Rise in Pension Age

Mum liked ski and Continental holidays as a family

We went to Cornwall, North Wales and Bournemouth.
But this was the 1950s and very early 1960s; Continental and ski holidays were not de rigueur and only for the well-off as they were relatively expensive then.

M0nica

Didn't 'our' generation get described as feckless and spendthrift, spendng all our money on Dansettes, pop records and holidays in Majorca?

Perhaps other people had Mums who allowed more freedoms?

I certainly never did the things you list. No holidays to Majorca or fancy beach. Mum liked ski and Continental holidays as a family.

Very conservative "Churchy' family at that.

As usual, all families are quite different.

I spent my pocket money on pop and jazz records and had a Dansette for my birthday.
It was red, I loved it.

I never got to Majorca until I was about 60!

Well if they did I wasn’t one of them.

Didn't 'our' generation get described as feckless and spendthrift, spendng all our money on Dansettes, pop records and holidays in Majorca?

It served me well and I still had fun.

Germanshepherdsmum

Same here Norah. I think if some of them totted up what they spend on coffees, takeaways and other bits and pieces they would be horrified. If you want to save money something’s got to give.

If you want to save money something’s got to give.

Indeed.

Thus no frivolous spending during (say) deposit saving.

I'm a saver too, but I was able to save for a house, which is something out of the reach of many nowadays. Also, takeaway coffee didn't exist - I'm sure that by a measure of only buying absolute essentials most of us would fail.

I think the notion of a feckless younger generation is as fallacious as the notion of a pampered and entitled older one.

Same here Norah. I think if some of them totted up what they spend on coffees, takeaways and other bits and pieces they would be horrified. If you want to save money something’s got to give.

Doodledog

Agreed, Norah. The strategy of telling young people that 'Boomers' all got houses virtually free (we paid 16% for years) and free education (only something like 10% went to university and hardly any from less well-off families) is divisive, as is telling us that 'Millenials' would all be able to afford houses if they didn't buy takeaway coffee.

There are differences within those groups as well as between them, and it is all a huge distraction from the real problems faced by us all.

I don't agree to the bit regarding not saving every pound to a home deposit, by not frittering it away on coffees and takeaways. But I'm a saver, so a point I won't understand, init?

Agreed, Norah. The strategy of telling young people that 'Boomers' all got houses virtually free (we paid 16% for years) and free education (only something like 10% went to university and hardly any from less well-off families) is divisive, as is telling us that 'Millenials' would all be able to afford houses if they didn't buy takeaway coffee.

There are differences within those groups as well as between them, and it is all a huge distraction from the real problems faced by us all.

Doodledog The intergenerational unfairness we keep hearing about is manufactured, but turning groups against one another is an effective strategy. We don't need to compare pensions with anything - they are pensions, and should be judged as such.

Agreed. Life changes, prices go up and down, no need for intergenerational unhappiness regarding home prices, wages, pensions - anything. Times are different, some paid 17% interest, we paid 5%. Some paid into pensions for 30 years, some 50. something to deal with, no need for jealousy.

Calendargirl

Not quite the same, but what about working people, who maybe have never had children, seen their taxes helping to pay for child benefit?

Thinking of a work colleague, just left work at nearly 66 years old, having worked full time since 18, single, never had children, hardly ever any sick leave.

I expect she’s quite happy to think her state pension is being provided courtesy of all these taxes she’s paid for nearly 50 years.

I'm one of those and it's never been problem. My taxes pay for the education of future nurses, doctors etc etc. I have had sick leave but nowhere near as much as maternity leave.

Paying for services we may never need is how insurance works. Sometimes we hope we never need them, sometimes we are, effectively, paying in advance for something we hope we do live long enough to get back.

I know we never realise when we are young, but today's younger generation will be old one day. The intergenerational unfairness we keep hearing about is manufactured, but turning groups against one another is an effective strategy. We don't need to compare pensions with anything - they are pensions, and should be judged as such. There is no need for pensioners to live a subsistence lifestyle after a lifetime of work. That there is no need for younger people to live like that either is a separate argument, and the merits of one are not linked to those of the other. There is no element of needing to persuade pensioners that going to work is better than not. Pensioners have contributed both financially and in terms of their productivity - often since they were teenagers - they are not so much claiming on insurance as cashing in a policy. Whether the government has mishandled their custodianship of our cash or not is not the point. They can find the money growing on the same tree as that on which they found enough to pay their chums for no PPE, or to pension off Liz Truss and Kwasi Karting after a few days of service.

Calendargirl

Not quite the same, but what about working people, who maybe have never had children, seen their taxes helping to pay for child benefit?

Thinking of a work colleague, just left work at nearly 66 years old, having worked full time since 18, single, never had children, hardly ever any sick leave.

I expect she’s quite happy to think her state pension is being provided courtesy of all these taxes she’s paid for nearly 50 years.

Her pension will be paid out of current taxation, not out of the money she has paid in.

(Someone will be along to correct that in a moment, no doubt 😀)

She's also been paying for the education of children who will become taxpayers and pay for her pension.
She's been paying in to the NHS for all those less fortunate than her who need treatment - and for maternity services.
She, and all of us, pay for services we may never need.

That's how society works here.

Calendargirl Surely the fact that it will be the children of other people paying their pension is justification enough for single people contributing to the support of other people's children.

In old age it will be entirely other people's children caring for them, providing medical support, mending roads, growing food, driving buses etc etc. In bee hives they kill off the drones once they have served their useful purpose. Should we do that to single people who have outgrown their usefulness and done nothing to ensure their future?

That question is rhetorical. I have a happily single and childless daughter, but she has never expressed any resentment at her taxes being used to support other people's children.

Not quite the same, but what about working people, who maybe have never had children, seen their taxes helping to pay for child benefit?

Thinking of a work colleague, just left work at nearly 66 years old, having worked full time since 18, single, never had children, hardly ever any sick leave.

I expect she’s quite happy to think her state pension is being provided courtesy of all these taxes she’s paid for nearly 50 years.

maddyone

The argument used why should younger people pay for your pension is so very selfish. The answer surely is ^because I paid for the pensions of older people than I am because that’s how it’s done.^

That is how it's done, it works really.

No other workable solution has been promoted that I recall.

maddyone
The argument used why should younger people pay for your pension is so very selfish. The answer surely is ^because I paid for the pensions of older people than I am because that’s how it’s done

I think the concern is the growing size of the amount of money younger generations will have to pay to fund the pensions of those older them.

When pensions were first introduced, the avaerage time that someone drew a pension was 7 years. We had a growing population so the number of working people contributing towards these pensions was quite high.

Nowadays most pensioners will be drawing their pension for 20 years and more and we have a declining birthrate so the number of working people contributing to each pension is much smaller and there is a very real concern that the taxation burden on those in work will not be able to be cut and may be needed to increase just to pay for state pensions.

Concern about this isn't selfish, this heavy burden, far heavier than in the past, is all ready causing friction between generations. We see this in the housing market and the real resentment felt towards older people who own their own houses that have rapidly increased in value, and the end of occupational pensions with defined benefits.

I have neither said nor implied that all public sector workers are less clever than their private sector counterparts. I can only speak of those with whom I worked.

maddyone

I couldn’t be bothered either Callistemon. Looking it up wouldn’t change anything and would waste a lovely day (I’m putting off making my simnal cake till tomorrow since the weather is so lovely and we’re going out walking this afternoon.)

I agree with you maddyone. Sometimes, I think I could get all bitter and twisted about how my life has turned out. My philosophy is that I can't turn the clock back, I make the best of what I have and try not to waste time and energy on negative emotions. I have limited time left and I'm determined to enjoy it. It's actually quite satisfying to find loads of things I can do for free or very little money.

Doodledog

maddyone

The argument used why should younger people pay for your pension is so very selfish. The answer surely is ^because I paid for the pensions of older people than I am because that’s how it’s done.^

Agreed, maddyone.

GSM, that sounds as though you think that public sector workers are less clever than those in the private sector, and that only private sector workers are capable of independent thought. Surely, that's not what you meant?

Oh, I think it was exactly what she meant.

Germanshepherdsmum

The point of my being contracted out was that the government made payments into my private pension. So the idea was that despite having a lower sp I would be better off overall due to the enhanced private pension, had EL not gone bust. I wouldn’t expect the contributions to my private pension and a full sp - that would be having your cake and eating it. It’s just my misfortune to have chosen EL, as so many professionals did at the time.

But ... but ... but ... you wouldn't have had a lower state pension under the old system, apart from SERPs. Your basic pension would not have had any deductions from being contracted out. The idea was that people should pay into a private pension in return for paying lower contributions. You were swapping SERPs for a private pension - NOT the basic pension.

When the changes were introduced, SERPs were abolished. The justification for the higher rate was to compensate people for the loss of SERPs, which actually meant some people with low contributions will benefit. It was in the "small print" that people who had contracted out would have deductions from their basic pension because they had not been paying the full NI rate.

BTW SERPs usually pay far less for the amount paid in than a private pension. Additionally, private pension payments aren't taxed whereas NI payments are, which means that higher rate taxpayers (which you've told us you were GSM) effectively had their pension contributions subsidised by the government at a much higher rate than people paying basic rate (or no) income tax.

maddyone

The argument used why should younger people pay for your pension is so very selfish. The answer surely is ^because I paid for the pensions of older people than I am because that’s how it’s done.^

Agreed, maddyone.

GSM, that sounds as though you think that public sector workers are less clever than those in the private sector, and that only private sector workers are capable of independent thought. Surely, that's not what you meant?

The argument used why should younger people pay for your pension is so very selfish. The answer surely is because I paid for the pensions of older people than I am because that’s how it’s done.