http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/pers ... Smith.html


IS he confusing having to and wanting to?

+1

I certainly don't want to. However if I'm faced with continuing work or being skint. I'll just keep on working (maybe part time).

Fixed.

My dad turned 65 last year and he's not ready to retire yet, but as he works for himself and is pretty well off, i'd hesitate to say he's representative. He's certainly winding down and wouldn't be interested in carrying on if he was on a production line.

I'm well on my way to owning a house and after that, I'll be saving as much as possible for my retirement. I'm lucky to be able to do that...

Rather than go off on a complete rant, I'll just say that IDS can go fcuk himself, most people aren't/won't be in his position, so for him to suggest he has an insight into their thinking is ridiculous

When and where did he complete this survey then?

[LIFTED] arsehole

I wouldnt want to work beyond 35 if I could help it. I work for the money. End of.

** Edit **

Swear filter needs updating. I've had bastard and arsehole get through recently.

As above, no one wants to work beyond 65. We have to. Then pensions means there's virtually nothing to survive on, unless you've got a private pension.

Some Tory on the radio earlier talking about the new pension announcements. I do wonder if I’m living in the same country as they are at times. I think they have the impression that everyone is earning £29,000 pa and has a fat pension to fall back on given what I’ve heard today.

The are three problems, One is that companies are not employing as many people above 50 anyway. So it looks like they will spend twenty odd years on the dole. Second pensions of all kinds are becoming unaffordable because of low interest rates. With low interest rates they drain pension funds in order to maintain existing pensioners. Thirdly low returns are making pension saving even more expensive so deterring people from actually saving that along with increased student debts and house prices which mean that there is even less available for pension saving.

Pension ages do need to rise simply because we are living longer. Though that is slowly being addressed.

Yes we are living longer but the quality isn't necessarily the same.

You'd work till the age of 65 and then die by the time you're 70. Five years isn't too bad.
Then people started living longer. You retire at 65, live reasonably well until 75, then live in a nursing home/residential home/etc until 80-95. It's those living longer that are causing the problems - they live longer but require more care and are more susceptible as diseases reach their final stages, meaning more and more hospital admissions/care etc.

Personally, I'd rather work to the age of 60-65, retire and live a happy but shorter retirement eg to 75, provided I didn't have to live in a NH/RH.

Yes when it gets that bad euthanasia FTW. I would not want to live in a nursing home.

Nope.

I want robots to do all the work to free up time for me to do interesting things.

Tomorrows World said it would be like that. I may sue.

For what it's worth, I'd like to carry on working until the day I die. Whether that's 105 or 75 or 45 only time will tell.

However, I'd like to be in a situation where I enjoyed my work. Being paid for having fun is a life ambition, and it's not entirely implausible. I enjoy a lot of things. Hopefully with some experience I can spend less time on the boring carp and more on the interesting stuff, even if that means living a very frugal life style. It really just depends on family - if you have kids, your responsibility to them over rules all notion of happiness until they've grown up.


Some old people are so selfish.