Nifty
Member
Posts: 4,963
|
Post by Nifty on Jan 27, 2023 11:02:52 GMT 1
|
|
exile
Member
Massif Central
Posts: 2,680
|
Post by exile on Jan 27, 2023 12:08:36 GMT 1
Anyone starting to take the state pension and without other financial means will almost certainly see their income go down and not up - even allowing for additional state payments for those on low incomes. The increase in state pension might then be seen as a blessing rather than a curse viewed in that light.
And before someone else says it, that is not how many will see it.
The other thing that has to be considered is how to finance the state pension. With people living longer and longer, they need to be financed through their pension more and more. When the UK OAP was set up, the average male life expectancy was 62. More than half of the working male population never received a penny. The average life expectancy for a male is now around 85 years. So compared with when it was set up, there is a massive gap in funding. This can be filled by having more and more contributors. Unfortunately with birth rates falling and the strong dislike of immigrants being allowed to go to the UK and entering the workforce, the trend is in the other direction. Then cherry on the icing of the cake, more young people are encouraged to go into further education where they make no contributions but are credited as if they had when their pension is calculated.
Much of this is as applicable to France as it is to the UK so the demand by Macron to increase pension age here can be seen is a similar light.
Put simply, the sums don't add up and none of the solutions are going to be found acceptable by large parts of the (voting) population Increase in National insurance for those working. Increase in general taxation - income tax, VAT or whatever. Payment of National Insurance by those who have retired - as effectively happens in France. Increase the age at which you can start to take a pension - you contribute for longer and withdraw for less time. Combinations of the above.
|
|
Nifty
Member
Posts: 4,963
|
Post by Nifty on Jan 27, 2023 12:18:33 GMT 1
And what about people who were not particularly forward thinking and once had faith in institutions like banks and building societies to put their savings?
collateral damage ? I suppose.
|
|
|
Post by pcpa on Jan 27, 2023 14:41:34 GMT 1
All governments have ignored the ticking time bomb for decades.
The demographic crisis was first explained to me in the mid 80's, the situation was dire even then and clearly was going to get much much worse unless the retirement age was raised immediately to 70.
So it's not really a ticking time bomb but one that has been erupting for decades, most of my working life.
|
|
Nifty
Member
Posts: 4,963
|
Post by Nifty on Jan 27, 2023 14:55:20 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by houpla on Jan 27, 2023 17:26:40 GMT 1
Put simply, the sums don't add up and none of the solutions are going to be found acceptable by large parts of the (voting) population Increase in National insurance for those working. Increase in general taxation - income tax, VAT or whatever. Payment of National Insurance by those who have retired - as effectively happens in France. Increase the age at which you can start to take a pension - you contribute for longer and withdraw for less time. Combinations of the above. Could I propose another solution? That the Amazons, Googles and Microsofts/Apples of this world (or their obscenely rich proprietors) are asked to contribute to a massive fund earmarked solely for that purpose. A sort of 'thankyou' from them to the people who made them obscenely rich in the first place I can dream.....
|
|
Aardvark
Non-gamer
Living in soggy 22 and still wondering what's going on.
Posts: 2,172
|
Post by Aardvark on Jan 27, 2023 17:31:02 GMT 1
Put simply, the sums don't add up and none of the solutions are going to be found acceptable by large parts of the (voting) population Increase in National insurance for those working. Increase in general taxation - income tax, VAT or whatever. Payment of National Insurance by those who have retired - as effectively happens in France. Increase the age at which you can start to take a pension - you contribute for longer and withdraw for less time. Combinations of the above. Working for a few more years before drawing the pittance is all very well for career paper pushers and company owners but what about those doing purely manual labour. People who were hanging by a thread most of their lives having nothing left over after essential bills were paid to put into banks or extra pensions. Fitness for that sort of work doesn't always last into your 60s or 70s. There seems to be growing support for another option. A cull.
|
|
|
Post by pcpa on Jan 27, 2023 18:12:13 GMT 1
Yes Aardvark, the French system has always been far better in that respect than the UK one aside from where the Syndicalistes have exploited it to the degree that it becomes laughable. 13 years ago a young guy in our diving club was having the pi55 ripped out of him because he had retired on a very large pension with free travel benefits for life for all his family members, subsidised holidays in the camps de loisirs owned by the CE etc (I'll stop there because it would go on for several pages) he was 49 years old and worked for the SNCF.
His penurie de travail was having pushed a pencil from behind a desk all his career, the early retirement age was a hang up from when steam engine drivers & mates had to work their butts off shovelling coal.
Now they twiddle a manette arguably easier than pushing a pen although I realise they have a big responsability for the lives of hundreds of people at a time. At the same time a good friend in the UK of the exact same age was starting a new career training to be a train driver and having been a farmer and then taxi driver was over the moon about it.
|
|
|
Post by pcpa on Jan 27, 2023 18:18:39 GMT 1
the average male life expectancy was 62. More than half of the working male population never received a penny. The average life expectancy for a male is now around 85 years. Whilst not disagreeing with your very valid point I suspect that the "half of the working male population" is quite a bit off the mark, the biggest change which is responsable for the huge increase in the average figure is the drastic reduction in infant mortality, each child that died within the first 2 years of its life would skew the figures in the same way as a person living to the age of 120.
Thinking about it the demographic crisis then probably was not enough children were surviving to adulthood to become NIC contributors.
|
|
exile
Member
Massif Central
Posts: 2,680
|
Post by exile on Jan 27, 2023 19:51:49 GMT 1
You are right that infant mortality will have skewed the figures but equally right that they made no contributions.. Despite that only 50% males did receive this new wonder pension. WW1 and later WW2 also played a part to ensure that a significant number of contributors never saw any pay-out.
|
|
|
Post by pcpa on Jan 27, 2023 21:14:54 GMT 1
I will take your word for it, I can recall when I started my working career that people were retiring with 50 years service, they sold themselves to potential employees as a job for life company, not much attraction for me at 16!
Anyway huge numbers, and I do mean huge were dropping dead within the first 6 months of their retirement, in later years when people were pushed out early with redundancy and did not have the time to mentally adjust and plan even more of them were dying and of course many were not even making to to retirement but I started too late to have known those who had passed before, many names bandied around though and many fell around me, the 40's seemed to be the popular age for heart attacks.
When my father retired in 1981 I really did not expect him to live more than a year in retirement thats how acclimatised I had become, and I had also lost my mother at the age of 45 before I had even got to the final year of school.
Thankfully my father managed 23 years of retirement, I will have got in nearly as many years as an inactif before I get to my normal retirement date!!!
|
|
|
Post by tim17 on Jan 28, 2023 10:01:47 GMT 1
Whilst this is only speculation at least there will be years of notice, the French government have put forward proposals that will see people having to delay their retirement starting this year!
People can and will argue whether this is fair or not but either the retirement age has to be put back or pension contributions will have to increase.
Many countries are looking to link the retirement age to life expectancy which may be the better way to go.
|
|
Nifty
Member
Posts: 4,963
|
Post by Nifty on Jan 28, 2023 10:24:37 GMT 1
Should that take regional and occupational differences into account?
|
|
|
Post by tim17 on Jan 28, 2023 11:26:51 GMT 1
Should that take regional and occupational differences into account? It would be complicated and perhaps unfair but how and where you live does dramatically affect your life expectancy, Glasgow has the lowest male life expectancy in the UK at 73.1 so living your whole life there you lose 7 years compared to London and the SE which is quite shocking given the retirement age is now 67.
|
|
exile
Member
Massif Central
Posts: 2,680
|
Post by exile on Jan 28, 2023 13:57:41 GMT 1
Put simply, the sums don't add up and none of the solutions are going to be found acceptable by large parts of the (voting) population Increase in National insurance for those working. Increase in general taxation - income tax, VAT or whatever. Payment of National Insurance by those who have retired - as effectively happens in France. Increase the age at which you can start to take a pension - you contribute for longer and withdraw for less time. Combinations of the above. Could I propose another solution? That the Amazons, Googles and Microsofts/Apples of this world (or their obscenely rich proprietors) are asked to contribute to a massive fund earmarked solely for that purpose. A sort of 'thankyou' from them to the people who made them obscenely rich in the first place I can dream..... While I agree and their tax revenues should be a lot closer to their markets, the question is who would pay for those extra taxes? If you think they would just take a hit on their profits, then think again. It would be the customer who would by one way or another have to pay the extra. As an example, Ebay are now charging VAT on cross border sales through the GSP. I bought an item for £16 off the .co.uk site. I ended up paying £42 all in for delivery to France. Taxation by stealth.
|
|