... but, my mother may well be quite relieved by this, as one of her anxieties as an older teacher with an inadequate pension is of being forced into a retirement where she will have no real income. (She hates working, too. Must run in the family.) Seventy certainly sounds pretty old, though, doesn't it? Bet they'll settle on a psychologically significant 68.
Just because the state-pensionable age is set at a given value, does not mean that you are forced to work to that age. Hell, by the time we get around to 70, I very much doubt the state pension system will resemble the current one very much at all. I would expect many changes, to be honest. The point is, do you really expect the system to cope with paying people from the age of 60 or 65 when it was set up like that to cope with people with significantly shorter life expectancy? It's not feasible to expect nothing to change before you reach pensionable age yourself.
If you don't want to work until you are 70, don't. If you set your own pension up, then you should be fine. You're being paid plenty enough at the moment to have a good start on a pension. Save now, and reap the benefits early. You should be able to comfortably retire early.
(haven't read the article) I don't think its so much the life expectancy, its the low birthrate contributing fewer tax payers to fund pensions. This can be fixed by immigration.
Not in this country. That's the problem countries like Germany have because in their system contributions made now pay for pensions now. Whereas as I understand it, NI operates a lot like a commerical pension fund - the money paid in now is invested in order to pay for the pensions of the contributors. The article focused on longer life expectancy as the problem.
Correction. According to the BBC (http://www.bbc.co.uk/business/info/basics/articles/tax265.shtml)
In the past NICs were treated as a independent pot of government money used specifically to fund social security benefits ... But now the money raised goes into the general Treasury coffers
It's both. The article does mention life expectancy.
However, immigration doesn't solve the problem, it merely delays it. Even importing tax payers, and presumably increasing manufacturing base and jobs available to go with it as well, those immigants themselves will one day grow old and retire. Then there will be even more old, retired people than there would otherwise have been.
Date: September 20th, 2002 08:50 am (UTC)From:jinty
There's a guy in OUP USA (New York) who is 79 and still working in Manufacturing... it was fun teaching him how to use the new computer system!
Can't imagine what drives him to it except that I think he does genuinely care about his job; but he must also have some empty home life or needs the money or something because otherwise, no matter how much you love your job, you're not going to continue to that extent!
Different people want and need different things. Which is why it's crazy to have a fixed retirement age. One of my colleagues, who is on temporary secondment from Bristol University, cites as one reason he doesn't want a permanent job at RAL is that they force you to retire at 60. This rule seems pretty annoying to me and some of my colleagues (though others are looking forward to their retirement with glee).
Actually, what often happens is that many people retire and collect their pension and then still turn up at work most days. They have more freedom, but have to live on half the salary (plus lots of extra complications when they want to go to a foreign meeting).
I doubt I'll be in the same situation, since there are bound to have been a couple of changes in the rules in the next 20+ years. I told my Bristol colleague the same thing (he's only a couple of months older than me).
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
chiming
no subject
Date: September 20th, 2002 05:54 am (UTC)From:I don't want to work at all!
Date: September 20th, 2002 07:01 am (UTC)From:Well, then don't...
Date: September 20th, 2002 07:41 am (UTC)From:If you don't want to work until you are 70, don't. If you set your own pension up, then you should be fine. You're being paid plenty enough at the moment to have a good start on a pension. Save now, and reap the benefits early. You should be able to comfortably retire early.
no subject
Date: September 20th, 2002 08:13 am (UTC)From:I don't think its so much the life expectancy, its the low birthrate contributing fewer tax payers to fund pensions. This can be fixed by immigration.
no subject
Date: September 20th, 2002 08:28 am (UTC)From:no subject
Date: September 20th, 2002 08:41 am (UTC)From:no subject
Date: September 20th, 2002 08:30 am (UTC)From:However, immigration doesn't solve the problem, it merely delays it. Even importing tax payers, and presumably increasing manufacturing base and jobs available to go with it as well, those immigants themselves will one day grow old and retire. Then there will be even more old, retired people than there would otherwise have been.
How about 79?
Date: September 20th, 2002 08:50 am (UTC)From:Can't imagine what drives him to it except that I think he does genuinely care about his job; but he must also have some empty home life or needs the money or something because otherwise, no matter how much you love your job, you're not going to continue to that extent!
no subject
Date: September 21st, 2002 05:43 am (UTC)From:Actually, what often happens is that many people retire and collect their pension and then still turn up at work most days. They have more freedom, but have to live on half the salary (plus lots of extra complications when they want to go to a foreign meeting).
I doubt I'll be in the same situation, since there are bound to have been a couple of changes in the rules in the next 20+ years. I told my Bristol colleague the same thing (he's only a couple of months older than me).