Is Ann Widdecombe right about females age of reirement?

shameful that some people have so much money they don’t really know how to spend it

It is (I assumed you knew) Gabriella a turn of phrase perhaps only in the NE ? meaning that someone is so rich they couldn’t begin to spend it if they tried...... Anyway pointless responding to the rest of your sarcasm because you clearly missed the point I was making. So it doesn’t matter.

The one very rich person I know (and his equally rich new wife) has all but cut himself off from the rest of the family with the exception of the gloat/bragging visit my poor dad endures once a year. My late mum bless her used to hide in the bedroom and not come out until after they had left.

I completely agree with you grannypauline. We live in a world of haves and have nots and a many of the ones at the very top have loads and loads and a very “I’m all right jack”attitude. They have absolutely no sympathy or empathy for the ones who are struggling at the bottom.
The ones at the bottom are either born into or fall into a situation where it is very hard to do better for themselves. They do not have the backing or the resources to pull themselves out of the world they exist in.

Even if we take the higher tax band (?income over about £45k) as a measure of wealth , only about 10% of pensioners would come into this bracket, so to imagine hordes of “wealthy pensioners” is rather misleading. Coming back to age and life expectancy, no one has pointed out the main reason why life expectancy at birth has increased over the last century , is that infant mortality has gone down, so it’s not that everyone is living longer, it’s more infants survive, so their deaths don’t skew the statistics. However, life expectancy is now trending downwards, so that tells us something.

The really wealthy are those who don't have to work. I wouldn't think many of us know any of them personally as they kind of inhabit a different, gated, world. Their wealth is invested and they reap the rewards of other people's labour.

This year's Oxfam report states that the "2,200 billionaires worldwide saw their wealth grow by 12 percent even as the poorest half saw its wealth fall by 11 percent."

Of course they mostly take the attitude of Gabriella (even though many have inherited rather than worked for their wealth) so almost none of their wealth gets redistributed.

They probably do know how to spend the wealth (or some of it). It seems they always need another yacht or private jet or fourth holiday home!!

I am not envious as I'm not sure they're that happy. But I do know that they pull the strings through their wealth. Their corporations cause immense poverty and damage as I stated.

I was sort of hoping everyone could come to their own conclusion about how to change the situation because things are gradually deteriorating under late capitalism.

My solution is a genuinely democratic socialist world. Socialism doesn't mean trying to redistribute income through increased taxation (though we note the rich have engineered enormous tax cuts - remember when they paid 19/6d in the £?).

Socialism means everyone jointly owning the means of production and having a real say in what is made. for whom, and how products are distributed. And there absolutely would have to be democratic safeguards as we have seen in the past how these systems have been hijacked by ruthless elites.

I certainly don't and never will feel guilty for having the money I have and don't feel I should sub others who don't have as much otherwise they have no incentive to do better.
Seven years were spent in getting my degree and who's to say I should give money to someone who makes no effort.
I've worked to enjoy a comfortable retirement and my spending helps to keep other people in jobs.
The money in my bank accounts and investments earns money for other people too.
If you who read this were fairly well off and I was an impoverished single mum, would you give me a better home, a job, or supplement my income...or would you say that it's the government's job?

gillybob
'shameful that some people have so much money they don’t really know how to spend it'
You know that for a fact?
Do these people tell you that they don't really know how to spend their own money?
I really can't imagine that they do, therefore it's supposition on your part.
Perhaps you could give them some tips on how to spend wisely.
I find it odd that it only works one way. If someone with a bit more money than most, offers advice as to how to manage on a limited budget (which they themselves may well have had to do in their early life) they get shot down in flames and called smug.
Put the boot on the other foot and it's a different story. It's deemed ok to tell 'wealthy' people what they should do with their money, without any thoughts as to what effort they expended or obstacles they may have overcome to attain that position.
Hypocrisy writ large.

I personally know one “wealthy” person ( not counting business associates etc) the same person wouldn’t p*ss on someone who was on fire unless he was paid to do so.

Of course my North East idea of “wealthy” might be very different to someone else’s idea of wealthy. But I think it’s shameful that some people have so much money they don’t really know how to spend it, when others are so poor they don’t know where their next meal is coming from.

54

Goodness me GG24 defining wealth in relation to income? Hahahahaha - you clearly don’t know any really wealthy people????

grannypauline
You don't say who you determine 'the wealthy' or 'the young' are.
Above what level of income do you become wealthy?
What is the difference between wealthy and very wealthy?
You write the words but don't explain what your perception of a wealthy person is you simply trot out the same thing that we all know.
Things need to change.
Your ideas are...?

What ages are 'the young'?
You give no indication as to how to fix it.

I have definitely got a "bee in my bonnet" about the wealthy. Not least because they use their wealth to control a (capitalist) system that promotes arms production and wars, has sold off (cheaply to their friends!) our utilities, railways, postal system, and is increasingly moving towards privatisation - ie making profits out of - of health and education.

Far from the country's wealth trickling down, we see that inequality is increasing by leaps and bounds. And we have just been informed that social mobility (which might have held hope for the less wealthy) no longer applies. For many (especially the young) job security is minimal.

The drive for increased profits is ruining agricultural land, contaminating the food supply, and polluting the atmosphere!

And it's useless to say that we should increase taxes because the very wealthy don't pay taxes - or is there a new tax levy in the Bahamas?

As I said, we need a system change!!

You've all got a bee in your bonnets about wealth and those who have it.
Could you please say who exactly are the wealthy you talk about.
Landed gentry? Entrepenours? Royalty, Footballers? Owners of multinationals? Company CEOs?
Where is the line drawn between well off, inherited money and money earned through dint of their own efforts?
Is there an income band above which you are deemed to be wealthy and a target for HMRC to hike the tax rate in order to help our services and those who have less.
It's no good tinkering around the edges, they must be workable ideas which go at least halfway to meeting everyone's expectations of fairness.
It's all very well saying government should've or could've because they haven't so it's up to us to have proper ideas to put to them and 100,000 signatures gets it discussed by those who have the power to make changes.

a matter of where did the money go? Maggiemaybe
Well ,,,500 thousand million went to the banks. And in the last 4 years tax cuts to the super-rich lost us half a million.

crystaltipps is correct - wealth is concentrated in the hands of the very few
And ... they're making sure they get to keep more and we get less. I mean why wouldn't they? It's how the system is until we change it!

Why is our state pension one of the lowest in Europe when all we hear is how we are a wealthy country - what we don’t hear is wealth is concentrated in the hands of the very few and doesn’t trickle down to the vast majority. Inequality has increased.

I’m not getting at anybody gillybob just stating a fact.

There seems to be a feeling nowadays that the State Pension should be enough. There are those who can save for retirement, and those who can draw a works pension and those who end up in dire poverty.

That’s a fact too, not a judgement. But it has always been the case throughout history, sadly.

Classic, I'm so sorry to read of your circumstances. I have met women on the WASPI demos who are in dire straits. A woman with dementia knowing she won't live to get the pension she's fighting for. Another in very poor health after major operations and working three cleaning jobs, even though her busfares to work take a huge chunk of her pay. Women whose final divorce settlements were calculated on the basis of them retiring at 60, now struggling. Women relying on handouts from their own children. Some have had to sell their homes. So many have caring responsibilities of one sort or another and simply can't work, others find that decent jobs are few and far between when you're over 60, and funnily enough I know of nobody who has been offered one of the apprenticeships that the government kindly says we can take on.

Not every WASPI woman has had the opportunity during her working life to build up a savings pot to see her through 6 or more years she didn't bargain for. It is heartening to see that most GNers who were lucky enough to get their own state pensions and bus passes at 60 can still show empathy for those of us who've been dumped on from a very great height. Few of us are asking for a reversal to 60, and we're well aware that pension ages have to be equalised. We're asking for some sort of compensation for the way the process has been bungled, with the ridiculously steep rise to the pension age causing real and unforeseeable hardship to a small cohort of women, instead of being implemented gradually, as seems to be happening in every other country round the world.

As for where would the money come from? Isn't it more a matter of where did the money go? To quote dear George Osborne: "“I’ve found it one of the less controversial things we’ve done and it probably saved more money than anything else we’ve done." Well cheers for that.

gillybob the state pension was never designed to see us all living out decades in comfort

Of course it wasn't Anja but not to worry, people of my age won't get to "live decades in comfort" . I will hopefully retire at 67 and 4 months and only live another few years after that as I live in an area with one of the lowest life expectancies anyway.

The rise in life expectancy is reported as slowing, but the number of people seriously obese is on a relentless increase.

There has got to be a connection there.

I know the Waspi women have been dealt a bad deal, but where would the money come from to reinstate the original retirement age ? Tax increases would prove to be very unpopular with younger people already struggling with mortgages and general living expenses.

Of course we can all come up with ideas as to where the money could come from. I would start by looking at the House of Lords, and then the over inflated foreign aid budget.

Thought this was relevant.

Caroline Abrahams, Charity Director at Age UK, said: “It’s deeply depressing that the rise in life expectancy among the over-65s in the UK is faltering and that we’re falling behind most other developed countries in this crucial respect. It’s hard to attribute precise cause and effect, but the fact we are seeing this trend at the same time as our health and care services are under such acute strain is surely more than a coincidence.

“The Government has recently announced a 10 year bonus for the NHS but continues to look the other way as our care system effectively disintegrates, leaving well over a million older people with some unmet need for care,” she said.

Prof Martin McKee, Professor of European Public Health, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, called for further investigation of the trends to see if they were the “consequences of austerity”.

Justin Madders, shadow health minister, said: “This slowdown in improvements in life expectancy exposes the terrible effects of austerity policies imposed by the Government since 2010.

“It is simply astonishing that the UK is now falling so far behind other countries. It is an appalling sign of the Government’s failure to improve people’s life chances as years of underfunding in health and social care take their toll.”

First time I’ve seen this actually attributed to the government’s austerity policy and lack of social care but it makes sense.

Older people beware Your Government is Killing You

gillybob the state pension was never designed to see us all living out decades in comfort.

In 1970, life expectancy at birth for males in the UK was 68.7 years and for females was 75.0 years. This a man could expect 3.7 years on a state pension and a woman 15 years. Hardly seems fair does it?

So we are living longer after we retire which means pensions have to reflect that.

I think perhaps we are heading back there Anja ! Raising the age of retirement to 70 and life expectancy gradually falling. I live in one of the poorest areas of the country therefore we have one of the lowest life expectancies. We will undoubtedly save the treasury millions !

1925 - age 65
In 1925 a new kind of pension was introduced based on contributions paid at work by employer and employee. It was paid from age 65 without a means-test. A married couple's rate of pension was paid if both spouses were aged 65 or more. That meant many men had to wait for some time after they reached 65 to get the higher rate for their wives.

As life expectancy for men was about 60 most didn’t live long enough to collect.

Compared with life expectancy when the first pensions were introduced crystaltipps then people are still living longer.

The first "old age" pension was introduced by the Government in 1908, paying five shillings a week (worth around £14 today). At a time when the average life expectancy was 47 and it was only available to men aged over 70.

Statistically, the trend for life expectancy in the US and U.K. is down. Although the overall average is small it is still moving downwards, and when looked at different economic groups there is a big difference between those in lower and higher income groups. So - please stop saying everyone is living longer - it’s not true, not something that those in charge like to admit- it doesn’t suit current policies. I’m sure for everyone we know in their 90s, we know someone who has died at a much younger age.