pensions uk

[bastonjock]

looks like the UK gov are increasing the state pension age to 68 ,so if you are in your early 40,s ya got to work till your 68 to get the paltry sum from the government ,they are hoping that it will save 70 billion 

[stevewool]

Work to you drop, what they are wanting is to retire and within a year you are dead, no payout then is there.

Save, save and save some more is the best way i am telling my kids, i wonder will they increase the age when you can take out your private pension from 55 to ?????,

[scott h]

7 hours ago, bastonjock said:

work till your 68

Lets be honest gents,  Government pensions were designed (at least in the USA) so old folks would not end up eating dog food or selling apples on street corners for the last few years of their life once they stopped working. I do not believe the originators  meant for folks to be able to move to a low cost country and live the life of luxury for 15 to 20 years. In 1940 in the states the average life span was 54 years in 1990 it was 72 (USA social security website it the source for this) and its probably higher

Ill be the first to admit that SS schemes have developed into a quasi retirement supplemental income, but in my view society should help me stay alive in some degree of comfort until I die, but not in luxury.

Having said all this, will this stop me from collecting my SS when I turn 62? HELL NO!  Until they change the rules, ill take everything they will give me. But that doesn't keep me from realizing that for the good of society as a whole, the retirement collecting age should be raised.

[AlwaysRt]

27 minutes ago, scott h said:

Lets be honest gents,  Government pensions were designed (at least in the USA) so old folks would not end up eating dog food or selling apples on street corners for the last few years of their life once they stopped working. I do not believe the originators  meant for folks to be able to move to a low cost country and live the life of luxury for 15 to 20 years. In 1940 in the states the average life span was 54 years in 1990 it was 72 (USA social security website it the source for this) and its probably higher

Ill be the first to admit that SS schemes have developed into a quasi retirement supplemental income, but in my view society should help me stay alive in some degree of comfort until I die, but not in luxury.

Having said all this, will this stop me from collecting my SS when I turn 62? HELL NO!  Until they change the rules, ill take everything they will give me. But that doesn't keep me from realizing that for the good of society as a whole, the retirement collecting age should be raised.

I have also wondered for a long time just when and who changed Social Security from a 'Safety Net' so people wouldn't starve to death in the street to a 'Retirement' plan for income replacement.

[scott h]

1 minute ago, AlwaysRt said:

I have also wondered for a long time just when and who changed Social Security from a 'Safety Net' so people wouldn't starve to death in the street to a 'Retirement' plan for income replacement.

I am afraid it was us Baby Boomers, (hope I didn't age you to much lolol)

[Dave Hounddriver]

1 minute ago, AlwaysRt said:

I have also wondered for a long time just when and who changed Social Security from a 'Safety Net' so people wouldn't starve to death in the street to a 'Retirement' plan for income replacement.

It seems to me that the "bleeding heart liberals" keep raising the "poverty level" because that type of person believes that the world owes everyone a living, of so it seems to me.

Here is an example:

Quote

While Canada has no official standard for measuring relative poverty, other countries use a limit of 60%. That is, you're considered to be living in poverty if your income is less that 60% of the average income. We know that the average after-tax income in BC is about $35,000 per year.

That means I live in poverty because my income is less than CDN$21,000 a year.  It means the government thinks they owe me a living so if I live in BC for 6 months of the year once I hit  65 years old then the government will be sure I get at least that much per year to live on.  I will, of course, say thank you.  I do not agree that the world or the country owes me a living and if I retired early and made bad investment choices I should have to go back to work and earn my own way.  But if the bleeding hearts want to ease their guilt from riding around in SUVs by giving a little to the "poor" then I'm as "poor" as the next guy.

The amazing thing is I know from experience that i am MUCH much happier than a lot of those rich guys. 

 

[scott h]

Off topic, my Father (rip) started work as a teacher in 1955, opted out of the social security program, his union or co. op or what ever invested that amount in what ever they invested it in what ever they invested it in. Don't know all the details, but the bottom line, when he got sickly and we took over his finances us kids found out the ole geezer was raking in north of 6k a month from his pension fund and had time deposits out the wazoo. 

[AlwaysRt]

1 hour ago, scott h said:

I am afraid it was us Baby Boomers, (hope I didn't age you to much lolol)

Fun fact (for me anyway), I am a baby baby boomer and my father was one of the old baby boomers. Yup, somehow we are the same generation. 

[Snowy79]

As a UK pensioner  I'm well p@@@ed off with how our Government has screwed our pensions. Various governments have seriously eroded our pensions to such a stage that it wouldn't pay to invest in a pension these days. Rather than invest our National Insurance payments into a ring fenced fund they've gambled it away and spent it buying votes to such an extent that there's not enough money in the kitty to cover current pensions.

I'm one of the lucky ones that has paid 37 years of National Insurance towards my pension and still won't qualify for a full state pension when I reach retirement age. For those outside of the UK we used to have two pension rates depending on how much National Insurance you've paid. Basically if you were fortunate enough or hard working you paid enough in to get the higher pension. If you sat on your butt or were laid off a few times chances are you wouldn't pay enough in to get the full pension. The government did away with this and introduced a single pension saving the country billions and obviously meaning those that paid more into their kitty getting less and those that would have had less getting slightly more.

They increased the National Insurance payments from 30 years up to 35 years to qualify for the higher rate, again shafting most people. As this wasn't enough they increased the pension age up to 67 years for males from 65 and for women up to 65 from 60. New rules are going to bring them both up to 68 by 2039.

As they hadn't shafted me enough I've found out that the government passed a law a couple of years ago stating that anyone getting an Armed Forces or civil service pension had opted out of the State Earnings Related Pension Scheme, and as such will have to pay over 40 years of National Insurance to qualify for a full pension, then just to rub salt in the wound they changed our annual pension increases from the retail price index (rpi) to the consumer price index (cpi). This can mean some years there's no pension increase as the cpi is historically lower than the rpi.

If I was the youth of today I'd be looking at investing my money somewhere the government can't touch it then get the f@@' out of the country as you can bet anything you have of worth will mean you no longer even get a pension as it'll be means tested.

[Gary D]

Of course there was the 2% tax rise we had a couple of years ago when they dropping the second pension but kept trousering the money.