h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I have *&@# had it with this @#&% countries (UK) attitude to graduates. They are now planning not to allow us to retire until 70, which is very close to the adverage male life expectancy.

Also if I hear one more winging idiot say they don't see why they should pay for peoples university then ask why there are no major companies starting up in the UK or why there aren't enough Doctors, I will kick them.

Researcher PSG

the original age of 65 was set when life expectancy was more like 55....

and i'm in the same boat. hope i can find a nice indoor job with no heavy lifting cause by the time i get there it'll be about 90!

I feel so lucky, and guilty at the same time that I just got to university 'in time' to escape tuition fees etc. My Brother is just about to start at Uni this September, and I can't imainge what its going to be like for him when he finishes, not with just a few thousands of pounds in student loan debts, but tens of thousands I think it must hae a big impact on graduates with what they then decide to do after University: No wonder we arn't getting people post graduating carrying on to become, E.G., doctors, teachers etc., The wages just arn't compatible with the reduculusy large debts they have to incure to get to that point And, this is witout considering things at the moment, like how on earth they are ment to be able to buy, or even rent property in the UK when they start with tends of thousands of pounds of debts, as they enter their first job, without having even gotten somethign tenable, like a house/flat to show for this money/debt

So what we'll get is people going to uni so that their life expectancy increases, but dropping out so that they don't have to work so long

And for quite a few of the 'professionals' that come out of Uni in the UK, it won't work anyhow because the jobs they go to are so poorly paid and supported by the Government anyway (I'm talking research science here BTW - my personal bugbear)

The recent survey into the inability of certain types of worker to afford a house in parts of the country was extremely worrying. But it's just as bad trying to get a mortgage if your life consists of 6mth to three year contracts. No bank wants to know.

And geting a job later in life is difficult too - my Aunt has been thinking of giving up reasearch and getting a shop job because a) they can't afford for her to retire ten years early and b) because getting a grant or research job at her age is proving very difficult. Even with a bunch of people she has worked with for a very long time.

Zantic (someone take this soap-box away please)

im reading this with interest as im currently studying for a science degree. im hoping im going to be able to work quite easily after as im going into teaching

Given the new teacher pension scheme, I can't actually afford to retire until my coffin is lowered, in any case.

B

I can't believe that they're actually making people with degrees work 5 years longer than everyone else.

I think in reality anyone with a personal or company pension will not be given the state pension until they're 70. But, anyone with their own pension, which is likely to be the majority of professionals, can retire whenever they like, or as soon as they can afford to anyway.

But I know nothing about it so please prove me wrong ...

When I heard this on Radio 4 on Sunday it was only the person sitting next to me in the car shouting "F**k off" that drowned out the sound of all the other "middle class" voices shouting the very same thing.

So, because you happen to have worked hard at school and at university and be in a job that presumably creates more wealth for the country overall and having paid more in NI and pensions in general you get screwed by the government.

But if you leave at 16years old and work in a bog standard 9-5 job you can leave work early as well?

F**k that! I didn't work my arse off during my younger years getting an education to then waste my later years by having to work longer while all the wasters (and other non-professionals) get to sit around drinking Carling (if they survive til they are 65y.o. as they seem to die earlier so says the statistics).

I must admit my reaction was along similarly vehement lines

I do think, while those who are disadvantaged should definately be helped, those who have put effort into trying to better themselves and the skill set in the country should not keep getting dumped on

Researcher PSG

personally I rather resent Alfsters implication that all of us without degrees are drunken wasters
still I agree there should be 1 standard retirement age for all, preferably lower rather than higher

"I can't believe that they're actually making people with degrees work 5 years longer than everyone else."

"I didn't work my arse off during my younger years getting an education to then waste my later years by having to work longer while all the wasters (and other non-professionals) get to sit around drinking Carling"

Ok, two things here. The first - in response to the first quote - having left school at 16 I'd done five years work before most uni students stepped foot into the workplace, so I don't see a problem with graduates having to catch up a little bit further down the line. After all, I helped put people through Uni at the time, so be nice if those people repaid the favour with my pension.

As for the second quote, don't be an arse mate. I left school if I don't retire until 65 I'll have worked for nearly 50 years. I hardly call that 'work-shy'. Ok, so you're pissed off, but don't take it out on people who didn't follow the same path as you did.

*notes that he had to work pretty damn hard to get a degree - without getting paid for it*

Aside from that I do wonder (and I'm quite happy to have it explained) why there is all this current panic over pensions. As far as I can tell this all stems from the drop in the stock market a few years back which has since gradually recovered - it was well overinflated at the time anyway. If it fully recovers - as I expect it will - then this pension 'blackhole' may well disappear again.

Secondly I believe this results from a needs must type of situation. Unless we are prepared to take a massive hike in personal taxation how *else* will they pay for the every increasing numbers of pensioners and students?

I agree, in principle this is very sad and one to avoid if possible. It's the *if possible* bit that I think is the problem.

I didn't say you were wasters! And of course, you do not need to go to university to get a good job in which you excel. In fact, there are most likely many people who left at 16 while I went to Uni who are earning a lot more than me with less stress and will be able to retire when they are 65y.o.

Just basing retirement age on whether someone went to university or not is quite possibly the most stupid black and white notion I have every heard.

No, the pensions black hole is not solely about the market (though even if it was the market isn't recovering anything like quickly enough - my endowment, now thankfully not needed, was known to be coming up short at least three or four years ago).

Mostly, it is about the fact that as the baby boomers retire, the ration of people in work to those retired has fallen from 10-1 to 4-1. Thats an over 50% drop in those contributing NI and other taxes which pay for pensions and the like.

Of course, with the census it should have been the easiest calculation to have foreseen, but any solution MUST involve either increasing taxes on the working population or trying to solve the problem another way.

I don't like it, and we in the Civil Service will likely be in the vanguard of it (and I expect if we strike we'll get scant support or sympathy from the rest of the population), but I do recognize that something has to be done about it. Of course, the media won't let us have a sensible discussion on the full range of options as that would mean raising the 'immigration' word, and the media are a bit against that, on the whole.

It's also worth pointing out that the 'retirement age' is a nullity. What is being proposed is adding five years to the time at which you can *claim* state pensions. If you can afford to retire before you claim your state pension, there's nothing anybody can do to stop you.

(If I were a cynic, I might think this was a back-handed way of attempting people to save more in private pensions schemes...)

And for those interested, here's some of the figures.

In 1908, the State pension was introduced as a *means tested* benefit that could be claimed by those *over 70*. The 1911 census shows average (and I assume this to mean the mean average) life expectancy was 52 for men, 55 for women.

In 1925 it was changed to a flat rate benefit which could be claimed at the age of 65. The 1931 census shows life expectancy to be 59 for men, 62 for women.

It is anticipated that the 2004 census will show a life expectancy of 75 for men, 80 for women.

Furthermore, since the 1931 census, 'remaining life expectancy', that is, the amount of time over which those who claim pensions do actually claim them has risen from 9.8 years to 14.4 years in men.

Add into this is the fact that over the same period the chances of surviving to the age of 65 have risen from 50% to 75%.

What you get is a picture of a rapidly aging population that is claiming more pensions for a lot longer than was ever the case before.

Doesn't take a genius to see that something has to be done, and done very soon abot the problem. Personally I don't think that penalising graduates is the way to go, but my guess is the reasoning is that as a graduate you are more likely to have a job that pays well enough to allow you to have a private pension which will still allow you access to sufficient funds to retire at 65.

Wouldn't you think that the most successful Chancellor since time and the Universe began might have addressed this. If he quit his redistributive cant and stopped penalising pension fund profits and penalising people who have savings by means testing everything possible there might be some incentive to save for retirement.

Thanks Blues I am enlightened and I must say I largely agree with what you say.

It's not the incentive thats lacking, I think. Mostly it's the ability. I know I couldn't aford to put *sensible* sums of money aside for my retirement, live where I do and actually enjoy my life while I was working, which is why the public sector will fight long and hard to keep it's pension privileges.

But for a couple of young friends of mine, crushed by student debt and housing prices trying to survive in the same area it's utterly impractical.

But the problem goes far beyond that, which was the point of the figures above. We have vastly more people claiming pensions for longer with far less epople paying taxes into the system than we ever have had before. Add into this the collapse of 'traditional family units (and certainkly up 1908 families would have been expected to look after elderly relatives at their own expense, and certainly did so to the best of their abilities) and you have a recipe for disaster whatever the situation.

"Just basing retirement age on whether someone went to university or not is quite possibly the most stupid black and white notion I have every heard."

My mother - a known Daily Mail reader so possibly this shouldn't be taken as a good point or anything - said that it was because Uni grads often earn much more, so they will be paying more tax than I will at that age which is why it's been done.

There's an interesting article on its way to the Front Page about age expectancy, and it actually states that the older we get, the more out life expectancy grows. So at age 35 my life expectancy will be, say, 70, but if I actually make it anywhere near that age, it will grow higher. A3784854 I just thought it might make people feel a bit better.

I think all my grandparents lived into their 80s.