name of the “think-tank” that put forward the idea is “the Centre for Social Justice (CSJ)”?If gov’t can one-sidedly change a contract (I pay you a % of my income each year - NI, then you pay me a certain sum after I reach a certain age) then I should be able to opt out of it, no?
But all things change including the various strands of the e onomy.
When I left school my SPA was 60, moved to 65, it’s now 67. It may change, but they normally have longer lead in times than 12 years.
I’ve never once complained about that change because you cannot expect to live for 23 years on average after retirement date with working people paying for you. When the first pension was brought in the average you would draw it for was 2 years and proportionally, it’s worth more than then. Most people are not recipients, ie they never pay in what they take out and that’s fair, where the line gets drawn is up for debate.
albion:
When I left school my SPA was 60, moved to 65, it’s now 67. It may change, but they normally have longer lead in times than 12 years.I’ve never once complained about that change because you cannot expect to live for 23 years on average after retirement date with working people paying for you.
Do you really believe that many people live to 88 on average.Not in my experience.From what I’ve seen my Grandmother lived far longer than both her daughters especially the youngest who died by around the age of 70 and that’s just two examples.Many others often not even reaching retirement age.So why would anyone want to contribute to a pension based on far longer than their probable life span unless the ‘benefits’ continue to pay out for the contracted age regardless like many private policies tailored for the rich.
The fact is like all the rest of the ‘National Insurance’ system the whole thing is a scam.Based on contractual payments for a non contractual policy/return which is rigged in favour of the government to the point where it’s just a form of tax in all but name.As for pensions in general by definition they are a scam based on the idea that the claimant won’t live to see their money paid back let alone in real terms with interest.If that wasn’t the case there would be no profit or therefore incentive in it for the pension providers.
As I said keep going the Tories are making a no brainer no option case to vote Labour who as usual will turn out to be yet another disappointment.
Carryfast:
Santa:
If you look at this from the other side, why should hard-working taxpayers, who put a good percentage of their own incomes into a pension, continue to support those who choose not to make any provision for their own retirement?.~ by your own logic why should those who are single have to contribute to the costs of education and the health care of others’ families.
Simply because we all benefit from having educated young people joining the workforce and no Tory I have ever met objects to contributing to health or education.
albion:
ETS:
Anyone else find it ironic that the name of the “think-tank” that put forward the idea is “the Centre for Social Justice (CSJ)”?If gov’t can one-sidedly change a contract (I pay you a % of my income each year - NI, then you pay me a certain sum after I reach a certain age) then I should be able to opt out of it, no?
But all things change including the various strands of the e onomy.
When I left school my SPA was 60, moved to 65, it’s now 67. It may change, but they normally have longer lead in times than 12 years.
I’ve never once complained about that change because you cannot expect to live for 23 years on average after retirement date with working people paying for you. When the first pension was brought in the average you would draw it for was 2 years and proportionally, it’s worth more than then. Most people are not recipients, ie they never pay in what they take out and that’s fair, where the line gets drawn is up for debate.
23 years? my proposed pension from equitable life works out that the monthly payouts exhaust the balance in 16 years, (I’ll be 82- the projected average) which is probably why the latest quoted value/ income is now trying to persuade me not to start drawing until I am 71. That way they can trouser a bit more.
As far as I’m concerned the whole business is one big scam to reward the tories evil conning friends in the financial services industry. Pay in longer and they can charge extra years service charges and help themselves to a bit more. How the ■■■■ are heavy manual laboureers going to keep working until they are 75?
Of course I forgot, like Portillo said they will have to ‘get on their bike’ and take an easier job in a call centre. They can go ■■■■ themselves. If it comes to it I shall turn to a life of crime.
albion:
The Tories rely on the grey vote, there is no way they would implement it.
This ^^^^^
Tory core vote is the older generation. No way are they going to upset your potntial voter base. Its a bit like Corbyn declaring he will stop all benefits to his ■■■■■■■■ base of spongers and layabouts.
Carryfast:
albion:
When I left school my SPA was 60, moved to 65, it’s now 67. It may change, but they normally have longer lead in times than 12 years.I’ve never once complained about that change because you cannot expect to live for 23 years on average after retirement date with working people paying for you.
Do you really believe that many people live to 88 on average.Not in my experience.From what I’ve seen my Grandmother lived far longer than both her daughters especially the youngest who died by around the age of 70 and that’s just two examples.Many others often not even reaching retirement age.So why would anyone want to contribute to a pension based on far longer than their probable life span unless the ‘benefits’ continue to pay out for the contracted age regardless like many private policies tailored for the rich.
The fact is like all the rest of the ‘National Insurance’ system the whole thing is a scam.Based on contractual payments for a non contractual policy/return which is rigged in favour of the government to the point where it’s just a form of tax in all but name.As for pensions in general by definition they are a scam based on the idea that the claimant won’t live to see their money paid back let alone in real terms with interest.If that wasn’t the case there would be no profit or therefore incentive in it for the pension providers.
As I said keep going the Tories are making a no brainer no option case to vote Labour who as usual will turn out to be yet another disappointment.
I obviously didnt make it clear, I was referring back to my retirement age at 60, the average female age at death is 82.9, so I rounded up a smidge.
We all pay into things that we may or may not use, if you live into your 90s then it looks like a good deal.
And finally again, it isn’t a Tory proposal, it’s a right wing think tank.
several blokes iv known have returned to the area they grew up in on retirement.one coasted along in a supervisor job ,retired, sold up and went back to Italy, lasted not a year then back here sick of the place and now is working like a dog seems fairly happy, i actually bought his weekend caravan just before he went very comfy
the people in a lot of areas are very unfriendly to newcomers it seems-even if you were once there .my own dad revisited a place he lived back in the day overheard locals planning to lynch him so didnt stay long , i wont return to my roots if i do move itd be somewhere random where no chance of old grudges being kept
Santa:
yourhavingalarf:
The trap will be set…The other side as well. If you diligently save and reach retirement with a good pile of cash from your home, savings and pension. You will be penalised for any care home needs you may require from the state. You will be forced to sell your house if you own it and pay for your care if you have over a set amount of cash and pension.
As they say, you’re damned if you do and you’re damned if you don’t.
Perhaps you could explain why I, as a taxpayer, should pay for your care-home so that you can leave a good pile of cash from your home and savings to your children.
The whole point of these schemes is precisely to be divisive.
If you let some workers save a few grand to give to their kids, they’ll sooner side with the duke who has hoarded a £100m trust fund for their kids, than side with the dustman who was never paid enough wages to save for old age and provide for himself in the meantime.
It’s also a mistake to say that retirements must be saved for individually. In practice, we all bequeath to children the infrastructure of society, the means of production, and we raise our children to operate those means of production.
The true claim that retirees have is upon the labour of the next generation, and the quid pro quo is the investments made in the reproduction of labour capacity which is vested in the next generation, and the bequest (upon their reaching working age) of the social and economic infrastructure to them.
CookieMonster:
Doesn’t surprise me coming from a Tory government.
I’m 32 and I’ve been convinced for years that by the time I get to retirement age, such a thing won’t exist anymore.
I’m a little older but ditto, long thought the same. Thanks to many years working abroad my NI contributions are lacking and my Mum keeps telling me to pay them up for the sake of my pension. I don’t think there will be a state pension by time I get to whatever random age they’ve chosen by then
corij:
itll be a good thing. iv lost count of the folk iv known who retire and rapidly go downhill and die because theyve lost any purpose in life. others i know are not dead but desperately bored , ending up applying for job after job unsuccessfully.one bloke rang me up wanted to work for me gratis just to give himself a daily purpose but i didnt dare in case he got frail after a week or 2 pushing a broom all day
What a surprise in your Tory utopia no one gets the choice of saying no thanks.So how does taking what state pension they’ve got help the situation of employers being rightly resistant to wanting to employ people who are physically too old to work and who equally rightly have no wish to work.
While I’d guess the problem which you’ve described is more a case of not enough money to enjoy a decent retirement not that they miss working 10-12 hours per day 5 days per week.Especially when retirement takes nothing like those amount of hours to sustain it and employers refuse job share arrangements because of the administration costs of two employees sharing one job.
switchlogic:
CookieMonster:
Doesn’t surprise me coming from a Tory government.
I’m 32 and I’ve been convinced for years that by the time I get to retirement age, such a thing won’t exist anymore.I’m a little older but ditto, long thought the same. Thanks to many years working abroad my NI contributions are lacking and my Mum keeps telling me to pay them up for the sake of my pension. I don’t think there will be a state pension by time I get to whatever random age they’ve chosen by then
You can ( so far ) settle any shortfall when you reach the point of claiming it.IE pay it retrospectively which at least stops being ripped off by paying all your contributions in first then being told you can’t have your pension. 
The big problem is that now that Nanny has managed to get everyone to stop smoking, not only is there a deficit of billions to the exchequer, but also millions of people are going to live until they are 90 instead of dropping dead at 67.
Harry Monk:
The big problem is that now that Nanny has managed to get everyone to stop smoking, not only is there a deficit of billions to the exchequer, but also millions of people are going to live until they are 90 instead of dropping dead at 67.
I’m a fat bird, I’m doing my bit for the economy by hopefully shuffling off early. Given the parents died at 63 and 68, not looking good for me.
Rjan:
Santa:
yourhavingalarf:
The trap will be set…The other side as well. If you diligently save and reach retirement with a good pile of cash from your home, savings and pension. You will be penalised for any care home needs you may require from the state. You will be forced to sell your house if you own it and pay for your care if you have over a set amount of cash and pension.
As they say, you’re damned if you do and you’re damned if you don’t.
Perhaps you could explain why I, as a taxpayer, should pay for your care-home so that you can leave a good pile of cash from your home and savings to your children.
The whole point of these schemes is precisely to be divisive.
If you let some workers save a few grand to give to their kids, they’ll sooner side with the duke who has hoarded a £100m trust fund for their kids, than side with the dustman who was never paid enough wages to save for old age and provide for himself in the meantime.
It’s also a mistake to say that retirements must be saved for individually. In practice, we all bequeath to children the infrastructure of society, the means of production, and we raise our children to operate those means of production.
The true claim that retirees have is upon the labour of the next generation, and the quid pro quo is the investments made in the reproduction of labour capacity which is vested in the next generation, and the bequest (upon their reaching working age) of the social and economic infrastructure to them.
The trouble with current workers paying for the retirement of former workers, is that, as Harry says, we are living longer. To sustain this we need more workers per retiree. Since families are smaller now than previously, we need to import labour.
Our past scheme is a Ponzi scheme that is reliant on an increasing population, and currently that means it’s reliant on increasing immigration.
.
And never mind this country being “full”, the world is getting too “full” for our current consumerist lifestyle.
.
The post war UK system of paying pensions is unsustainable. It does need reform. Each individual being responsible for their own pension during their lifetime leaves too much space for inaction by the short sighted. So, wages must be taken now for the future good of workers. Less new cars and foreign holidays? Sorry, but retirements aren’t free.
If the Govt is saying that generally we are now medically fit to work later in life then why have they not changed the D4 medical rules to match that 
If they are saying that age 75 is ok then the D4 rules need to be medicals every 5 years up to age 70 not 60 and then annually after that
ROG:
If they are saying that age 75 is ok then the D4 rules need to be medicals every 5 years up to age 70 not 60 and then annually after that
I thought it was every five years up to age 65?