Blunkett: employees should work until incapable

Anne McAllister
Member - 165 posts

There is a growing number of workers who either need or want to continue working after retiremnet age.
While I dont believe the senior members of our society should "need" to do so I can fully understand why they would want to.
Better pensions and a better quality of life for those in their later years would be preferable.
On the other hand why shouldnt we work until we cant?
Not everyone enjoys retirement and until fairly recently it was forced on us.

Gemma Birch
Member - 7 posts

I totally agree with you Carole.
This just another excuse for the government to get out of what they are actually there for. I think they would be hapopy to pay for nothing except line theirt pockets- I am glad that when they are old they will have enough money to feed on.
I really look forward to working till I am helped by a zimmer frame and then using my own money from my house to do what a pension should do anyway.
Where is the quality of life there then? We work, pay taxes and now we are being told by Mr Blunkett that the money that should be safe in our homes, we should use by way of equity release!
And what about the many that are too lazy to work in the first place. I do not want to work till Im hardly able to work and give away my hard earned money on taxes to the government.
If that is what the government are now proposing then I do not want my taxes going on things such as paying those who do not work.
I would like my taxes to go on repairing roads etc.
Its very sad but I can see why so many people are leaving Britain. We get nothing and pay for everything!

David Ransome
Member - 21 posts

What gets me is that he made the statement, presumably believing it, and he's still working!

Kevin Brown
Member - 110 posts

Blunkett is merely trying to harmonise the UK workforce with the performance criteria of the political community.

Mark Shuttleworth
Member - 57 posts

Although I do agree that those who "aspire" to continue working after 65 should be encouraged (I intend to work for as long as I can - though I may scale it down a bit) but no one should be made to work past the national retirement age, or forced to relinquish equity from their homes. Is that what Mr Blunkett is suggesting?
For someone who has worked all their life what are they going to see in return for their 50 years worth of taxes if they are forced to continue to support themselves up to the point when incapacity sets in? What about quality of life?

I am in a generation where I feel most people are aware that they need to make their own provisions for retirement and not rely on the state pension, however i am well aware that not everyone has the means to make such provision. As statistically the nation is living longer I'm not against adjusting the national retirement age upwards, if that can be justified.

The state must help those in retirement who cannot survive without assistance so the state pension must remain but equally it mustn't means test who receives it, it should be given to all.

Stephen Martin
Member - 13 posts

If this is a serous suggestion, then what further information should we be receiving in relation to our compulsory contributions to National Insurance?These monies are supposed to provide us with NHS Treatment, free at the point of delivery, plus a State Pension - from the age of 65 for men and 60 for women. OK, that is changing, but the point I am making is this: if we are going to be expected to work till we drop, how much of a reduction can we expect in our rate of contribution, since the State will not have to support us for as long as it does now?

Dean Duneclift
Member - 2 posts

Do you recall those halcyon days when we were young when the promise of a bright future, with so much leisure time that we wouldn't know what to do with ourselves, the working week would get shorter and shorter, retirement ages would plummet, and the welfare state and NHS would look after us until our dying day?

WHAT WENT WRONG? We work longer hours than ever under extreme stress as we try to juggle the tasks of 10 people and our wives and partners cannot afford to stay at home and raise a family anymore.

And now the final straw.....Work until you can't carry on or drop dead.
Not that there's much choice either as the State pension is pathetic at the moment and may not even exist when we get to retirement age.

Millions have worked hard and paid huge sums to state and company pension providers only to see it rendered almost worthless by bad investing and Government plunder.

It seems that time is going backwrd to the days of the workhouse slowly but surely. Wonder if its anything to do with that large Hadron Collider being switched on yesterday !!!!!!!

Lisa Dormon
Member - 24 posts

In lots of companies where I have worked the employer often provided life insurance cover of 3 or 4 times earnings, for your nearest and dearest, should you unfortunately die whilst employed.

I can only imagine the horror of employers realising that their insurance premiums are going to sky rocket to cover these over 65 workers, which I would presume have a far greater chance of passing away than the under 65's. Especially if we're talking about working up to 70 and beyond.

Lisa

E Palmer
Member - 16 posts

If this is the opinion of the labour party,then why am I paying part of my union subs to support idiots like this. Blunkett has a fat pension to fall back on, paid by taxpayers. Why should employees have to work until they drop to keep parasites and politicians like him.

Anyone can come to this country and receive handouts by from the state. But the working people of this country must work until they drop. When will they suggest that everyone over 65 should be put down because they can't aford to pay their pensions.

Hasbeen politicians like blunket should keep their mouths shut after all we are paying his pension and he wants to steal ours . I would like to see blunket do some real work for a change instead of working his mouth.