←
→
bugshaw: (BugCount)
Add MemoryShare This Entry

Zeno's Pension

posted by [personal profile] bugshaw at 10:47am on 29/11/2006
When I was born in 1970, I would be eligible for a state pension at age 60.
Then they changed the rules:
By 2020, when I am 50, I would be eligible for a state pension when I am 65.
Now they are proposing a change in the rules:
By 2035, when I am 65, I would be eligible for a state pension when I am 67.

It'll be worth a lot more, assuming I'm not dead.
Not that I've paid my stamp up to date.
←
→
There are 13 comments on this entry. (Reply.)
 

(no subject)

posted by [identity profile] purpletigron.livejournal.com at 10:58am on 29/11/2006
Likewise!
[link] [reply]
 

(no subject)

posted by [identity profile] bellinghman.livejournal.com at 11:07am on 29/11/2006
Ah, yes.

For me being born in 1960, I was eligible for a pension at age 65. Such is the lot of being male - you die years earlier, and you got paid a pension later. (They've fixed the second part, but not the first. With luck, they might even bring women's earnings to parity one day, too.)

Given those proposals, I will hit 65 right in the middle of the the 'raise to 66' period, so it's possible I might retire at 65 - the same age I could have expected when I was born.

I think I'd rather have your problem. Because that'd mean I was 10 years younger.
[link] [reply]
 

(no subject)

posted by [identity profile] bugshaw.livejournal.com at 11:15am on 29/11/2006
Heh!

BTW, it turns out I have been exaggerating when I tell people how poorly paid I am. I did the sums when I got a letter about our new pay agreement (for University administrative staff); if full time I would be on jolly nearly £18k, which is approx 50% more than minimum wage! It is still, however, only 75% of male median earnings. Where are all these better paid jobs??

I wonder how it compares to female median earnings, or if they vary so much there's not good grounds for comparison.
[link] [parent] [reply]
 

(no subject)

posted by [identity profile] bellinghman.livejournal.com at 11:26am on 29/11/2006
Female earnings are horribly discounted from their male equivalents. That's not to say that there aren't some females who do get paid equitably, but general parity is still a long way away.

Part of it is going to be that the 'break for a family' usually involves the mother being the one to take the break, and while she's off, her career is stalled. But there's also an unjust assumption by many employers that any woman can't help dropping sprogs, and will take time off, so there's no point in assuming otherwise.

Part of it is that males are more competitive. Since asking people not to be competitive is pretty much a non-starter, the solution to that has to be for the people handing out the rewards (again, the employers) to assess on the basis of value of work, and to note that although women may bring different benefits, those benefits shouldn't be undervalued just because they are different.
[link] [parent] [reply]
 

(no subject)

posted by [identity profile] seph-hazard.livejournal.com at 11:29am on 29/11/2006
I won't be 67 till 2056.

Wonder how much longer I'll have to wait by then?
[link] [reply]
 

(no subject)

posted by [identity profile] aardvark179.livejournal.com at 11:58am on 29/11/2006
I was born in 1976 and I rather expect to asymptotically approach retirement age while never actually reaching it.
[link] [reply]
 

(no subject)

posted by [identity profile] bugshaw.livejournal.com at 11:59am on 29/11/2006
Good-oh. I'll need you young people to keep working, to support me in my retirement :-)
[link] [parent] [reply]
 

(no subject)

posted by [identity profile] peake.livejournal.com at 12:37pm on 29/11/2006
One of the (very few) advantages to being the age I am is that by the time they change the retirement age I will already have retired (for me that will be in 2017). I can't wait.
[link] [reply]
ext_15862: (Default)

(no subject)

posted by [identity profile] watervole.livejournal.com at 12:44pm on 29/11/2006
That's the price we pay for living longer and having less children to pay tax when we're all retired.

I may not be mad keen on it, but I can see the inescapable logic. I'm just about to start saving for a private pension.
[link] [reply]
drplokta: (Default)

(no subject)

posted by [personal profile] drplokta at 01:17pm on 29/11/2006
Look at it the other way around. In 1970 you could expect to get your pension for 15 years (female life expectancy in 1970 of 75, retirement age of 60). In 2000, you had that same 15 years (female life expectancy of 80, retirement age of 65). In 2035, assuming life expectancy continues to increase by two years per decade, you can actually look forward to 19 years of pension. So your retirement period is getting longer, not shorter.
[link] [reply]
 

(no subject)

posted by [identity profile] vicarage.livejournal.com at 01:44pm on 29/11/2006
The golden rule of UK pension planning is don't assume the basic state pension will be worth anything by the time you get it. Of course we can all tease S that he will be drawing his pension next year...
[link] [reply]
 

(no subject)

posted by [identity profile] bugshaw.livejournal.com at 05:47pm on 29/11/2006
He did quip that we could share his pension. "But when will you get that?" I asked, thinking he might just slip into the retire-at-66 bracket. "Next year" he says. Doh!
[link] [parent] [reply]
 

(no subject)

posted by [identity profile] stevegreen.livejournal.com at 08:05pm on 29/11/2006
I believe the idea is to issue you with a composite pension book and death certificate, the latter to be filled in as soon as possible.
[link] [reply]

September

SunMonTueWedThuFriSat
  1
 
 2
 
 3
 
 4
 
 5
 
 6
 
7
 
 8
 
 9
 
 10
 
 11
 
 12
 
 13
 
14
 
 15
 
 16
 
 17
 
 18
 
 19
 
 20
 
21
1
 22
 
 23
 
 24
 
 25
 
 26
 
 27
 
28
 
 29
 
 30