advertisement


Compulsory Retirement!

As pensions shift to a savings based system, people will have to keep working. Where I am in Malaysia, most people have consumed their pension pot in 5 years.
That sounds pretty scary but I fear it’s the direction the UK is travelling in.
 
i think they add pay in to make up for lack of holiday pay and no pension provision unless you work for 'the bank' which is hospital or community own agency scheme

Yes. The additional pay does cover lack of benefits that full time employees receive.

I'm currently doing this but staving off retirement for a couple of years.

When I retire, I'll start looking for a low salaried part time job to top up my pension as it's frozen since redundancy.
 
I quite like the idea of a young, radical, anti-oldies figure coming along and firing up the zoomers because the BBC keep inviting him on Question Time. Only of course he is gradually getting older, sort of like if Farage was slowly turning Syrian.
 
I quite like the idea of a young, radical, anti-oldies figure coming along and firing up the zoomers because the BBC keep inviting him on Question Time. Only of course he is gradually getting older, sort of like if Farage was slowly turning Syrian.

Why assume that this anti-oldies figure would be male? Surely we have seen anti-boomer comments from a woman on this very forum?

Anyway, compulsory retirement. I'm all for it. What baffles me is why anyone would want to keep on working, unless for reasons of financial necessity.
 
IMO everyone should retire by 75 latest. Especially the POTUS.
Modern medicine should not be used to keep people doing jobs their brains slip up on, or to increase unemployment.
 
There is a disconnect between wanting people to retire early and the ever increasing age at which a person can retire.

If early retirement is to be a serious consideration, a lower pensionable age and a decent pension on which to retire are prerequisites
 
This reminds me of the 1970s when unions like the Postal Workers insisted on retirement at age 60. Problem was the state pension didn't kick in till 65, leaving posties to destitution for 5 years.
Now if you wish to retire at any old age you have to submit your resignation.

And people can take on a new mortgage in their 60s. Retirement is not usually an option for the likes of them from personal experience.
 
There is a disconnect between wanting people to retire early and the ever increasing age at which a person can retire.

If early retirement is to be a serious consideration, a lower pensionable age and a decent pension on which to retire are prerequisites
I thought workplace pensions could be accessed at 55.
 
I thought workplace pensions could be accessed at 55.
Yes, but there will likely be penalties. Will it be enough to live off? If you’ve been a low earner it’s unlikely. But it’s the state pension that would be key. If government wanted to encourage earlier retirement to encourage opportunities for the young, pushing the state pension age further and further away is at the heart of the disconnect
 
I accessed my work place pension at 50 after redundancy. It paid the utilities and CT.

Naturally I needed a new job with a new pension from that point.

Alan Johnson, postman come Home Secretary, brings this up in his book, Please Mister Postman. The unfairness of forcibly off loading his union members at 60 only for them to have to find other employment, somehow, was unjustified.
That is, in his words, as I read them.
 
I just had a pang of nostalgia when you reminded me that we used to have a real person as Home Secretary. How we get used to things.
 
Now now. He was no more a saint than...
unfairness of forcibly off loading his union members at 60 only for them to have to find other employment,
Many of Mr Johnsons colleagues did not have a full career/pension pot with the 'Mail, having joined the service on demob from WW2.
 
I do not like the idea of compulsory retirement. If an elderly person wants to work past 65, and if their employer believes they remain physically and mentally capable, then I see no justification for allowing discriminatIon based solely on age.

I think the idea that older workers are somehow “hoarding jobs”, preventing younger workers from advancing, is way overestimated. Most employers already consider older workers to be a drag on productivity, and most are constantly looking for opportunities to replace them with lower paid, younger people.

Let’s also remember the demographic trends. First, we are all living longer. In 1900, US male life expectancy was 47. It is now 79 years, but by the end of the century, we are on pace to reach 100! Second, young people are having fewer kids, and birth rates in most westernized countries has fallen below the replacement rate of 2. If we force decades of mandatory retirement on older workers, then companies will have no choice but to seek productivity improvements either through automation or immigration (neither of which is necessarily great for a younger, potentially under skilled domestic work force).
 


advertisement


Back
Top