Pension reforms

[hughnique]

Wilbro, Are you saying that if we claimed the child benefit, which we did, then that affects the pension??

[niemeyjt]

Wilbro, Are you saying that if we claimed the child benefit, which we did, then that affects the pension??

I think he is asking WHO claimed it - you or Mrs Hugh.

Mrs N claimed ours - and I suspect that has helped her NI record - though when I was freelance I did "employ" her as my secretary as well to bolster her NI.

[hughnique]

I would assume it was me who actually claimed it, as I normally did everything like that. I do seem to remember that when she originally had a pension forecast it was pity fully low, and after enquiring they had not given her the credit for the years of childcare, any supporting documentation has long been confined to the bin. I might have to give them a ring and ask what her pension is based on.

[Biloute]

There are fewer and fewer working people to pay the pensions of retirees who are living longer and longer: we are going to crash into the wall ! In 1970, 4 workers for one retiree and 1.7 today. In 1970, retirement at 65 and life expectancy 70: 5 years of retirement (i.e. 5 years of pension to pay). Today, retirement at 62 and life expectancy at 80: 18 years of retirement ! If the system worked well 50 years ago, for it to continue, it would be necessary to contribute today 8.47 times more (= 4/1.7 x 18/5). Raising the legal age from 62 to 64 will not be enough... It might be time to find a way to tax robots, computers and other machines since they are, after all, workers like the others... Consider the pension system as independent of the rest is nonsense ! Not mentioning that, in France, we produce less and less and make less and less babies...

[Mangetout]

Health care and state pensions are the two systems that need radical re thinking and people will have to pay more tax. Demographics are such that if we don't produce more children we will need immigration to increase dramatically and we all know how that will be received. Private industry in the UK realised that final salary schemes could not continue some 10 to 15 years ago. That's why the Pension Protection Fund was developed. Only civil servants and politicians continue to receive such costly pensions.

[MAD87]

If the system worked well 50 years ago, for it to continue, it would be necessary to contribute today 8.47 times more

Try telling that to the syndicats!

[Blaze]

If the system worked well 50 years ago, for it to continue, it would be necessary to contribute today 8.47 times more

Try telling that to the syndicats!

How about suggesting a ceiling on state pension pay outs - Messrs Martinez and Melenchon would just love that !

[niemeyjt]

There are fewer and fewer working people to pay the pensions of retirees who are living longer and longer: we are going to crash into the wall ! In 1970, 4 workers for one retiree and 1.7 today. In 1970, retirement at 65 and life expectancy 70: 5 years of retirement (i.e. 5 years of pension to pay). Today, retirement at 62 and life expectancy at 80: 18 years of retirement ! If the system worked well 50 years ago, for it to continue, it would be necessary to contribute today 8.47 times more (= 4/1.7 x 18/5). Raising the legal age from 62 to 64 will not be enough... It might be time to find a way to tax robots, computers and other machines since they are, after all, workers like the others... Consider the pension system as independent of the rest is nonsense ! Not mentioning that, in France, we produce less and less and make less and less babies...

No - immigration is not the answer - that will just create a Ponzi scheme when said immigrants retire and want their pensions paid.

The answer is to work longer - and rethink how people work (i.e. not a brickie at 70) - based on life expectancy.

Macron is right (there, I've written it!) and arguably not aggressive enough. Suggestions are UK will extend retirement to 68 for those born in 1965/6 - France has similar longevity and should set a similar limit.

[Biloute]

There are fewer and fewer working people to pay the pensions of retirees who are living longer and longer: we are going to crash into the wall ! In 1970, 4 workers for one retiree and 1.7 today. In 1970, retirement at 65 and life expectancy 70: 5 years of retirement (i.e. 5 years of pension to pay). Today, retirement at 62 and life expectancy at 80: 18 years of retirement ! If the system worked well 50 years ago, for it to continue, it would be necessary to contribute today 8.47 times more (= 4/1.7 x 18/5). Raising the legal age from 62 to 64 will not be enough... It might be time to find a way to tax robots, computers and other machines since they are, after all, workers like the others... Consider the pension system as independent of the rest is nonsense ! Not mentioning that, in France, we produce less and less and make less and less babies...

No - immigration is not the answer - that will just create a Ponzi scheme when said immigrants retire and want their pensions paid.

The answer is to work longer - and rethink how people work (i.e. not a brickie at 70) - based on life expectancy.

Macron is right (there, I've written it!) and arguably not aggressive enough. Suggestions are UK will extend retirement to 68 for those born in 1965/6 - France has similar longevity and should set a similar limit.

I absolutely agree with you: immigration is not the solution (I didn't even suggest it in my post ). Moreover, in France, not all immigrants come to work...
But, in any case, there is no longer enough work here: if we increased the retirement age or welcomed more immigrants, we would simply have a lot more unemployment!
Thanks to machines, we produce more with less manpower: reason why I suggest that machines should contribute to pay pensions (and also the cost of non-employment). And the ideal would also be to re-manufacture in France what is made elsewhere (France has been importing more than it exports for 18 years).

[Bayleaf]

The answer is to work longer - and rethink how people work (i.e. not a brickie at 70) - based on life expectancy.

Hmmm, are there enough non-manual jobs to share out for the aging population? I know there are retraining programmes available for people wanting/needing to change, but not sure there's enough vacancies.

As more and more industries are automated, using AI etc. - therefore needing less and less "human" workers, we're literally surplus to requirement. For instance, I trained as a proof-reader years ago, thinking it would be an easier job once gardening became too much - well, thanks to spell check, that job's gone, as one example.

Bottom line - too many people, too few suitable jobs! The system is broken. Youngsters would rather do a cushy job sitting at a desk than some dirty, manual job..... This is digressing from pensions slightly, but very relevant I'd say.

Crossing with Biloute - similar response!