2 Replies
-
Wednesday, April 25 2012, 1:28PM
“Funny when people get near to the goal it gets mover further away. The public sector goal is stranger still. Sign the contract (unlike National Insurance), and then it gets changed to pay more, work longer, get less. Why bother signing the contract if they're allowed to change it whenever they want, but you aren't.”
-
Thursday, May 03 2012, 1:10PM
“This is not the fault of the Govts - interest rates have for years been very low. Consider this - a pension fund 15 years ago of 100k at 10 % annuity would provide 10k per annum pension. Today, the same fund at 5% would yield 5k per annum. It therefore stands to reason that expectations asumed 15 years have to be re-evaluated and people have to work longer.
By the same token, the demographics of developed world societies have changed - more older people living longer therefore why should they not work longer ? A person say 30 years ago retiring at 65 could expect to live to circa 70 - 5 years of retirement. Today a person retiring at 70 can expect to live to 80 - 10 years of retirement.
Therefore, it stands to conclusion that with the increased numbers of persons living longer, combined with lower annuity rates means that what the Pensions Policy Institute suggest makes abosolute sense.”
Join the Discussion
Ads by Google
Here to help
Copyright © 2013 Local World. All Rights Reserved.
“Almost half of older employees could have to work and save for more than a decade beyond their state pension age to maintain their standard of living, a report warned today. The Pensions Policy Institute study says that around half of workers between 50 and the state pension age will have to work for at least six years past their pension age, and most of these for at least 11 years, if they want to maintain a reasonable income. With this in mind, it claims that the state retirement age should be increased to 70 by 2044. What do you think?”