raising pension age

I have suffered ill health for many years including Rheumatoid arthritis for 40 years, removal of a tumour in my chest, resulting in paralysed vocal chords. I have difficulty swallowing which has left me with Bronchiectasis, diabetes and IBS. I am 64. I have never been a ‘burden’ to the state, and have always paid my way, but I have another 2 years before I get my state pension, if I live that long and I say enough is enough.
People should not have to work forever just to obtain what is theres as a right and maybe have very little time left to enjoy their retirement. No one is saying you are over the hill at 65 plus but it should be your choice if you want to go on working, not an enforced situation. Those who say it’s ok, might not have the same opinion when they get there!
This is still a rich country, the distribution of wealth is all wrong. You work you get paid, you do nothing you get paid ...that breeds resentment ...There is no equality, just I’m All right Jack mentality!

I’m going to get £168 a week pension as long as I pay my NI for 2 more years, which I will because it looks like I’ll be working till forever! After 2 more years NI payments my pension won’t increase but they actually state that they still want my contributions to help pay for other resources, by this they probably mean other people that have never worked!
I have always worked for myself & always employed between 5-7 people over the years so feel I’ve done my bit but it seems very little coming back hence having to work forever.

He facilitated the changes by bringing them forward by a good few years - in the name of austerity.

Snake.

Further changes (if they happen) have him as their champion.

It feels as a society we are going back to the days of the Industrial Revolution in that people will work until they drop, there are already lawless and largely uneducated young people on the streets. Homeless people being encouraged by way of funding to return the areas they are from and families going hungry. How long before we see a return of the workhouses.

It's getting ridiculous.I'm so lucky to have been able to retire when I did,I'm 68 now.I was 60 during the start of the changes,I could have retired at 61,but kept going a bit longer.I was an assistant in a busy shop,I really don't think I would be quick enough now,or good enough at lifting and carrying.I enjoy doing voluntary work,2 days a week,nothing too physically demanding,that's how it should be at our age,not being forced to work

People are living longer, healthier lives and medical advancements mean that will increase human longevity in the future.
Meanwhile, technological advancements mean that robots have taken over many arduous physical tasks and again, that will, increasingly, become the norm.
There are lots of jobs which can be done from home and I've seen people in full time employment well past retirement age.

I am so sorry for the Waspi women but it seems only that only those who live long will eventually get a pension and those will not be the people who have been in stressful, physical and or low paid jobs.

However, this is the sort of world the alt-right, neoliberals always wanted. That is why they wanted the likes of Trump, Johnson and the extremist Brexiteers in power. As they would say "consequences are for the little people" and no changes in how we run our country were ever intended to give "the little people" more than a few extra crumbs from the wealth they could create for themselves. Why else do they want to destroy the labour laws or the human rights laws that protect "the little people", including you and me against the power of excessive wealth?

PaddyAnn

www.backto60.com/single-post/2018/07/19/Revealed-The-£271-billion-rape-of-the-National-Insurance-Fund-that-deprived-50s-women-of-their-state-pension

The problem is that successive governments have put their heads in the sands for generations. We are only hitting the tip of the iceberg. It is all to do with being the post-war generations born between 1945 and 1970, the so-called baby boomers. We all remember being in large classes at school, and, hello, governments,we are mostly still here and hoping that this state of affairs will continue. Governments have wasted money for decades on different schemes while failing to plan for the future. In fact, the real crisis is going to come in twenty to thirty years' time because the largest number of babies were not born immediately following the war but in the 1960s with 1964 (l was born in December of that year) having over a million babies born; the highest number since the end of the second world war.

But he is not here NOW, is he? This is what JOHNSON and co are planning NOW.

Quite easily jura2

24 June 2010
The government is to outline proposals that could push the age people can claim state pensions to as high as 70.

The coalition will also say they want to legislate soon for the state pension age for men to be raised to 66, but it would not rise before 2016.

Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg defended the plans and said the government was "reinvigorating what retirement means".

Unbelievable. I read on Twitter that the aim is 70, but they’ve stated 75 so that it can be reduced to the target of 70 to look as though we’ve had a ‘win’ from the Government.
I was fortunate to be able to finish just before my 65th birthday. I knew that I wouldn’t be able to have continued much longer in my job - it was just too much for me. I’m a retired nurse but was working as a healthcare assistant with community nurses, as I let my registration lapse. There is just no way I could do the work now, just over a year after finishing. No way at all. I’m so concerned about this.

rambling no they won’t that is already sorted with UC.

Whilst the state retirement age is slowly being raised across Europe, there is still a huge discrepancy. For example, women in Austria still reach SRA at 60 and this isn't due to increase to 65 until 2033. In Czech republic SRA remains at 63 and isn't due to increase to 65 until 2036.

I am sorry for all you Grans who are still working at an advanced age. I was lucky enough to retire at 60. They wanted me to work till 65 but I was suffering severe health problems and they reluctantly let me go. I got my occupational pension but if I had worked until 65 it would have been a lot better and they would not have deducted £13000 from my lump sum. But I might not have made it to 65 anyway. I am now 78.
IDS is silly to think this is a good idea. It may cost the Tories millions of votes.

It’s not just manual workers who need to retire at a sensible age. Mental stress can be as disabling as physical, and trying to keep up with developments in your field, whilst carrying on as you did when younger (commuting, office politics, etc) can be draining.

I think that this ‘news’ has been released now, as the results of the Judicial Review brought by BackTo60 are due. If everyone is reeling at the thought of working to 75, the plight of 1959s born women will seem trivial, and the fact that we were not given time to prepare for such a major change in our life plans will be forgotten.

This government will self-destruct before long !

It's easy for Ian Duncan Smith to suggest this as he married into a wealthy family and has been sponging off them ever since.
It's pretty much what you'd expect from the more right-wing branch of his party who are passionate about Brexit because they can afford to be.
If people are too ill to work before 70 or there are no jobs left the Government will have to help them anyway.

There is also a report which has come out showing that post Brexit they are wanting to increase the hours in the working week, lessen the amount of minimum paid holiday leave, cut back on paid time off for training, lay off workers with little or no notice, exempt them from having to go to tribunal and generally cut back on the rights of workers, reverting back to something akin to the Dickensian era. All while MPS get paid huge sums for sitting asleep in Parliament (many of us have seen the pictures of this.....). Yes it's time all the scroungers had their allowances cut, and I'm not talking about families on the poverty line ......

It’s just ridiculous - I’m a teacher, I could not do this at 70. And it wouldn’t be fair on the kids if I did. It’s disgraceful.

Urmstongran, how on earth can you NOW put this on Clegg?!?

Misadventure - I am afraid, sadly and tragically- that that is their aim

I agree with you, eazybee. Men have always had to work to 65, but 70 or 75 is unrealistic and unfair.

I'm sure you're aware that the way student fees are paid back means that those paying the "new" fees actually pay back less over their life.

It's a huge shame the LibDems didn't put more effort into explaining how it works rather than letting others set the agenda and destroying the LibDem vote. The LibDems were responsible for the introduction of free school meals for younger children and the pupil premium, which is worth £2 billion. Clegg's argument was that money should be used to support children at a younger age rather than supporting the (mainly) middle classes when they'd already got through the school system successfully.

Clegg resisted scrapping the means tested student grant, which was one of the first steps taken by the Conservative government when it won the 2015 election. This is costing poorer students much more than raising the fees did. Strange that the Conservative media didn't make a big fuss about that! Hmmm!

In any case, it has no direct relevance to raising the state pension age.

The same MP's who manage to retire early. Also - they work just 13 years to get a pension it would take you 62 years to get (see article).

tinyurl.com/yyo3no77

Its always the case of one rule for us and another for them. We need a change.

I think most people are capable of working full-time until they are sixty-five, I and both my parents did, but to continue to seventy, and even seventy -five, is unrealistic in many jobs even though health in old age improves.