The worker now has to work until they are 66...

all to pay for the f uck ups of the monied classes.

Wake up and smell the coffee.

 

Yes Mr Cameron, you know where you can stick that!!!

(givinfinger)

 

M1 Tyke

Good vote catching idea eh , make the working class pay for the bankers greed.

 

all they are really saying is.............

they will bring it in 10 years before Labour have said-it is just a way of reducing the debt earlier

 

It was already planned to come in, it's been brought forward, it was already in legislation. Mainly, due to the pensions raids and other pension **** ups in the public sector, this is necessity. It's not new, it's been brought forward. Unless you're over 50, you were already going to work until you're 66.

 

Correct

so people over 50 pay for the bankers greed.
Anyone under 50 who thinks it will stay at 66 and will be getting a pension at 66 think again.
Its just the start.

''Mainly, due to the pensions raids and other pension **** ups in the public sector'', sorry utter blx.

It is due to the bankers greed , ie to pay off our debt created by them.

Nothing to do with fk ups in the public sector ffs.

 

It's not utter ****** Mr x, the public sector pension system has been screwed up for many years (through a number of conservative and labour years), far too many gold plated, protected pensions, people being upgraded within months of retirement in order to secure a higher pension and all that crap. The top level pensions in the public sector are just as cringeworthy and disgustingly high as the bonus culture is in the private sector. Pensioned off one week, consultant the next? ring any bells? It's was too much of a risk to upset the public sector (union backlash) to try and correct this by proposing to up the 55 optional retirement age (in public sector) and stablise the system. Gordon chose to raid the private sector and tax them. Unless you've been alseep for many years, you may have noticed many of the private sector pensions collapsed as a result, way before the banking system collapsed. This meant extra strain on the public coffers.

 

When my father (the son of a steelworker) qualified as a Vet. in 1930 his life expectancy was 57. He died incidently at 53. Now our life expectancy is 75, and I think it is only sensible that people work longer, if they expect a state pension. I retired earlier this year, and hated not working. I have since started my own business and am already earning more than I did at work as a Contracts Manager in the construction industry.

 

While they sit back and laugh at us.

Chief Exec of Bradford and Bingley, the guy that ruined a Footsie 250 company and put 3000 people out of work? He was there for 4 years, only 4 years. In that time he was paid over &pound;1m per year, even when he only worked 5 months in the last year! He walked away with a &pound;400k tax free lump sum from his pension fund and a &pound;107k per annum pension. Wait for it...</p>

to be paid from the age 46!</p>

And who'll be funding that? The taxpayers!What a joke.</p>

 

Go anywhere in the country get on a bus and watch all the "apparently" able bodied people running for the bus many laden down with shopping then flashing the free mobility pass, thousands of them here to start with.

 

also something to do with an ageing population

it is obvious that as more and more people are over 65 with fewer people of working age to finance their state pensions the balance will have to be redressed by shifting the retirement age up.

when the pension was introduced for over 70s in 1908 only 500,000 were eligible and imagine how many are now and will be in the future. It is unfortunately unaffordable in the long term in its current guise.

 

I wonder if Cameron will have to wait until he's 66 to retire.......and this is the point

.............how can an Eton educated bloke that has inherited millions and millions be seen to make fair decisions

So to those yesterday that said it makes no difference where Cameron is from - think again

 

A bit like millionnaire Gordon Brown then nt

 

Have you actually read anything in this thread?

The decision had already been made by Brown and his Labour pensions adviser. The same pensions adviser that is now advising the Tories. It's been brought forward, that's all.

 

It will be interesting to see when the link between pensions and earnings will be re-established

Also if you are an employee you will be automatically opted in to a 'qualifying workplace pension scheme' from 1st October 2012 administered by your employer who will deduct 4% of your earnings and they will also have to contribute 3% as well. This is Labour policy but it is likely to be adopted by the Tories. </p>

Oh and the administrative burden on small business is going to be a nightmare as the workings of the system are complicated with penalties for non-compliance.</p>

Incidently</p>

Labour's projected date for re-establishing the link 1 Oct 2012</p>

Tories are likely to delay it until 2016</p>

</p>

</p>

</p>

</p>

</p>

 

Not around here, the buses run empty.

Too expensive after Tory privatisation.

 

free mobility bus passes are too expensive?

Bloody hell, they're difficult to please aren't they?

 

Dunno, don't use buses. Just watch them going by empty.

I don't deliberately watch them mind, not like taking numbers or owt. Just something I've noticed.

 

The Tories will resolve the ageing population issue

Whats blue and kills old people?

Get your 8 grand out or jumpers at the ready.

 

Nothing to do with bankers

Rather the over-expansion of the public sector ahead of government income and more than anything else, a higher proportion of the population who are over 50.

As others have said, this had been planned for a long time, don't see what the sudden surprise is.