Citywire printed articles sponsored by:
View the article online at http://citywire.co.uk/money/article/a349386
Morning Line: What next after axing the 65 default retirement age?
With the age 65 rule now set for retirement, it’s finally time for a proper debate on how we fund our old age.
Markets
And finally there is the private sector, which has consistently proven itself incapable of meeting the demands of UK pensioners. From numerous mis-selling scandals to the collapse of Equitable Life, pension providers have so far spectacularly failed to rise to the challenge posed by the UK’s ageing population.
Tough questions therefore lay ahead. How far should individuals be required to provide for their own retirement, rather than the state or the employer? How much of a state safety net should there be? And what should this mean for employee rights, or for the forced annuity purchase rule? And would we be prepared to accept higher taxes in the interests of better pensions for all?
Difficult discussions all, but ones we need to have. Perhaps once the 65 retirement rule is axed we can finally start to have them, perhaps even as a key part of the next general election.
Tools from Citywire Money
Today's articles
- Market blog: FTSE gains momentum to break 5,400
- Homeserve under investigation by City regulator
- Snap! Greece goes and we’re awash with ‘worthless paper’
- UK inflation drops sharply to 3%
- Wonga rapped for accusing customers of fraud
- Should financial firms live by these golden rules?
- China economic picture darkening, warns Brevan Howard
- Bank of England forced to accept credit crunch probe
10 comments so far. Why not have your say?
Nelly The Elephant
Jul 14, 2009 at 13:48
Another topic that requires radical ideas to resolve.
How about I start the ball rolling:-
Anyone over 65 can be employed on a casual basis, cash in hand, no red tape, no tax or other out goings but restrict the hours to say 20 hours a week.
report thisGreg Kingston
Jul 14, 2009 at 14:48
Why on earth are we considering replacing full blown discrimination with partial discrimination?
Employment should be based on capability to do the job. If you can't do it, whether you're 25 or 75, then you're either retrained or you are managed out or leave and find a more suitable job.
report thisNelly The Elephant
Jul 14, 2009 at 19:07
Another topic that requires radical ideas to resolve.
How about I start the ball rolling:-
Anyone over 65 can be employed on a casual basis, cash in hand, no red tape, no tax or other out goings but restrict the hours to say 20 hours a week.
report thisSteven
Jul 14, 2009 at 20:41
I dont why this is, in teh west they see such "limited roles" for our elderly folk.
e.g.: When your this age, your supposed to be this way that and other
And when your at another age ranger youve "got to retire".
What silly and amusing waste of talent and ability...in a country whose goverment and industry leaders have claimed over teh lats 10 years that there arent enough skilled people entering into this that and otehr profession.
Alot of our "old folk" have skills from many decades and experiences from many historical events such as teh wars of our pasts.
As long as people are able, fit and willing to commit to a job why shouldnt they be?
Cant believe its taken the MPs this long to realise it (or have they yet...)
Bosses complain about "oh todays modern youth are uncommitted and only dream of being on "Big brother or becoming Jordans"...well why dont they take a look at theyre more elderly folk..many many of which are very fit live n kicking as yet.
report thisMichael Hellman
Jul 14, 2009 at 20:57
About time, ban the retirement age. Other countries have a higher age for retirement or like the USA non at all. But whatever you look at this we will have to provide more for ourselves, there is no way around it
report thisNelly The Elephant
Jul 14, 2009 at 22:31
Another topic that requires radical ideas to resolve.
How about I start the ball rolling:-
Anyone over 65 can be employed on a casual basis, cash in hand, no red tape, no tax or other out goings but restrict the hours to say 20 hours a week.
report thisTerence Brown
Jul 15, 2009 at 09:18
"For many older workers the prospect of choosing to work into their 70's and 80's is an appealing one"
A halfwit comment - no further discussion required.
report thispaul harrison
Jul 15, 2009 at 20:33
How can it be right for the over 65s to takejobs that should be done by people
with families to support.
Many of those over 65 already have
works pensions and the state pension - if
they want to work their is plenty of voluntary
jobs they can do.When all the under 65s
have work thats the time for the over 65s
to carry on working.
report thisJeffrey Roberts
Jul 16, 2009 at 13:45
Reference Terence Brown.
Further discussion is needed. It is a nonsense for people to "retire" at a given age, whether 65 or even later. If the skills have been updated and their is satisfaction in the job being done i.e.financial or personal, people should be allowed to continue.
A gradual retirement over a period of time, seems to me to be a suitable solution. Attitudes to the ageing process need to be reviewed.
report thisPenelope Dudley
Jul 17, 2009 at 10:04
Jeffery's comment:....."a gradual retirement over a period of time, seems to me to be a suitable solution. Attitudes to the ageing process need to be reviewed"
I am with you 100% on this
report thisleave a comment
Please sign in here or register here to comment. It is free to register and only takes a minute or two.