Comments for en-gb 30 Sat 25 Oct 2014 07:20:15 GMT+1 A feed of user comments from the page found at sean56z Companies must take advantage of educated and experienced employees. The retirement age of 65 is a fraudulent and jaded assumption. Universities offer adult courses to improve technical understanding. Mount Saint Mary's University innovated master's programmes in business administration, philosophy, education, and teaching. Corporations develop a better six sigma strategy by using senior citizens. Mon 02 Aug 2010 10:18:04 GMT+1 FrankandTomsDad 'Work and work and work and work til you die'coz there's plenty more fish in the sea to fry'The Jam, Smithers-Jones, 1979 (Foxton)Prophetic? Mon 02 Aug 2010 09:45:42 GMT+1 Erkules Good luck to those WANTING to work beyond 65 but commiserations to those HAVING to work beyond 65.I was fortunate to be able to retire early & have never regretted a single second.After a demanding but stimulating career from a fairly young age, I was quite happy to relinquish my responsibilities as even the most interesting of occupations usually becomes less attractive than the freedoms & flexibility that retirement can bring.Of course there is a down side, the reduced contact with colleagues, being "in the loop" & so on but the upside, in my opinion, massively outweighs this.You no longer have to hope for a few hours of decent weather at the weekend,you can enjoy it whenever it occurs.How many workers can enjoy a cup of coffee in a sunlit garden & take a couple of hours to read a decent newspaper & do the crossword?.Take a stroll on the riverbank, meet up with an old friend & call for a swift half.Not many jobs I know of that can match that.I try & avoid ANY routines & retain as much flexibility as I can to do whatever takes our fancy on the day & every day offers some opportunity for a little enjoyment.Of course, good health & financial stability are important but the actuarial statistics show that earlier retirement generally enhances health & longevity.It's possible there may be some jobs that inspire the desire to keep going indefinitely,& self employment may meet this criterion, but I've never yet discovered one that beats the alternative of the pleasure & freedom to do just what YOU want to do, not someone else's (ultimately) boring agenda. Mon 02 Aug 2010 09:23:40 GMT+1 Positive Thinker If we could, we'd all be retiring at 35! Work itself is not the issue - generating a revenue is our problem. This is what should be tackled, with constructive ideas to do so, irrespective of age, creed, situation, or whatever other spanner you can throw in the works. Mon 02 Aug 2010 09:17:17 GMT+1 europhile Not really but with the current Uk state pension being less than half the minimum wage one has no real choice, unless they wnat to spend the rest of their lives in abject poverty.I have a private pension which will see me OK, but this has been eroded by the bank crisis, (why are these people not in jail?) and the volatile stock market.Will I work on, well I enjoy what I do, so health permitting, and assuming I do not win the lottery, then yes. Mon 02 Aug 2010 08:44:18 GMT+1 everybear No because I work in a job which I thought I was going to retire from when I was 60. I cannot afford to retrain and do anything else so now I am stuck as everytime I plan to retire the age is lifted. I am very angry that I put into other peoples' pensions all these years and now when it is my turn the option is taken away, but they are still enjoying their freedom at my expense. Mon 02 Aug 2010 08:33:37 GMT+1 mridul_h With attaining of age over 65 years as calculated from the actual date of birth of mine which has a difference of almost three years with the Certificate Age of date of birth as issued by the School Authorities which is considered the exact one for all official purposes everywhere together with looking after my aim of taking birth as human being more intensely with much of uncertainty of achieving what is being desired being all the time carrying forward a heavy of heaviest weight of pain in the shoulders which is inflicted upon me most intentionally through initiating of a collective action against me by the so called Powerful ones, I suddenly became most useless to live-on in this world to derive any pleasure from any such arrangements of engaging myself in doing of a job of value anywhere within the Globe. The self made four walls of my bed room are boundaries for me to move around nonetheless not formally arrested. With about 20 Hrs out of 24 Hrs resting in bed with Laptop in my Lap, I took the opportunity of conveying the desire of the Almighty through various methods available to me by virtue of nearness to Him even though continuously engaging in doing of sin through walking around reasonless very much hurting and disrupting the free lives living in the surface of the ground or elsewhere on similar surfaces, underneath my every foot step of mine, His decision of becoming a companion of me from my childhood without me even offering of any prayer that worth the name to Him, I don’t exactly know of.Considering my acquirement of current age and the prevailing situation, my engaging-in in any other job which is active in nature is virtually over by all means through my taking part anywhere even to enjoy myself together with others, other than becoming a very ordinary servant of the Lord. Therefore, my taking part in active job is fully barred for me to derive enough of pleasures like the ones who are lucky enough to do so even though acquiring of age beyond 65 years to follow the fact that ‘Work is Worship’ Being Lord remaining always alone with no companion whatsoever that constitute an exact togetherness, I intend to offer my life for His service to absorb the nectar continuously flowing from Him to the devoted others to feel myself fulfilled in witnessing it. Therefore my life is more or less faced an end nonetheless living. (Dr.M.M.HAZARIKA, PhD) Mon 02 Aug 2010 07:48:29 GMT+1 erik888 There is of course an economic issue depending on how much money you have. The lowest payed workers are always the loosers when they fell ill getting unemployed, want to borrow and are about to get their pension.The lowest payed workers also lose most money relatively when they have to commute. Mon 02 Aug 2010 01:49:43 GMT+1 ninetofivegrind No Mon 02 Aug 2010 01:21:29 GMT+1 erik888 When I began work 25 years ago the politicians sad that we will going to get it better and better. Now 25 years later I am so terrible disappointed , all old GDP growth seems to be worthless and we have to work longer and harder under more stress. The unemployment rate is still high and Government only have problem with cuts end deficits.What are we were struggling for ? And why should we continuing struggling fore the same growth ? Sun 01 Aug 2010 23:23:30 GMT+1 Tony G The problem as I see it is that at present the country is at the end of the baby boomer era. With all of the OAP's around and not enough youngish persons to pay for them something has to happen. All of the doom and gloom that I keep hearing is just that. As this generation eventually passes on the burden as such as it is will get easier for the Tax payer and the Government. So Mr C and Mr C you will soon be sitting pretty with a large wad of cash from everyones increased tax contributions and only a few over 65's to spend it on. As I am under 50 right now I will definately not be working over the age of retirement. I want to go out and enjoy myself not kill myself. Sun 01 Aug 2010 22:41:15 GMT+1 junkmonkey By the age of 25, I knew that I would never be burdened by a relentless desire to work. Now at the age of 60, I still hold that belief. If I could afford to retire, I would! Maybe in a couple of years! Sun 01 Aug 2010 22:15:48 GMT+1 erik888 There should have been money to all pensioners now so they could leave at 65. We have simple payed to litle in tax during the last decades. That pensioner hump will not stay forever it vill recede in 20-30 years time if UK not increase too much in population otherwise the young pupulation have to accelrate the whole time not to get a much bigger pensioner hump later on. Sun 01 Aug 2010 21:42:40 GMT+1 This is a colleague announcement As far as I can see a contract between two parties, say employer and employee, should be capable of including any term provided that does not require one or both to act unlawfully or unreasonably. Examples would be to acquire a given qualification in a language or be capable of lifting a particular weight. I cannot see why the contract should not be limited in duration either, to the number of years between the date of signing and the applicant's 65th birthday. After all we are accustomed to individually negotiated ones for one, three or other numbers of years. Surely this would satisfy the needs of those employers who reasonably do not want an excessively aged workforce. Sun 01 Aug 2010 20:38:53 GMT+1 alan surman do i want to work after 65 yrs old not a hope in anywhere, i work for a private company that treat everyone including the five of us skilled peeople like poo they rule by fear and it doesnt matter what you do it is never enough some of us havent had a pay rise in three yrs and i cannot see any on the horizon still only less than two years to go and then i am gone, no jolys only implied and overt insults the more they insult us the less work they get, a very queer company i think i might write a book when i retire Sun 01 Aug 2010 20:24:16 GMT+1 gerhard seeger Some people are with65 as fit as others with50.But not all are in the same condition.I did say,65is More than old enough to quit work.A Human sociaty,Human thinking companys,should make it posseble,to retire with65,better sooner than 65,with a Pension one can make a Living. What had happened not so long ago? Pensionfonds money had been used to Speculate and Lost. And now the Have nots shall work longer,so the Have more than enough can go on as useally. Sun 01 Aug 2010 17:56:13 GMT+1 dennisjunior1 No....But in reality I know I will have to work after the age of 65...(d) Sun 01 Aug 2010 17:49:07 GMT+1 Melanie I also think that the govt wants us all to die in service so they don't have to feed us with the pension pot.Re a lot of people's comments here that they feel energetic and worthwhile continuing working, the best way is to offer yourself voluntarily to the society to help young people to grow. They have their feelings too when they can't find a "small job" to start with! Sun 01 Aug 2010 17:20:27 GMT+1 Melanie so far the main argument for working beyond retirement age is a better use of people's experience and skills. Why don't they contribute their skills and experience in charity or mentoring roles to coach younger people then? If they'd rather keep their paid jobs, I'd think they are greedy rather than wanting to contribute. IThey can even work as consultants for free if they love the company so much!If people don't retire, then no middle management will be promoted, and where comes the jobs for the young? Sun 01 Aug 2010 17:16:48 GMT+1 Name Required 1. At 09:05am on 29 Jul 2010, AM wrote:NO - and anyone who does must lead a sad life!I don't agree, take for instance those who can't afford to stop work. That is a sad fact. Then there are those that enjoy their jobs so much they would rather crack on than go home and vegetate. I can think of nothing worse than NOT having a purpose in life. Sun 01 Aug 2010 17:05:18 GMT+1 topsail After a long career as a technical manager, I was eventually made redundant. I decided to take a small job, interesting but not too demanding, when I was about 60 and found that it makes me get up in the morning. At work you are relating to other people, obtaining some exercise and using your brains. I am lucky to be helping youngsters, which makes it worthwhile. In my opinion, retirement is a death sentence. No matter how passionate you feel about a hobby, you are unlikely to get up early and work hard at it every day. When I reached 65 I asked to continue, and I am convinced that an interesting job is the way to a long and happy life. Sun 01 Aug 2010 16:48:27 GMT+1 GorraSay Do not agree at all... I am now mid fifties and retired and the difference in my health between 40 something and fifty something is for me at least dramatic.. I was happy to retire and after all I had worked many long days sometimes 12-16 hours and paid heavily into my pension scheme.Are employers really going to employ the older applicants for jobs when younger fitter people are applying... I think not and years ago we used to think 40+ was a dangerous point to lose your job.What really should have been done was for all the benifits to end because little by little the monies have dwindled and that is the fault of the politicians not ours they saw these things coming and did nothing so now there is little left for the elderly people.Why not get everyone employed on good money, and then they can pay their own health care and pension pots etc and do away with the NHS and the taxes etc could be reduced enough for people willing to work to provide for themselves in later life... pay overpaid people less and redistribute to lower paid jobs so we can all pay our way ?Cannot really see anyone having enough energy for certain jobs after a certain age. Employers should pay more or provide more health care and pensions or at least pay a good living wage to be able to provide for yourselves for healthcare pensions etc. Stop giving the money away and taxing people to the hilt.Never really understood why one person can have so much money for one job and so little to another in another job, sure some jobs have responsibilities but do there have to be such wide pay margins.. then more people could provide for themselves rather than relying on the state ! Sun 01 Aug 2010 16:22:16 GMT+1 Enny2012 65years of age may be reasonable, but Government should not be rigid on it. As Charles Darwin would have said, some are stronger than the others and the genetic make up of every one us makes us weak or strong. The world is survival of the fittest. Some may retire early, some may do it later. There is no need in keep going when you know you have reach your limit. And there is no need to stop those who wish to keep going. Sun 01 Aug 2010 16:08:10 GMT+1 ar Depends on whether you enjoy your work. The question is of course meaningless. With the average life span increasing and fewer young people following coupled with and ever-increasing number of government-sponsored freeloaders an increased pension age is a mathematical certainty. Ok, I suppose there is a another possibility... (think "Logan's Run") Sun 01 Aug 2010 15:52:35 GMT+1 paddyc I am one of the unfortunate workers, whom, has never enjoyed their job, so to ask me if I want to work beyond 65, well, the answer is a definite NO THANK YOU. Yes, Ive worked right-thru from 17 to 50(Now) and had you asked me this question in the early 80s or 90s I may have given a different answer, because, them days the workplace was more fun and friendly than it is nowadays. The workplace,nowadays, is very cut-throat and there is not the same camararderie, due to the multi-cultural society that we live in. It beggars belief with me why? they want to see the older people work whilst the younger, fitter people languish at home or in education, sorry, as Mr Spock would say 'It just is not logical. Sun 01 Aug 2010 15:45:40 GMT+1 MellorSJ Southmeader writes: "But yes, the effects of compound interest would make the sum required less, but as Anne_w points out inflation will also have an impact.But who can afford to save over half of their net salary and still live a half decent life.Sometimes we need to look at the big picture and not get bogged down in the details!"Fair enough.The big picture is simple enough. We have to get control of our lives out of the hands of the state. This means reducing taxes (and therefore prices) to the point that people can save for their own retirement.Of course, we need a safety net, and that needs to be paid for, but relying on the state as a first line of defense is bound to fail. And allowing the likes of Gordon Brown anywhere near a private pension is a license for him to steal it. Whoops! Too late.... Sun 01 Aug 2010 15:36:46 GMT+1 Allan Can I work past 65/?now that is a conundrumI currentlr work in the public sectorin a job that's far from hundrumbut with cuts aheadI will be luckyto keep my job no matter how pluckyI feel, but the choiceisn't mine to takefor over 50sit may be too lateWe are the target groupto let go, but through discriminationits easier to retire someonefrom the working populationno matter the talent they possess, nor knowledge in abundancewe'll save the jobs of the younger onesand make the old redundant Sun 01 Aug 2010 15:35:08 GMT+1 Southmeader 754. At 09:42am on 01 Aug 2010, MellorSJ wrote:Innumerate Southmeader writes: "The average wage in thye UK is around £25K, to save 1 million over the course of a 45 year working life would require each person to save around £22K a year, i.e. some 90% of all their earnings. So not tax, NI bills or even food."I really wonder how some of you folks get through the day....-----------------------------------Thank you for pointing out my innumeracy. I was merely trying to point out John_from_Hendons lack of thought, and trying to make the calculation simple.But yes, the effects of compound interest would make the sum required less, but as Anne_w points out inflation will also have an impact.But who can afford to save over half of their net salary and still live a half decent life.Sometimes we need to look at the big picture and not get bogged down in the details! Sun 01 Aug 2010 15:11:38 GMT+1 Nonie Westbourne Yes. I'm 67. And I want to go on working - giss us a job! Sun 01 Aug 2010 13:32:56 GMT+1 Andy I've been self employed or very independent in my job for most of my life. I tried retiring at 35 (having realised I was working so hard that I never got to spend any of the money I earned). After about 2 years of wandering around the world and generally having fun, I realised I was getting bored and needed a challenge. I became CTO for a start-up company for a few years and thoroughly enjoyed it, so I started my own company and have been going strong ever since. The fact that I planned to retire at 35 means I'm financially stable and that I can pick and choose my customers, charging less to amicable, fair, competent customers and charging extra (or dumping) those who are a pain in the rear. As I have successfully removed all the negatives from my working life and thoroughly enjoy it, I can't see why I would ever want to stop (but then, being self employed I don't have to).On the other hand, I'm very lucky. I have an intellectual job, good health and I actively enjoy learning new things. A GP friend told me that the average Scotsman doesn't live long enough to claim their pension so I have a lot of sympathy with those who want to retire after a working life with a lot of pressure or hard physical labour.In response to a few of the "old people keeping young people out of work" posts (and speaking as an employer) it's not because they are there that they keep younger people out, it's because they are better at the job. I've often deliberately included older staff in interview pools (55 and up) because even though their formal qualifications aren't as good they are just as capable as the younger applicants. They tend to be calmer, know how to talk to customers on the phone (the ability to speak comprehensible English for 30 seconds without saying "what?", "eh?" or "init" 5 times is a good indicator), don't have a and aren't going to leave after 6 months for an extra £10 a week or start a family and refuse to work flexibly any more. 70 year olds are often fitter and stronger than the 20 year old lard buckets that I've had apply and I can be absolutely sure that a 70 year old will turn up every day without fail, on time and ready to work. I can't say the same for the 20 year olds. Sun 01 Aug 2010 13:32:46 GMT+1 adrian if you have a job or career, it is selfish to want to work beyond a few years. train a young replacement, retire early, move on to something you enjoy.. (or if you enjoy work, find other things to enjoy).and before anyone comes back with.. "how do we fund such a change in lifestyle without working for years to build up a pension?" ..fear not, i have the solution. i won't go into it here however. but rest assured i am working hard to get the powers that be to listen. Sun 01 Aug 2010 13:04:47 GMT+1 skipper MellorSJ wrote:Skipper writes: "It is time the ordinary hard working people of this country had their say."Didn't you mean "It is time the ordinary hard working people of this country paid their way?"No i did not, and as an ordinary hard working person i take offence at that comment and for your information i have been employed continuously since leaving school at 16 despite being made redundant twice during the awful Thatcher years and have never claimed benefits, so i know i have paid MY way through hard work, how about you? have you ever produced ,repaired or serviced anything that is actually useful to society or are you, as i suspect a so called desk jockey ?? Sun 01 Aug 2010 12:55:23 GMT+1 SnoddersB The reason for the panic by the present government is that the Labour party, as usual, has bankrupted the government finances. I do not see why I should have my retirement date put back as I have worked toward this point all my working life. It is just typical that to expedite a cut in government spending because of the Brown policies, just as it was after the Wilson/Callaghan Labour government, we the pensionerswho are fully paid up will have to take the hit. Brown hit us with the tax on pensions and low interest rates. Seems to me that the UK is the pits and the sooner I can sell my house, another market destroyed by Labour, the sooner I can leave for anywhere that is outside the EU. Sun 01 Aug 2010 12:40:06 GMT+1 StanE no i just want to sit on my lazy arse and let all the immigrants do all the work and live like a king.....on benifits? Sun 01 Aug 2010 11:36:59 GMT+1 peter petros if a person reaches 65 and didn't make it by then I’m sorry to say it but another 5 or 15 years will not make a difference in his or hers life. So I would say no and no again. workers all over the world must stop supporting these kind of changes (I never saw any politicians cutting from their pensions) so all these rhetoric about the pensions in my opinion are all a skim from the governments for paying less and less for a pension that you the worker accumulate all your life and is their responsibility to deliver and if they cannot then they should stay out of politics. Others can deliver!!!! Sun 01 Aug 2010 10:55:36 GMT+1 Rufus McDufus 553. At 8:18pm on 29 Jul 2010, Fiona2326 wrote:504. At 6:02pm on 29 Jul 2010, Rufus McDufus wrote:368. At 1:45pm on 29 Jul 2010, Fiona2326 wrote:18. At 09:34am on 29 Jul 2010, Rufus McDufus wrote:It's not a case of whether I *want* to work after 65 BBC - I'd rather not work now! It's a case of whether I'll have to work after 65.My father's just got made redundant from a marketing company at 80. He needs the money, but he also enjoys working, and he's bored now. This isn't a job he got before the age of 65 either. So my point is that some people want to work beyond 65!_________________________________________________________________He needs the money? He's picking up a pension AND a wage, not to mention the freebies he'll get as a pensioner - winter heating allowance, free travel, free prescription, free tv licence, need I go on? Do you really think that's fair? What about a younger generation trying to support families who are just desperate to get one income, far less two.a) The company took him on as he does the job better than anyone else they could find.b) The state pension is not sufficient to support someone who likes to travel and play cricket (he's still captain of his local cricket team and travels all over the world doing it and training young people at his own expense).c) Is his life worth less than a younger persons?d) It's a free country____________________________________________________________________So what you're saying is that your father wants to pick up 2 incomes to fund his lifestyle, travelling the world playing cricket. I'm sure plenty of readers who struggle to clothe their kids and can't afford any holidays will relate to that. I have nothing against people wishing to continue working - but by doing so, they should forgo the benefits of being a pensioner, they can't have it both ways. If they want to continue to work, then they should pay full price for all goods and services they use, just like everyone else - after all, that is proper equality is it not?So by working. he's not entitled to claim the pension he's more than paid into for his whole life? Surely by the same reasoning, anyone working should not be allowed to claim any benefits. Sun 01 Aug 2010 10:52:37 GMT+1 John in Kent 754. At 09:42am on 01 Aug 2010, MellorSJ wrote:Innumerate Southmeader writes: "The average wage in thye UK is around £25K, to save 1 million over the course of a 45 year working life would require each person to save around £22K a year, i.e. some 90% of all their earnings. So not tax, NI bills or even food."I really wonder how some of you folks get through the day....The number is actually half of this at 3% interest. £11000 compounded at 3% over 45 years leaves you with £1,019,918.48.Granted, £11000 is not chump-change, and someone on £25K/year would find this very difficult, but were we to raise the income tax threshold so that low income people were not paying tax ...and would be much much less when one takes into account the employers' contributions! Sun 01 Aug 2010 10:38:35 GMT+1 anne_w 754. At 09:42am on 01 Aug 2010, MellorSJ wrote:Innumerate Southmeader writes: "The average wage in thye UK is around £25K, to save 1 million over the course of a 45 year working life would require each person to save around £22K a year, i.e. some 90% of all their earnings. So not tax, NI bills or even food."I really wonder how some of you folks get through the day....The number is actually half of this at 3% interest. £11000 compounded at 3% over 45 years leaves you with £1,019,918.48.Granted, £11000 is not chump-change, and someone on £25K/year would find this very difficult, but were we to raise the income tax threshold so that low income people were not paying tax ...-----Dear MellorSJ, Southmeader is nearer the mark than you because of inflation - which is also about 3%. So interest at 3% would just keep up. So to get a pension pot worth £1,000,000 of today's money in 45 years time would still need the larger investment.So who is in the real world?(And please do not talk about putting this investment in the stock market - the return might be greater over 45 years - but the risks are much greater unless you are back at ordinary mone purchase pensions - sometimes with charges that are greater than the gains.) Sun 01 Aug 2010 10:28:59 GMT+1 webcomment I am 77 and I have just retired. If you want to stay alive ; KEEP WORKING Sun 01 Aug 2010 09:45:16 GMT+1 Former_Canuck The question should be:Should the government have the right to stop me from working?The government has no right to dictate who can or cannot work. Do we not live in a democracy? Why do so many people want the government to make decisions on how they should live their lives? Can we not decide for ourselves when we should retire?People need to take responsibility for their own lives and stop waiting for the government to tell them how to live. Sun 01 Aug 2010 09:27:13 GMT+1 polly_gone Desperation in the face of an apparently insoluble problem requires drastic action, does it?With a huge number of people due to retire over the next ten years the Government is panicking as if they haven't had the last sixty odd years to consider the problem. Perhaps they imagined humans would have wiped themselves out by now.Age has never been the easiest way of relieving someone of their duties and so this legislative change is not exactly a clever one. Larger employers have always used dubious and devious tactics to force out the unwanted where employment law is more difficult to negotiate. Once more the smaller employer will bear the brunt of selfishness from more powerful lobbyists, and powerful employers will make the last days of the unwanted the most miserable they have faced.The key is eliminating tax (including council tax) for those with incomes below £12k. With key financial incentives to continue work beyond retirement age for both employers and employees the government would have more control over where the labour market was going, whilst anyone who wanted to retire at sixty-five years could do so.I am also mindful of the very important point about people in physically demanding work where employers need to be made to introduce better ways of managing health issues at work, especially for people over the age of fifty-five years. Sun 01 Aug 2010 09:26:15 GMT+1 Hugh Matthews Now 56, I have no intention of retiring at 65 if I still enjoy my job as a linguist in a globalised world. But then again, if computers really do take over my work and I am forced to start working as a school teacher I will not be a happy camper if I have to keep on working with no end in sight.There has to be a specific retirement age for most employees, but does it have to be 65? Sun 01 Aug 2010 09:23:49 GMT+1 Southmeader 590. At 10:32pm on 29 Jul 2010, pete21 wrote:interesting views I see heremy view is there is no money left in the pension pots because the last labour government has raided it in a Maxwellian type way to bolster it's social ideals-----------------------------------------You seem to think that government (of any colour) actually put money aside to pay for future pension costs. This is not the case NIC (and superannuation contributions in the public sector) have never been put aside. Perhaps if they had we would not be in quite the mess that we are. Sun 01 Aug 2010 09:11:23 GMT+1 joshua goldblum This post has been Removed Sun 01 Aug 2010 09:02:29 GMT+1 joshua goldblum This post has been Removed Sun 01 Aug 2010 08:57:49 GMT+1 MellorSJ Innumerate Southmeader writes: "The average wage in thye UK is around £25K, to save 1 million over the course of a 45 year working life would require each person to save around £22K a year, i.e. some 90% of all their earnings. So not tax, NI bills or even food."I really wonder how some of you folks get through the day....The number is actually half of this at 3% interest. £11000 compounded at 3% over 45 years leaves you with £1,019,918.48.Granted, £11000 is not chump-change, and someone on £25K/year would find this very difficult, but were we to raise the income tax threshold so that low income people were not paying tax ... Sun 01 Aug 2010 08:42:19 GMT+1 Southmeader 50. At 09:58am on 29 Jul 2010, John_from_Hendon wrote:Here is an idea?Let someone retire at any age after 60 (and receive a state pension - if they agree NOT to work) if that have saved, say, a million pound savings pot so that they can look after themselves?The corollary could be that until the million pound savings pot is reached you are unable to retire except though ill-health before 70.-------------------------------------------------------------------What a brilliant idea. You must be a senior advisor to Cameron, Clegg and Osbourne to come up with such a crass and stupid idea. Either that or you are a banker with no real idea about life in the UK!The average wage in thye UK is around £25K, to save 1 million over the course of a 45 year working life would require each person to save around £22K a year, i.e. some 90% of all their earnings. So not tax, NI bills or even food.To come out with an idea like this must mean that you are independently rich or plain stupid.So could I suggest that instead of spouting such complete, ill thoughout, nonsense you go back to counting your inherited millions, or go back to dreaming up banking schemes that can fleece the poor for the benefit of the rich.By the way I have staff who have just been sacked for being over 65, even though they are more than capable of performing their roles. The staff are now being forced to undertake update training even though they only have a few months left. This is just a waste of resources and time - I believe the term is a WOMBAT - Waste Of Money, Brains And Time. Sun 01 Aug 2010 08:21:24 GMT+1 peter cona I think I want keep active when i am older, and will probably want to keep working in some capacity, as sitting about in your old age is not good for you, and affects your health physical and mental health.By the way things are going I personally think I am going to be ripped off when it comes time to claiming my state pension, as all my contributions have been fully paid, I have 20 years to go until i can claim my pension, I am thinking the goal posts will be moved taking my contributions with them, leaving me with nothing, by the time I retire. Sun 01 Aug 2010 06:25:41 GMT+1 Peter Hodge I had every intention of working beyond 65. Indeed, I continued to work. But then a combination of health problems that my wife was suffering and the reslisation that due to the tax system, I was working for just over £1 per hour, I had to quit. I am now on a seasonal contract with my company, working during the ten peak weeks of the year. Those over 65 need to look very carefully at their tax liability before continuing to work. Sun 01 Aug 2010 05:48:57 GMT+1 CarlosF Work, according to the "Good Book" it was sent as a punishment.....I DON'T WANT TO WORK AT ANY AGE.Only an insane person would want to expend at least a third of his/her life listening to idiots, putting up with mediocre bosses, getting up early and getting old behind a desk so you can pay your mortgage and then just enough to sustain life and the bare necessities....the rest is absolute meaningless CRAP,...nothing else Sun 01 Aug 2010 05:37:35 GMT+1 Richard Holman 16. At 09:31am on 29 Jul 2010, Claarm wrote:Despite Mr Cameron's declaration that many people want to keep working into old age - this simply isn't the case. ... Why do people do the Lottery - to escape the entrapment of work!Unfortunately the cost of living is becoming so expensive in this country, that the only people who are going to manage to retire at all are the rich. The rest of us will soon find ourselves financially trapped in the drudgery of work until we drop!_ _ _ _ That is my concern. What starts out as a reasonable move to enable those who wish to work beyond 65 to do so will inevitably then have an effect on the age at which the state pension and, perhaps, private pensions too, will be paid. Ultimately, I think those of us now in our 20s and 30s will simply end-up having to flog our guts out for an extra five years or so before we can retire and enjoy life. One has to ask, what is the point? Sun 01 Aug 2010 02:29:20 GMT+1 analise Over 50, not likely to work between ow and 70. I don't care about the retirement age, everything I do will be illegal Sun 01 Aug 2010 01:23:29 GMT+1 LondonHarris 694. At 9:43pm on 30 Jul 2010, Alba wrote:to LondonHarrisIt seems to me that you are another who doesn't like their job, so sad.You have this daft impression that anyone who wants to work past 65 is doing so because they don't know what to do otherwise, nonsense.If one enjoys one's work and is fit enough to do it why would you want to stop?--------------------------------------------------------------------Firstly. I'am already Retired, and enjoying every Minute of it.But it is very Sad indeed when ALL that someone can do is to live just to go to Work, when they all could very easily otherwise create a Hobby to past their time away doing anything they wish, without ANY Stress. Sun 01 Aug 2010 01:05:10 GMT+1 Kelly I recall an adage, referring to workplaces, that goes "Dead Mens shoes".I see no problem with everyone working as long as all automation is binned and all the labour saving devices are thrown out. It is the ideology and the system that is wrong... humans are surplus to requirement.Contrary to some beliefs, most young people do work hard towards being a success but are then thwarted by business requirements not having suitable jobs.Last thought.. A present advert quotes a person saying:"I started working down the mine at six years of age".Business is the exploitation of anyone and anything to increase profit margins. Sun 01 Aug 2010 00:29:27 GMT+1 Basha Ra Because there are people who would like to work beyond 65, there should be a choice at what age people want to retire, beginning at 65. Then graduated retirement, say at 67, 69 and so on with a maximum at maybe 71. There are many people who are physically and mentally capable of working beyond so-called retirement age, and they should be given this choice. Not everyone would want to work beyond the official retirement, so it would balance out. Sun 01 Aug 2010 00:25:01 GMT+1 ruffled_feathers "739. At 8:25pm on 31 Jul 2010, John Alkire wrote:Why would a company want to release an 'older' person for a lesser knowledgeable, experienced and productive 'younger' individual?"I can see very well what you mean. But instead of taking on, say, an 18-year-old with less experience, you keep the older person on, the older person finally decides to retire five years later, the 18-year-old is now a 23-year-old with no experience (quite possible if the current employment prospects prove to be correct).When do the younger ones have a chance to get a foot on the ladder? The older ones have to stop at some stage. The fact that some of the younger generation are seen as not so experienced or productive does not mean they will just disappear. They will be waiting for jobs in their mid-20s with no experience etc, and with no work experience by that time possibly viewed by many employers as unemployable. Sat 31 Jul 2010 22:01:48 GMT+1 surreydon At 09:10am on 29 Jul 2010, krokodil wrote:The fact is state pensions days are numbered. And quite right to. Pensioners get far to much should be means tested and save some money. You reckon! How about means testing child benefit, in fact all state benefits. Where do you draw the line? If you want to save some 'serious' money, why not stop the millions wasted on drug addicts, criminals, so-called asylum seekers etc etc? I've paid tax all my working life, unlike some......By the way, I won't be retiring at 65 or even 70. I can't afford it! Sat 31 Jul 2010 21:28:53 GMT+1 badnewstravelsfaster I don't understand why people can't just answer the question for themselves and instead feel compelled to have a go at anyone who has a different opinion. People who blindly think they are always right, actually come across as bigoted and their views carry less weight. A balance opinion always carries with it significantly more value. Saying you should "get a real life" by retiring is ridiculous. Instead of fighting work all of your life and treating it as the enemy, surely it is healthier to find something you enjoy doing so much that you don't want to stop doing it when you come to 65? I for one love what I do and won't be cashing that in to sit around playing cards or go bowling. Most retired people I know are bored off their heads and become far less interesting as they have nothing to talk about, as they don't do anything. Having said that, it's all about personal choice and we should all have the freedom to work and stop working when we want to, money permitting of course! Sat 31 Jul 2010 21:27:22 GMT+1 elfrieda This is a strange state of affairs , i remember way back when being told by the powers that be , we would all have so much leisure time and people would share jobs and leisure, work much fewer hours etc etc ..what happened to that pipe dream ! oh yes the EU.. Sat 31 Jul 2010 21:06:57 GMT+1 Norman Brooke This goverment are motivated by ideology and dogma rather than practicallity. For sure many workers need to indeed want to, work past 65, allow them to, similarly some workers especially those with heatlh issues or through choice would rather retire earlier. This government seems to think we are all the same, we are not, some are fighting fit at 70, others over the hill at 60. Make retirement a choice anytime between 62 and 70 or over. Other countries have an aging population yet retire between 62 and 65 so why again has Britain got to be so brutish and different? Righwing ideology again - anything so the Rich dont have to pay more. What a dreadful government this is. Sat 31 Jul 2010 19:30:47 GMT+1 John_Southampton Why would a company want to release an 'older' person for a lesser knowledgeable, experienced and productive 'younger' individual? Sat 31 Jul 2010 19:25:24 GMT+1 John_Southampton Reference entry 5. Obviously not a pensioner trying to make ends meet. You might want to look into what pensioners have to deal with before making such a statement. If you had, you would have been very surprised at the luxuries and comfortable income these people have. NOT. Sat 31 Jul 2010 19:23:28 GMT+1 johnbournemouth I cannot understand where all this work for the elderly is coming from -- in my long lifetime there has always been the unemployed and at times it reaches 3 million so why block what work there is for the youngsters? You should be able to retire when you are ready and able with the State pension available from 65 -- that's delaying it by 5 years and should help us get out of this mess incompetence has caused. JohnBournemouth Sat 31 Jul 2010 18:57:00 GMT+1 indolent campaigner yes I want to dies at my place of work till i'm in my 100's because it only fair that only the rich cant have a good old age. Sat 31 Jul 2010 17:06:35 GMT+1 BBC LEFT WING BIAS OK This week I went into B & Q and noticed the amount of staff they have who must be close to retirement age. Good on them because its great to go into a shop where the staff have the knowledge and enthusiasm to assist shoppers. Can't see many 18 year olds being so helpful, they'ed probably think that working for B & Q is below them! Sat 31 Jul 2010 16:35:32 GMT+1 Brian Brown Health and Safety legislation will soon find a loophole in the law, and instead of working until death the old who want to work will find their savings being taken up fighting in the European Court of Human Rights. Sat 31 Jul 2010 16:32:43 GMT+1 BBC LEFT WING BIAS OK Back in 1997 the UK was envied across the developed world because of its pensions.Now we have an almighty disaster because New Labour and the Conservatives couldn't see that we were all living longer, despite statistics clearly showing we are!I applaud the changes being made - and in fact this is being discussed at all is better than the bury your head in the sand approach from New Labour.Sure working past 65 may not be for everybody BUT at the very least this discussion should at the very least serve notice to the 20 - 40 age bracket that THEY have to take their old age planning into their own hands and save. This isn't too appealing to many BUT who fancies 20+ years on the breadline when you've time to do things?Working past 65 doesn't appeal to me and fingers crossed my personal pension contributions made since I was 27 will help me retire at 65 or earlier! Sat 31 Jul 2010 16:31:16 GMT+1 Brian Brown I notice that nobody who was for the extension actually WORKED. There were no plasterers, brickies,or joiners. If those who wanted to carry on working actually had a life of some sort I am sure that they would be glad to retire. I suspect some wives(or husbands) are encouraging them to carry on for selfish reasons ( The silly old fool would only be under my feet.). Young people will not enter a clothes shop with some old dodderer looking them up and down and tutting, whilst muttering,' young people, tut,tut, tut! Are you sure you don't want to look through the tweed section?Employers need the right to say 'enough' without being blackmailed. Fireman: "I know the kid up there is burning, sorry, but I'm too old to climb the ladder." Sat 31 Jul 2010 16:27:45 GMT+1 Chris I want the RIGHT to work as long as I want to do so.And not to have my rights ditched at 65.Most people don't want to work but they do so from necessity. This is not about making people work after 65 it is about allowing them to do so. And without the fear that an employer will chuck them on he scrap heap without any form of severance pay.People are being forced out of work before they have enough pension income, so this will allow them to decide for themselves when is the right time. Given that returns on pension investment are not great at the moment and there are no final salary schemes any more (meaning that their pension pot at 65 is an unknown until they reach 65) it is essential to give people this kind of flexibility.Bottom line: my life, my choice. Sat 31 Jul 2010 16:12:37 GMT+1 Meri I think many people at whatever age would like more flexible working particularly mothers with children. Young people need jobs to give them a future. We live in an amoral society where young people cannot have the wherewithal to have a house and a family during their fertile years. While people are nest building and looking after young they should be discouraged from taking on mega jobs. In years past the older generation looked forward to helping with young famillies when it can be very stressful. Having said that it seems to me that as some people are living longer and healthier lives there is no reason to enforce 65 as a cut off age for employment but there is a knock-on effect because most people working at that age group are doing white collar jobs at reasonably high level. That means there is less room for advancement in middle age for the next generation. Perhaps older people who want to and are able to work should be encouraged to do so on a part time basis to supplement a pension - those sort of jobs could be combined with someone younger who needs some flexibility for family reasons. In any event we must make sure that employees are entitled to a living wage bearing in mind the cost of living because otherwise we will not only loose Britannia we will loose the idea that slavery is not acceptable - not only for the British but Worldwide. Sat 31 Jul 2010 16:02:25 GMT+1 Footpad No I do not wish to work after I am 65 but as society heads back to Victorian days where only the privileged can afford to use the road, power cuts will be the norm, heating homes will be unaffordable, water a scarce resource, pensions worthless and companies use most of the return on savings not to give interest but to maintain bonuses; it is a relief to know that we can now work until we drop and at least alleviate some of the hardship that will accompany old age. Sat 31 Jul 2010 15:42:31 GMT+1 MizzJShaw This has nothing to do with those few people who want to go on working after 65. It is a government plan to save paying out millions of state funds to retired people. The only answer is to do what I did and what my children are doing and that is to pay into a private pension scheme, so you can retire when you want to, and not when the government tells you to. Sat 31 Jul 2010 15:27:58 GMT+1 KEEPQUIET People work past 65 even when they have retired. Should they remain in paid work or their current job is the question?in todays world some need to, to make enjoy any standard of living. It will only get worse in the long term. The demographic time bomb is arriving fast, politicians all knew it was coming and chose to ignore it. The working population will not be able afford to maintain the social service budget at it's current level for many more years, let alone increase it. So people will have to work longer and contribute more to their own pensions. We may to adopt a more radical approach to the older worker.To prevent younger workers being held back in salary and position by the economic older worker, but that's another debate. Sat 31 Jul 2010 14:54:40 GMT+1 troutfisher I took early retirement at 58, with a personal pension ( to which I contributed a great deal and which would have been worth more had it not been for G Brown) and got a little part time job.I am 65 next year and health permitting I have every intention of carrying on working.It pays for the little luxuries and gets my out of my wifes way.I some jobs you want to retire and in some cases 65 is too old and in other jobs you can carry on if you are able.As I understand this proposal after next october you cannot be forced to retire equally you are not forced to carry on working.Personal choice ,whats wrong with that. Sat 31 Jul 2010 14:37:21 GMT+1 Andrew Middleton No, I wouldn't want to work after 65, but it is completely wrong to force people to stop working when they reach 65 if they want to carry on and are physically and mentally capable of still working. The present system throws a lot of knowledge and experience on to the scrap heap. Sat 31 Jul 2010 14:06:19 GMT+1 Doozie This is worst then slavery working until you drop deadBut the slaves did not have to pay taxes,housing or food ;sono progress there at allThere is plenty of Money and Resources but it is in the pocket of 1% of super rich fat cats and they use it to CONTROL ,USE AND ABUSE YOU ,for them your are just a prostitute for money.And there is nothing you can do about it ! So accept and comply !!You are TRAPPED ! ! ! Sat 31 Jul 2010 13:36:48 GMT+1 stu I'm a doctor. I see people who work every day, who are well over 65. Most of them say that they fell that if they stopped working, they'd just die, and that they enjoy what they do. I don't know whether I'm going to want to keep working beyond 65, but I sure as hell want to make that decision myself, rather than being tolid I have to retire by my employer. Sat 31 Jul 2010 13:31:16 GMT+1 Jolly Ranter I took voluntary redundancy last year at the age of 53 and consider myself now to be retired. All I can say is that I never imagined I would work beyond 60 let alone 65. When I was younger, the talk was all about retiring earlier to enjoy more leisure time - how things have changedWith so many out of work, why does the government want older people to work longer? It is of course because they generally earn a higher salary and pay more tax to fund their futile wars, second homes and to underwrite the city bankers mistakes. In other words, the gullible British public are once again being conned by Cameron and his loony alliance... Sat 31 Jul 2010 12:45:47 GMT+1 Bear in the Bull The differences: I would like to be able to afford to "retire" at 65 [or even earlier!]; butI would also like to be able to continue to work in some capacity for many years thereafter. Indeed, I would love to be able to be doing something both fulfilling and of benefit to society, without the need to worry about the money - I just don't have the independent means to support it - yet! For those who suggest this is "sad", I would suggest it is only sad when someone has spent their life doing something they hate. If you really dislike your work so much, isn't it rather "sad" to spend most of your life being unhappy? Be happy and contented with your life - or seek a happy, contented life, rather than wishing away the decades until retirement. If you have a job you really loathe, seek out something else - it really isn't impossible, even in the present climate. Sat 31 Jul 2010 12:32:08 GMT+1 alun the problem with this is when the employer and government will turn it from a choice to work past 65 to when they say you can stop.If someone is fit, able and wants to do so then yes continue in work, however I personally would love to retire the same age my auntie did (38), but I will never be a millionaire and have to work till I die being a front line civil servant who gets a pitance for pay, and would get naff all as a pension!! Sat 31 Jul 2010 12:09:43 GMT+1 SSnotbanned Funny isn't it ?? When less than 5% are not able, or don't want to work, there is a supposed ''culture of worklessness''.Yet it isn't too difficult to percieve a 5% or less, group of 65+ aged persons who think retiring at 65 is for wimps and encourages a ''culture of worklessness''. Sat 31 Jul 2010 11:43:42 GMT+1 tardigrade I retired just over two years ago, at the age of 61.My job involved an on-call commitment; that's thirty-six years of lost nights and weekends, spent dealing with acutely ill or injured people. It was well-paid and came with an inbuilt final salary based pension, but the personal pressure was considerable, and the long-term effects on my marriage and family life significant, to say the least.I can't think of a single one of my former colleagues, who will choose to work until the age of 65, and certainly no one who would countenance working beyond it. Sat 31 Jul 2010 11:26:47 GMT+1 Dentonian This is yet another ConDem policy to minimise the Pension bill outside the South East. No. I don't want to work beyond 65 because no matter how healthy my lifestyle, I don't have any reason to expect to live much beyond 70. Male life expectency in East Manchester is little more than 70, and there is no reason to expect that that will improve in the next quarter of a century. Indeed, the opposite, as the Tories attack the NHS and other public services, while pumping our tax billions into CrossRail, London "Weighting", Boris' "LivingWage" etc.Oh! and the more people working after 65, the more unemployed people of middle age there will be. Sat 31 Jul 2010 11:22:20 GMT+1 SaintMarysSaint 699. At 00:02am on 31 Jul 2010, tumblefleas wrote:To LondonHarrisAll I have to say to you is - you sound very selfish. If you have ever raised a family you would know that they are your immortality.Tumbleflease, so you have kids and in the next breath its your immortality that's your concern, and you accuse LondonHarris of selfishness? Sat 31 Jul 2010 10:28:20 GMT+1 Mark No I do not want to work after 65 thank you! I am sick and tired of people banging on about "we are all living longer", well, actually I'm not. As I suffer from a chronic health condition, my life is likely to be shorter than the average!It should be possible to retire early on the grounds of ill health (after medical verification of course), so that you have a chance to get back some of the money paid in to the state pension over the years! Yes, the average life expectancy at birth in the UK has risen from 71.1 in 1960 to 79.9 in 2008, but that's hardly a step change is it? (Source: )So according to that if you were born in 1960, your average life expectancy is 71.1, or 6.1 years from age 65!!The "we have to do this, because are all living longer" argument is a masterpiece because it sounds logical, and no one wants to argue against it! Sat 31 Jul 2010 09:57:59 GMT+1 intbel Excuse me? I'd like to get back to work before I'm sixty-five if that can be arranged?Thank you.P.S. I'll be sixty five next year. You think a job will mysteriously materialise in the next twelve months? Sat 31 Jul 2010 09:53:49 GMT+1 who2believe 708. At 08:48am on 31 Jul 2010, Robertloa wrote:. At 09:05am on 29 Jul 2010, AM wrote:NO - and anyone who does must lead a sad life!So Paul McCartney, Bob Dylan, Tom Jones, Mick Jagger, judges, many Politicians, all live sad lives... Ever thought it is because they have sad lives they have to work? That they have so few interests and friends outside of work they don't know what else to do? Do not confuse being rich and/ or famous with being happy. I know I would not like to live the life of the famous with little or no privacy. Nor would I like to be a politician, distrusted by all and thinking only of myself or a judge who is so out of touch with reality you think yourself infallible. So yes I think they really do have sad lives. Sat 31 Jul 2010 09:32:43 GMT+1 Del_Herts Peoples' circumstances vary. Some people enjoy their work, while for others it's a chore. Some have decent occupational pensions, savings and investments, while others will be plunged into poverty. Some have physically demanding jobs while other sits at desks. Some 65 year olds are still in robust good health, but others are getting a bit frail.You should have the opportunity to retire at 65, or earlier if you can afford to, but it shouldn't be forced on you, especially if the state pension age goes up to 68. Sat 31 Jul 2010 09:29:00 GMT+1 who2believe No I don't want to work past 65 I want to be able to enjoy a little of life.Some people will need to keep working to survive, some will want to keep working because they don't know what to do with themselves if they retired, some will keep working becaue they want lots of material things and don't care about anyone else.Well I won't be rich but I should be able to survive nicely, I have lots of things I want to do for myself that work stops me doing (and cost very little) and I am not selfish enough to keep some younger person out of work just so I can by the brand new must have thingymajig.I'll take my retirement as soon as I can thanks and feel sorry for those who have to work on for whatever reason. Sat 31 Jul 2010 09:26:16 GMT+1 badmojo Re Crickedneck *603I am a public sector worker with the option to retire at 60 years of age.Chances are I will continue to work till 65 if I am fit enough,why would I do an extra 5 years?Well to ensure I get a full 50% pension.By that time I will have done 40 years,so far over the last 20 years in the course of my work I have been spat at,punched,kicked,headbutted,I have had a bucket of urine & excrement thrown in my face,I've had boiling water thrown over me,I've been stabbed and I've had my face slashed!My cushy, overpaid, over-pensioned, public sector employment is as a prison officer.I never expected to get rich but having just got what is effectively a wage cut over the next 2 years after several below inflation rate payrises by goverments of all political persuasions please try to forgive me if I don't feel guilty for enjoying my retirement-if I live that long!! Sat 31 Jul 2010 09:23:19 GMT+1 HonestMP Make people work until they drop Sat 31 Jul 2010 07:59:39 GMT+1 Roberttrebor . At 09:05am on 29 Jul 2010, AM wrote:NO - and anyone who does must lead a sad life!So Paul McCartney, Bob Dylan, Tom Jones, Mick Jagger, judges, many Politicians, all live sad lives... Sat 31 Jul 2010 07:48:46 GMT+1 Del_Herts Having been made redundant at ages 50, 52 and 63, it is very difficult to find new jobs in later life. I have de-aged my CV as much as possible, and am getting a few interviews, but as soon as potential employers see my grey hair and glasses, it is usually pretty obvious that they don't want to employ me. Having paid into pension funds for most of my working life I should be living a comfortable retirement by now, but inflation and fiddled cost of living index figures mean that I am not. My main pension provider very generously gave me a zero percent increase this year, since when VAT has gone up from 15 to 17.5%, and everything I have to pay has gone up by at least 5%. Sat 31 Jul 2010 06:38:13 GMT+1 Dr Bob Matthews If the country was not in such a mess this question would be a bad joke.Consider the following: 1. The government wants to to get people off benefits and back into employment so that means finding about 1 million jobs. 2. The Same government intends to a) increase the retirement age (because it can't afford to pay pensions) to 68, and then allow those people under the age of 68 to work. So on current demographics that means finding some900,00 jobs a year.The economy is shrinking, private industry which relied on government contracts is set to increase the levels of the unemployed by about a further 500,000. Now I can see the reasoning behind the government's cunning plan to reduce the burden of benefits. Stop paying benefits plus raise the retirement age and with a bit of luck the majority will die before they receive a pension. Economic problem solved. Sat 31 Jul 2010 02:51:51 GMT+1 Mark "We don't get any help off this Coalition govt now they will be taking Tax Credits off us as they seem to think that because my husband earns just over the £40,000 mark we don't need these. Yes he earns a good wage which is soon gone after pensions, car insurance, council tax for him and myself etc are taken off."You don't need and should not get a single penny in TAX credit, I earn under £18K own my car and house pay into a company pension, pay all my food and bill and get nothing from the government. Why the hell should my taxes go to you who earn more that double what I do, you idiot.It's all well and people who sit on their backside in an office job wanting to work longer, get on the shop floor doing hard manual labour and see how long you want to work then.There is no way in hell I'll work a single second past 65. Sat 31 Jul 2010 01:09:07 GMT+1 markus_uk No! Working at old age is the old betraying the young and their future. Not providing a decent pension from 65 onwards is the young betraying the older generation, who once worked for their upbringing and wellbeing, Sat 31 Jul 2010 00:28:49 GMT+1 Howard I always intended to retire at 55. in the event I was made redundant at 53. I never worked full time again and my joy was unconfined!I was fortunate in that I had enjoyed continuous employment with the same company from the age of 15.I am now 69 and have travelled all over the world. I persue several hobbies which I would never have had time for when I was working.My finances were planned for my relatively modest lifestyle, and I don't regret the choices I made.Having said all that, I have nothing against anyone working after 65, as long as it remains a matter of personal choice.Why not operate the state pension on the same basis as my company pension, i.e. available at any age after 50 but at reduced rates allowing for age and contributions paid. Fri 30 Jul 2010 23:49:54 GMT+1 GBcerberus It isn't a case of "want" for me - its "need".Having paid all the exorbitant and unfair taxes in this country for my entire working life, I, like many, many others was refused any kind of benefit. Consequently, I spent my savings paying the bills. I am now totally skint. My pensions were sold off early to raise cash, and my savings also went to support us.The legalised theft that goes on in this country guarantees that unless you are super-rich and able to live as a tax exile, you will be stripped of your assets one way or another.Down with them all! Fri 30 Jul 2010 23:40:35 GMT+1 MaxWax Government should create a climate in which people can retire at an age they plan to do so well in advance, after saving and investing in a pension that enables them to do it. The tragedy of the modern era is that half the population have worked in an industry that denies them them chance to retire with a pension, a quarter have refused to invest in a pension when they could and those that have invested in a pension are being made to feel guily about having one.People who are fit and interested enough in working till they drop should be allowed to do so. But those who no not need to work beyond 65 should not be forced to do so. Unfortuneately, the government wants people to work much longer and will create the climate where most have no alternative because their income will not sustain them in doing itI expect that anyone now under 30 will be lucky to retire before they are 75 and will do so in an era where the well to do will retire when they are 60 and the majority will die within 5 years of retiring at about 75 as a result of falling life expectancy as the effect of working longer becomes apparent. Fri 30 Jul 2010 23:31:24 GMT+1 Billythefirst #698. At 11:21pm on 30 Jul 2010, tumblefleas wrote: People like me do NOT turn to state benefits, EVER. We pay for the feckless, lazy ne'er-do-wells with new cars and satellite dishes who drain the state year after year and we do not complain.---------------------------------------------------------------------------------Silly now you're in a position where you feel you have to deprive a youngster of a job.I would suggest you direct your ire towards the incredibly selfish amoral well heeled tax cheat parasites that infest this country - high time the government started tackling this nefarious crime - they could actually create some much needed jobs in HMRC which would be self funding of course. Fri 30 Jul 2010 23:28:41 GMT+1