Today I'm neither Angry nor Happy about....

[Lost Leopard Spot]

Today, by the way, I'm neither angry nor happy about it being 32 years to the day since I left school.

You're older than I thought, sir.

I've been working 31 years too. Left at 16. I have 21 years left to work before I can retire (well, draw my state pension).

Don't worry it'll fly by. and the nearer you get to it the quicker it flies, until by the time you're drawing the pension it'll be whizzing by at a zillion years per year.

[Gary the Enfield]

Today, by the way, I'm neither angry nor happy about it being 32 years to the day since I left school.

You're older than I thought, sir.

I've been working 31 years too. Left at 16. I have 21 years left to work before I can retire (well, draw my state pension).

Don't worry it'll fly by. and the nearer you get to it the quicker it flies, until by the time you're drawing the pension it'll be whizzing by at a zillion years per year.

Good. I shall live until I'm 21 trillion zillion years old, then, out of spite.

[Worthy4England]

Today, by the way, I'm neither angry nor happy about it being 32 years to the day since I left school.

You're older than I thought, sir.

I've been working 31 years too. Left at 16. I have 21 years left to work before I can retire (well, draw my state pension).

32 Years here...

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

Today, by the way, I'm neither angry nor happy about it being 32 years to the day since I left school.

You're older than I thought, sir.

I've been working 31 years too. Left at 16. I have 21 years left to work before I can retire (well, draw my state pension).

32 Years here...

Well yes - I thought at least that for you two.

[Gary the Enfield]

Today, by the way, I'm neither angry nor happy about it being 32 years to the day since I left school.

You're older than I thought, sir.

I've been working 31 years too. Left at 16. I have 21 years left to work before I can retire (well, draw my state pension).

32 Years here...

Well yes - I thought at least that for you two.

[Worthy4England]

You can go off people, you know.

[Lost Leopard Spot]

36 years aworking, even though I started late after a four year holiday doing biochemistry at University. What gets my golf (that one's for you Bruce) is that for 32 of those feck* years I'd been promised a pension when I was 65. Not feckin 67. nice people.

[clapton is god]

36 years aworking, even though I started late after a four year holiday doing biochemistry at University. What gets my golf (that one's for you Bruce) is that for 32 of those feck years I'd been promised a pension when I was 65. Not feckin 67. tw*ts.

Unlucky - that particular goalpost shifts just three months after my 65th so I just avoid your situation.

[Lost Leopard Spot]

36 years aworking, even though I started late after a four year holiday doing biochemistry at University. What gets my golf (that one's for you Bruce) is that for 32 of those feck years I'd been promised a pension when I was 65. Not feckin 67. tw*ts.

Unlucky - that particular goalpost shifts just three months after my 65th so I just avoid your situation.

It does kick one in the nuts somewhat. But then again, I wasn't born of low caste stock, raped, and then hung from a tree by my neighbours before I'd reached adulthood. So, hey ho, happiness rises to the top like cream.

[Dujon]

It seems to happen to all of us. 60 was retirement/pension age for yonks when I was working. Then it was 63 and then 65. (Women were privileged with about two years rebate). Local politicians are now mulling over the savings to be gained by increasing the retirement age to 70 - in some sort of incremental form. The latter probably means that anyone less than 60 now will most likely never get there; a bit like the carrot and stick ploy. The other kite being flown is the inclusion of the assessed value of a home in your asset calculation. More assets means less pension. What are pensioner's supposed to, eat their house? Pfui!

[Montreal Wanderer]

It seems to happen to all of us. 60 was retirement/pension age for yonks when I was working. Then it was 63 and then 65. (Women were privileged with about two years rebate). Local politicians are now mulling over the savings to be gained by increasing the retirement age to 70 - in some sort of incremental form. The latter probably means that anyone less than 60 now will most likely never get there; a bit like the carrot and stick ploy. The other kite being flown is the inclusion of the assessed value of a home in your asset calculation. More assets means less pension. What are pensioner's supposed to, eat their house? Pfui!

That would cause a riot here. Government pensions are not based on assets, but on the contributions you made in a working life. The longer you worked the greater the pension. However, it is not enough to live on. We have old age security which is gradually clawed back for those making between $60 and 110k.Then there re is a guaranteed income supplement which can bring people up to the poverty line, and for this there is a means test.

[Prufrock]

I like the way olde people phrase it.

"I was only supposed to work until I was 65".

Yeah, you were also supposed to die at 70. Since that isn't happening (hooray by the way, seriously. Like go humanity), maybe you work longer and so actually 'pay your way'.

#controversial.

#don'tcarenevergoingtogettoretire

[Worthy4England]

I like the way olde people phrase it.

"I was only supposed to work until I was 65".

Yeah, you were also supposed to die at 70. Since that isn't happening (hooray by the way, seriously. Like go humanity), maybe you work longer and so actually 'pay your way'.

#controversial.

#don'tcarenevergoingtogettoretire

Pay your way. That's all a bit Tory, Pru.

Are you suggesting that what we really should do here, is give nowt to those that put nowt in, so we can give more to those that did?

Maybe on the "pay your way" trail, we could propose a whole host of reforms like abolishing the welfare system completely.

[Prufrock]

No, because I'm not talking about individuals. Someone's got to pay the way though! Folk are retiring and living for 20 years more (and more). This is obviously great, but that wasn't budgeted for. Whilst I get people being pissed off that that retirement age is moved further away from them, it seems fairer than expecting the 10 people under 25 with a job to pay for everyone else.

[bobo the clown]

↑↑↑ .... & the boy is right..The 65 (60 for women, sexist ruling that have the sex who lived longer and earlier retirement ?!) retirement age was set when people more typically started work as 15 yr olds and died aged around 68 on average/mean/mode. These days people start work in their early 20's and have a use-by date of late 70's if not early 80's.

Pension funds can't cover those changes. One solution is to retire later.

Not unreasonable.

[Abdoulaye's Twin]

Is it not also true that the bankers pissed away a large chunk of the money that would pay for some of these pensions? It seems to me that the policy makers and others at the top are the ones with bigger than ever pensions, whilst telling those lower down that they have to work longer for less money.

Rather than move the goal posts continually, how about they fix the problems that mean pensions are worth far less than they could be. The whole system is broke.

[Worthy4England]

↑↑↑ .... & the boy is right..The 65 (60 for women, sexist ruling that have the sex who lived longer and earlier retirement ?!) retirement age was set when people more typically started work as 15 yr olds and died aged around 68 on average/mean/mode. These days people start work in their early 20's and have a use-by date of late 70's if not early 80's.

Pension funds can't cover those changes. One solution is to retire later.

Not unreasonable.

Said it was a Tory notion.

I was trying to be somewhat mischievous.

These days people do start in their early 20's and you would expect they're going to live longer. So maybe they should set retirement relative to how many years you put in.

Maybe they should start medical testing when you're about 60 and assessing how long you've got left in the tank.

[Bruce Rioja]

Pay your way. That's all a bit Tory, Pru.

Are you suggesting that what we really should do here, is give nowt to those that put nowt in, so we can give more to those that did?

Maybe on the "pay your way" trail, we could propose a whole host of reforms like abolishing the welfare system completely.

I've got these magic beans, see.

[Prufrock]

↑↑↑ .... & the boy is right..The 65 (60 for women, sexist ruling that have the sex who lived longer and earlier retirement ?!) retirement age was set when people more typically started work as 15 yr olds and died aged around 68 on average/mean/mode. These days people start work in their early 20's and have a use-by date of late 70's if not early 80's.

Pension funds can't cover those changes. One solution is to retire later.

Not unreasonable.

Said it was a Tory notion.

I was trying to be somewhat mischievous.

These days people do start in their early 20's and you would expect they're going to live longer. So maybe they should set retirement relative to how many years you put in.

Maybe they should start medical testing when you're about 60 and assessing how long you've got left in the tank.

You joke but that is or was actual govt policy! Not for how much you get, but they wanted to give folk retiring a 'death date' to remind them to plan for living for ages on their pension.

Anyway, when taken as I meant it it's more Marxist than Tory, so ner! From each and to each and all that carry on.

[bobo the clown]

Is it not also true that the bankers pissed away a large chunk of the money that would pay for some of these pensions? It seems to me that the policy makers and others at the top are the ones with bigger than ever pensions, whilst telling those lower down that they have to work longer for less money.

Rather than move the goal posts continually, how about they fix the problems that mean pensions are worth far less than they could be. The whole system is broke.

Well the main impact on pension funds was Gordon Brown's tax changes which raided the schmes by hundreds od £ billions and also made them less lucrative to invest in but by all means blame the banks if that suits you better.