dangermows
Striker
No. You fall into the trap.
Work 'til you drop kids...
- Thread starter Paddy O'Dors
- Start date
- Status
No. You fall into the trap.
J
JohnAin
Guest
I retired at 60 but went back to work.
Fletch
Striker
How come ? Were you bored or something ?
zwartekat
Striker
You have to be pretty unimaginative to think that work is the only worthwhile thing in life.
Last edited:
J
JohnAin
Guest
Yes. I was. And I am loving it now. I work 20 - 30% of the time and it keeps me happy.
dangermows
Striker
Yes, but many people do hard physical jobs that they can't do when older. Not the same when you are in a position to retire but fancy a part time job like B&Q to keep you ticking over (which the in laws did).
Last edited:
J
JohnAin
Guest
You are spot on about physical jobs. Mine is not. I took up my old IT job again.
mickb2112
Striker
If people are expected to work until they are 70 then there`s going have to be a massive cultural shift from employers to firstly employ older people and they will need to recognise that older people are more likely to need time off for ill health and are more likely to tire more quickly. What you can cope with at 20 to 30 you certainly can`t from 60-70. There should be much more opportunities for part time working so over 60`s can have a gradual retirement from 60 before fully retiring at 70.
the members of government who do ram this change through Parliament, I would make each and every one of them leave their cushy boardroom, second jobs and force them to work on a building site from the age of 60 for 10 years then see if they are quite so willing to push through a change such as this.
Furthermore, there needs to be a much fairer distribution of wealth if people are going to have to make more provision for retirement. Most people struggle to get from month to month with low wages, student debt to pay off and high mortgage/rent/utility bills with little left for a meaningful pension. Pay the workforce a better wage or put more into their pension plans instead of paying ever increasing sums into boardroom remuneration.
Thirdly, have tighter controls on the amount fund managers pull out the pension funds they manage. Pay a decent wage yes, but not these obscene wages and bonuses that drain the funds and give poor returns to the pensioners. With all the hands dipping into the pot, it`s no w2onder there`s such a small amount left for the people who actually put the money in.
the members of government who do ram this change through Parliament, I would make each and every one of them leave their cushy boardroom, second jobs and force them to work on a building site from the age of 60 for 10 years then see if they are quite so willing to push through a change such as this.
Furthermore, there needs to be a much fairer distribution of wealth if people are going to have to make more provision for retirement. Most people struggle to get from month to month with low wages, student debt to pay off and high mortgage/rent/utility bills with little left for a meaningful pension. Pay the workforce a better wage or put more into their pension plans instead of paying ever increasing sums into boardroom remuneration.
Thirdly, have tighter controls on the amount fund managers pull out the pension funds they manage. Pay a decent wage yes, but not these obscene wages and bonuses that drain the funds and give poor returns to the pensioners. With all the hands dipping into the pot, it`s no w2onder there`s such a small amount left for the people who actually put the money in.
D
Deleted member 27677
Guest
I agree ,many more things to do which are more important,but will become rather boring given time.
dangermows
Striker
So, oldies have to work for longer, meaning less opportunities for the new kids on the block.
zwartekat
Striker
Depends on your interests, I suppose. I should add that I'm quite jealous of people who get a lot of satisfaction from work. I sometimes really enjoy my work but must admit a lot of the time I can think of things I'd rather be doing.
I'm retired. I'm busy every day and never stop. Train most days. DIY and general chores
Le Chuck
Striker
Normally it'll be at least 55 or 60, but your employer also puts in, as does the government (it's tax deductable)
So by not having one you're just turning down free money
Was that the pension deduction or the difference in net pay?
If it was the deduction, your pay would only be £64 light rather than the full £80
FootballFan
Striker
fuck that shite
Le Chuck
Striker
You're thinking about it the wrong way. The 70 thing is state pensions, not workplace/private pensions
If you start saving at 21, puts you in a good position for 60. Defer it a few years, you might not have much choice but wait until you're 70
squashjoe
Striker
What plan do you have in place.
Le Chuck
Striker
IIRC, hope his inlaws pop their cloggs
Mackem00
Striker
I'd retire tomorrow if I could maintain a similar standard of living to what I have now. It be f***ing mint.
It was tapered. I don't know the exact years but if you were born around 1951 ( women) you got to retire at 60. If you were born in 1956 you got to retire at 65. Born between these two years and you got a tapered retirement somewhere between age 60 and 65. Born after 1956 retirement age then got changed from age 65 to age 66 ( men too i guess). I think if you were born after 1960 your retirement age will be age 67 now.
I also think there will be no pension ( state) for those now aged under forty as there are those ISAs(?) Where for every £3000 you save the gov will give you £1000. This is a guess but the age limit on it makes me suspicious.
Forty years stamp even with a few years off works. 18 to 58.
23 to 63, or 21 to 51, five years travelling then 56 to 66.
Thought you were on minimum wage? You won't be paying much, if anything, off a student loan. ( Sorry if you meant other student debts as opposed to loan).
Last edited:
L
Littlerobbieh
Guest
None of your business really. I just know I'll be done when I'm 60 at the latest.
- Status
