http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-10796718


It should happen immediately, though until then businesses will get rid of anyone that they think might not leave at 60 or 65.

Maybe the BBC could give advice

Well the BBC are pretty good. They still employ people up to their 90's. Which is a lot better than British Airways. Who force stewardesses to retire at 50 or 55. I can't remember which. This should affect the public sector as well. No more of this early retirement at 55 for police or firemen, they should be moved to desk jobs.

So how long until they start building mortuaries in office blocks?

Sorry, I thought office blocks and mortuaries were the same thing?

With the state of Britains pensions it was necessary to make this change. People simply are not putting enough away for their retirement so they have to work longer or spend their retirement in poverty.

Which is not the fault of the goverment.

I think this is a good thing (as long as it creates more choice, rather than forcing people to continue working) however the timing is poor due to the high levels of unemployment.

Actually governments of all persuasions raided pension funds and the Tories allowed pension holidays and capped the surpluses at 5% that funds were allowed to have. The impact of this move meant that companies were forced to take pension holidays and pushed their corporation tax take up. I will not blame government solely but the insurance sector have to accept some blame for being over optimistic regarding growth of pension funds. Almost bordering on mis-selling. Though governments have to accept the prime blame because they create the market for savings and pensions. If they deter pensions though low tax and do not set minimum pension contribution rates.

I agree – esp Gordon Brown when he raised the dividend tax break that pensions had – gave him an extra 5 Billion to give away / waste which was invisible and painless to people at the time. Naturally you can’t take that amount of money out of the system without it affecting people’s pensions later on

The system needs root and branch reform with both more incentives to make people save and make it compulsory for them to take out a private scheme (either through their company or by themselves) once earnings are above a certain level

Good. Bye.

BTW, I'd love to know how a single parent on low wages is supposed to "save enough for retirement".

Gordon's raid on the pension funds was the most egregious tax raid. Pensions don't vote, and they had committed themselves to freezing income tax rates. I agree about root and branch reform.

If people are going to retire on 67% of final salary then they need to put away nearly 40% of their salary each year. Governments will not allow that because it will cripple the economy. Hence the problem. They allow a few people to have pensions beyond salary but if everyone had the same level of savings then the economy would collapse as people are saving so much. In fact with interest rates so low there is no point buying an capital protected annuity because it generates so little income. You would need a pension pot several hundred times your final salary to actually have a two thirds final salary pension.

Final salry pension FTMFW If I stay in my current employer until 60 then its half my final salary as a pension. Assuming of course we are not moved to a DC scheme from a DB scheme(which I know as I have seen them )

Yes DB schemes could be saved if the government mandated minimum contributions of 30% from both employee and employer on DC schemes. At the moment there is huge benefit from capping company contributions to DC schemes, leaving the vast majority of members in poverty at retirement age and turning it from a private liability to a public liability. Unfortunately governments only think about the short term as long term is someone else problem. Another way is to ban PAYG pensions so that employees get the pension that they saved for not one that someone else is paying for. A ban on separate directors schemes will put the directors in the same position as the majority of staff and so if there is a pension shortfall they suffer as well. It would also stop cases like the Phoenix collapse where the directors pension was fully funded but the employees fund was hugely underfunded.