Thursday, 23 March 2017

State pension age could be raised to 70, says report

quote [ Twenty year-olds may have to work till the age of 70, with millions more having to work till 68. ]

I fully expect something similar in the USA with Social Security soon.

What a time to be a Millennial...
[SFW] [people] [+3 Informative]
[by XregnaR@12:34pmGMT]

Comments

steele said @ 12:53pm GMT on 23rd Mar [Score:2 Underrated]
I'm 37. I expect social security's age to be raised to 80 by the time I'm eligible. If it still exists.
HoZay said @ 1:31pm GMT on 23rd Mar
Don't worry, society will collapse before you're 50.
XregnaR said @ 1:35pm GMT on 23rd Mar
I'm 47, and I expect the bucket to be empty before I'm 57. But as HoZay said, there may not be a society to secure...
HoZay said @ 1:38pm GMT on 23rd Mar [Score:1 Interesting]
The goal should be to lower retirement age, just to make the jobs available. It's ludicrous to expect the old folks to die in the traces, while the younglings are panhandling to pay for school.
mechanical contrivance said @ 1:48pm GMT on 23rd Mar [Score:1 Underrated]
The epidemic of opioid overdoses among old people will save social security.
captainstubing said @ 11:39pm GMT on 23rd Mar
So there's hope after all!
eidolon said @ 12:57am GMT on 24th Mar
Have you seen old people lately? They have so much tolerance. People who think smoking reefer is the worst are taking an amount of opioids daily that would turn my brain into tapioca. Now... they might fall over because they're high as fuck and die from falling, but you know how hard it is to kill a junky with their drug of choice.
ubie said @ 12:41pm GMT on 23rd Mar
I'm in the US but have always assumed I'd be working to 70 (if I can). Doesn't mean I like it.
LurkerAtTheGate said @ 2:04pm GMT on 23rd Mar
There's jobs out there that are still trying to hand out pensions? Most gov't workers I know under 40 get the same "you can contribute pre-tax moneys to this investment account with limited fund choices that charge the most management fees they can, oh and to encourage you we'll match 2%" bullshit that us private sector monkeys get.
XregnaR said @ 2:41pm GMT on 23rd Mar
In the UK at least, pension = National Insurance = Social Security ≠ 401k.
5th Earth said @ 2:16pm GMT on 23rd Mar
Is there a "+1 Inevitable" mod?
foobar said @ 2:58pm GMT on 23rd Mar
Or, you know, we could pay out to the boomers no more than what they paid in.
HoZay said @ 3:57pm GMT on 23rd Mar [Score:1 Underrated]
All you have to do is convince millenials to vote your way, if you can get them to vote at all.
foobar said @ 4:03pm GMT on 23rd Mar
There's not much point voting when boomers get to pick the candidates.
HoZay said @ 4:33pm GMT on 23rd Mar
By voting.
lilmookieesquire said @ 4:57pm GMT on 23rd Mar
That's been working out really swell for America so far.
HoZay said @ 5:05pm GMT on 23rd Mar
So, outvote them. Please. You have the numbers, except for the going-to-vote part.
foobar said @ 5:39pm GMT on 23rd Mar
If millennials had come out to vote for a millennial candidate, you'd just be accusing them of helping to elect Donald Trump.
HoZay said @ 5:46pm GMT on 23rd Mar
What accusing? I'm suggesting a way for you to redo the boomers' retirement package in your favor.
foobar said @ 5:55pm GMT on 23rd Mar
Neither of the allowed candidates were millennials, nor did they have any interest in representing them or addressing their issues.

Who, exactly, are you suggesting should have been voted for?
bbqkink said @ 6:14pm GMT on 23rd Mar [Score:1 Funny]
The one who had the most progressive platform in history?
foobar said @ 6:36pm GMT on 23rd Mar
Sanders wasn't allowed on the ballot.
bbqkink said[1] @ 7:04pm GMT on 23rd Mar
Do I have to say this again...If Millennials would have came out to vote he would have been. And when it came time to chose a president you had three choices...

1. The Republican
2. The Democrat
3. Throw your vote away on a meaningless protest or not vote at all.

The consequence we have experienced for a little over 50 days now.

Oh and you are right Sanders did write that platform...The Democratic platform.
foobar said[1] @ 7:21pm GMT on 23rd Mar
Platforms are not binding.

Protest is not meaningless. In the long run, it's the only thing that works. If we can block Democratic candidates that do not follow our lead, then the Democrats will eventually be forced to nominate our candidates or fold.

I realize you lot will be dead shortly and thus don't care for strategizing in the long term, but we won't and do.
bbqkink said @ 7:55pm GMT on 23rd Mar
Do you have any idea how much the election of Trump has caused what ever you might have hoped will come?

So you think what happened was a good strategy? Lets hope you are never called on to be in the military.
foobar said @ 8:50pm GMT on 23rd Mar
Rather let us hope you're never in the position of Churchill regarding Coventry.
bbqkink said @ 9:02pm GMT on 23rd Mar
I think a much better example would be "The burning of the reichstag".
eidolon said @ 1:04am GMT on 24th Mar
Millennial is such a broadly used term that it accounts for people born sometime in the 1980s up until now... just what age bracket are you actually referring to? 30 years is a wide range and enough for the oldest people lumped in with millennials to remember having record players and the youngest to have no idea what it's like to ask a question and not be able to look up the answer.

I'm also not sure why you think young people are really that much more progressive. People tend to have the same religion as their parents, and the same political party. The young people of today are tomorrow's regressive oppressors. Worse still, the aggressive gutting of our education system ensures that the voter base isn't likely to be well-educated. Start asking people of all ages around you what the powers of the office of President are, or how their state house works, or who can propose legislation. You would be amazed how many people who can vote haven't even the most basic understanding of our government's structure.

Beyond this... if you can't be bothered to vote, isn't that a sure sign that you shouldn't vote? Apathetic, uninvested people don't sound like they're going to even try to make good decisions. You can claim that they're all staying home as a protest, but I just don't buy it. If you really wanted to protest, you'd go vote on all your local legislation, then fail to select anyone for the various offices, thus showing you did vote, but you didn't vote for any of those people. Those abstaining aren't protesting (or if they are... they are idiots and why do I want them to vote?) they just don't care.

Most people do not give a fuck.
bbqkink said @ 2:11am GMT on 24th Mar
I don't like any of the age terms myself...substitute Young voters. under 35 is as good as any cut off. I don't think they are more progressive. I think they are unreliable voters.


" if you can't be bothered to vote, isn't that a sure sign that you shouldn't vote?"

I don't believe they even have a right to voice any opinion after you give up your right to vote...I just would like them to understand how stupid that is...and stupid is not a good long term strategy.

"Most people do not give a fuck."

I am afraid you are correct...until it cost them personally then they are all kinds of upset.
foobar said @ 3:43am GMT on 24th Mar
It's people born between 1980 and 2000.

Like I said, I'll be showing up at the polls. I'll just be drawing a horse on the ballot. We don't have any referendums at the moment.
King Of The Hill said @ 4:42am GMT on 24th Mar
"3. Throw your vote away on a meaningless protest or not vote at all."

Bullshit. I'm assuming you are talking 3rd party. Look at the percentage and amount of votes Johnson got. He broke records and that should fucking tell you something.

A vote on party lines? Wasted. A vote so that you can make "history" is wasted and foolish.

A vote derived from rational thought and being informed? Regardless of the candidate it is cast for, it is never throwing it away.

Millions threw their votes away on Trump and Clinton.
bbqkink said[1] @ 5:03pm GMT on 25th Mar
If you wanted your vote to mater in 2016 you had 2 choices and you knew it before you voted....anything else but those two choices had no consequence what so ever.

The only effect a third party vote had was in your mind.

Caveat : If some one was close to getting 5% of the vote it wouldn't have mattered in 16 but could have got them matching funds in 20. But you knew that wasn't going to happen either.
King Of The Hill said @ 3:00am GMT on 27th Mar
Wow... Speechless.

With that attitude you deserve exactly what the DNC or GOP are going to do to you.

Hint... There isn't much difference.
bbqkink said @ 3:13am GMT on 27th Mar
It is only bare facts...By Nov. 4 you had the 3 choices. There were plenty of ways it could of went before...but it cane down to A or B or not vote. If you really believe there is another option beyond the DNC RNC choice you need to do something to change that dynamic...and it can be changed inside the system or outside...but you sure as hell can't change it on November 4th.
HoZay said @ 6:12pm GMT on 23rd Mar
I'm not talking about the past. You want to defund the boomers' retirement, change the law. Laws get passed by legislators - support those who agree with you, or stand up new candidates. That's how it's been done by the gun lobby, the religious right, all the other interest groups.
foobar said @ 6:37pm GMT on 23rd Mar
Actually, all those groups got what they wanted by withholding the vote from those that wouldn't comply.
HoZay said @ 6:44pm GMT on 23rd Mar [Score:1 Underrated]
No, actually, that's not how it works. Withholding your vote just makes you disappear.
foobar said @ 7:19pm GMT on 23rd Mar
Tell that to the tea party.
HoZay said @ 7:47pm GMT on 23rd Mar
Good example. The Tea Party votes as a bloc, if their Republican representative didn't suit them, they stood up their own candidate, and won the primary. They soon had a formidable Tea Party Caucus in Congress. That didn't happen by withholding their vote. They redirected their vote.
foobar said @ 8:25pm GMT on 23rd Mar
They did withhold their vote when their candidate was not selected. These are not mutually exclusive.
bbqkink said @ 8:35pm GMT on 23rd Mar
Man you still don't get it...Those wars were held in the Republican primaries...where T-party types voted in record numbers...those who didn't vote the moderates...lost ..lost their party.

Look like you said i will be dead in twenty years tops...who will you blame then? Nobody gives a damn if you didn't vote.....about you or what you want.
foobar said @ 8:47pm GMT on 23rd Mar
That's just not true. If progressives are willing to vote for Democrats regardless, we'll be ignored. The only way we can get our way is if we require our vote to be earned.

I'll be doing that here in the upcoming provincial election. Every single party has nominated a boomer, so I will show up to the polls and draw a horse on my ballot.
bbqkink said @ 8:57pm GMT on 23rd Mar
News flash...they only care about the primaries...their primaries.

"The only way we can get our way is if we require our vote to be earned."

HAHA Trump earn your vote did he?

"so I will show up to the polls and draw a horse on my ballot"

Which will accomplish the same thing it did in 2016....nothing.
cakkafracle said @ 11:48pm GMT on 23rd Mar
""I'll be doing that here in the upcoming provincial election""

"HAHA Trump earn your vote did he?"

something does not compute...
bbqkink said @ 12:04am GMT on 24th Mar
That drawing a picture on your ballot doesn't help anybody or any thing...Or that by taking that attitude help get Donald Trump elected?
cakkafracle said @ 12:23am GMT on 24th Mar [Score:1 Funsightful]
he might be Canadian....
bbqkink said[1] @ 12:26am GMT on 24th Mar
Doesn't matter...works the same way. But they will have to go some to top Trump as a result.
foobar said[1] @ 3:49am GMT on 24th Mar
Nah. We'll get this lady:



She's centre-right by our standards, but still way to the left of Clinton. Really the only reason I'm not willing to vote for her is that she's not willing to tell Alberta to get fucked on oil.

Her ostensibly left wing challenger is this Whitey McOlddude:

bbqkink said @ 9:51pm GMT on 23rd Mar
foobar said @ 3:54am GMT on 24th Mar
That's great, too. Both strategies should be used. Try to get progressives replacing Democrats, but if that fails, make sure the old guard loses anyway.
bbqkink said @ 5:06pm GMT on 24th Mar
Well that works if the crazy right winger isn't that crazy...when you get Trump as a result...you have defiantly screwed up.
foobar said @ 5:44pm GMT on 24th Mar
Trump is no more crazy than Ben "Pyramids were alien grain silos" Carson or the rest of the Republican contenders. This is a moot point; there was going to be another Republican presidency at some point.
bbqkink said @ 7:32pm GMT on 24th Mar
I keep telling you Trump is no "Ordinary Cat" even now you don't see it.
foobar said @ 3:09am GMT on 25th Mar
That's what you lot have said my entire lifetime. No more. If we have to let it all burn down, so be it. I'm not playing ball with your third way bullshit anymore.
bbqkink said @ 3:17pm GMT on 25th Mar
I am tiered of explaining this. I am not 3rd way...and hold your breath and stomp your feet isn't going to change the fact Trump is the worst thing tat has happened to the US since the civil war.
foobar said @ 3:33pm GMT on 25th Mar
You're a Clinton supporter. That makes you a third way supporter.

Your second civil war brought quite a lot of progress. You finally stopped enslaving people.
bbqkink said @ 4:51pm GMT on 25th Mar
You're a Clinton supporter. For the last time ...No I was a Bernie supporter who was anti Trump...On November 3rd you had three choices

The Democrat
Th Republican
or throw your vote away.... I chose the Democrat.

"Your second civil war brought quite a lot of progress"

In case you haven't noticed it is not over.
foobar said @ 2:25am GMT on 26th Mar
You could have written in Bernie's name. You chose the third way instead.

I have noticed it isn't over. I've also noticed which side you've chosen.
bbqkink said @ 3:05pm GMT on 26th Mar
I could have written in Mickey Mouse he wouldn't have changed things either.
You seem to thing your opinion changes things it does not. There was one imperative in November keeping Donald Trump out of the oval office and only one vote would have accomplished that.

I only wish more of you would have take mine and Sen. Sanders advice.

Sanders: Trump must not become president
foobar said @ 7:15pm GMT on 26th Mar
But ticking the box beside Clinton's name did change things; it encouraged the Democrats to run more like her, and not bother running progressives.

Taking control of the Democratic party is far more important than preventing a single Republican presidency.
bbqkink said @ 8:02pm GMT on 26th Mar
"it encouraged the Democrats to run more like her"

That decision was made in the primary. And believe me they got the message. That is why Bernie was able to influence the platform.

"Taking control of the Democratic party is far more important than preventing a single Republican presidency"

This is also done in the primary....NOT THE GENERAL!!

And I don't know how many times I have to say it ...
TRUMP IS NO ORDINARY REPUBLICAN!!!

foobar said @ 8:24pm GMT on 26th Mar
No.

Again, you've used that delaying tactic for far too long. I will fight you lot everywhere.
bbqkink said[1] @ 8:54pm GMT on 26th Mar
An army of 1...that is not how it works.

______EDIT_____

I does work if you are the candidate...
foobar said @ 9:29pm GMT on 26th Mar
I'm not alone, grandpa. If I were, you'd have succeeded in coronating another Clinton. We stopped you.
bbqkink said @ 9:43pm GMT on 26th Mar
I am bookmaking this comment...Trump has been in power less than 3 months... I'm betting I can use this about twice a week for 4 years...Do you have any idea how foolish you are?
foobar said @ 10:13pm GMT on 26th Mar
He's in power because you insisted on running Clinton against him. Everything he does is on you.
bbqkink said @ 10:15pm GMT on 26th Mar
I don't know how else to say this... I VOTED FOR SANDERS!!!
foobar said @ 10:19pm GMT on 26th Mar
You've said otherwise.
bbqkink said @ 10:21pm GMT on 26th Mar
NEVER
foobar said @ 11:18pm GMT on 26th Mar
So you didn't vote for Clinton? What are you on about then?
bbqkink said @ 11:27pm GMT on 26th Mar
Oh. I voted against Trump in the general with the only person who could stop him...Clinton. Bernie was not on the ballot we lost the primary.
foobar said @ 1:01am GMT on 27th Mar
You don't stop fighting just because you lose one election. Clinton was the one in the way, not Trump. Progressives cannot fight Republicans without control of a party.
bbqkink said @ 1:23am GMT on 27th Mar
Let me get this straight...Clinton was the problem...the person who ran on the most progressive platform in my long life was the problem? Donald Trump will somehow just be a small inevitable bump on your road to a progressive nirvana?

In case you haven't noticed not only are you not going to get progressive advancement the entire New Deal is under attack...Federal judges are being appointed right after they pass the Christian soldier exams.

The EPA chairman doesn't believe in global warming, the banking regulator works for Goldman, the Freakin Russians have operatives in the Whitehouse...They are trying to take away meals on wheals ...sometimes old people only meal and maybe only visitor because we need the money to build a wall ...not sure if its to keep them out our keep us in....the internal parts and employees of our government are being dismantled and....you though Hillary Clinton was a threat.

Is that about it Clinton was the real threat?
foobar said @ 1:55am GMT on 27th Mar
Short term thinking, old man. Sometimes you have to feint before you thrust.

Putting Clinton in power would have just continued all of that. The only way to progress is to take the Democratic party away from those like her. Then, and not before, can we confront Republicans.
bbqkink said @ 7:58pm GMT on 28th Mar
Noted putting Donald Trump in power was the wise progressive move...do you even realize?
foobar said @ 11:23pm GMT on 28th Mar
Hey, it was your idea. We told you to run someone, anyone, other than Hillary.
bbqkink said @ 11:48pm GMT on 28th Mar [Score:-1 Unworthy Self Link]
filtered comment under your threshold
bbqkink said @ 11:07pm GMT on 23rd Mar
HoZay said @ 9:39pm GMT on 23rd Mar
You've convinced me. Withhold your vote until the boomers renounce their pension money.
bbqkink said @ 11:09pm GMT on 23rd Mar
Get your government hands off my Social Security !!
foobar said @ 3:55am GMT on 24th Mar
How, exactly, is it that you think voting for boomer candidates will accomplish that?
HoZay said @ 6:40am GMT on 24th Mar
I don't. I've agreed with you.
bbqkink said @ 6:10pm GMT on 23rd Mar
You are trying to explain how it works to someone who is just trying blame someone else for the state they find themselves in. They don't want to know knowing means they have to take some of the responsibility.
foobar said @ 6:39pm GMT on 23rd Mar
Oh look, yet another entitled baby boomer that doesn't want to take responsibility for their actions.
Mythtyn said @ 5:35pm GMT on 23rd Mar
I'm very fortunate that my job has a pension and matches 100% up to 9% contributions to 401k or roth401k.
King Of The Hill said @ 4:44am GMT on 24th Mar
9%? That is fucking unheard of.
Mythtyn said[1] @ 10:30am GMT on 24th Mar
Yup. One of the reasons I've never looked for another job outside of my company even when things got rough-I just moved internally. The fact they still match what I put into Roth is awesome, although by law the match is into a regular 401k-has to be taxable. That and a very generous vacation (6 weeks). I wouldn't know how to deal with 2 weeks any more. Just need my job to stay on this side of the ocean for another 20 years....

Edit: Healthcare plans still suck just like almost everywhere else.
the circus said @ 9:01pm GMT on 23rd Mar
Huh. I've been kind of assuming the other direction. The way automation has been reducing the need for workers, I keep seeing signs that the need for labor is being artificially inflated, at least here in the US.

You've got the wealthy stockpiling wealth to keep the need to earn artificially high. There's the desperate measure to keep medical care expensive and tied to employment. And the value of minimum wage is so low that industries can hire tons of artificially cheap labor, because it's then subsidized by the government because those wages are below a living amount.

I've kind of been assuming a labor market ready to tear at the seams, with the need for basic income or lower retirement ages or shorter work weeks becoming a necessity.
HoZay said @ 9:42pm GMT on 23rd Mar
It seems obvious, doesn't it?
eidolon said @ 12:55am GMT on 24th Mar
It's ok, we'll be dead due to lack of access to healthcare, obesity, and whatever the longterm effects of all those psychiatric drugs are. Some of them are probably ok... but they're mostly too new for us to know enough about them. We even have a generation of children being born exposed in utero to things that are designed to alter brain chemistry.

If you think most of us are going to live to 70... you are far more optimistic than I am. We have a perpetual war, suicide, drugs, lack of preventative care, choices between dying or living with medical debt that destroys our families, car wrecks, poison drinking water, a steadily collapsing environment, fracking-related sink holes, whatever we're pissing off at the bottom of the ocean... it does not look good. We're already the first generation predicted to have shorter lifespans than our parents. And maybe that's a good thing.
Fish said @ 3:10am GMT on 24th Mar
“The trouble with Socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money” — Margaret Thatcher

Post a comment
[note: if you are replying to a specific comment, then click the reply link on that comment instead]

You must be logged in to comment on posts.



Posts of Import
Karma
SE v2 Closed BETA
First Post
Subscriptions and Things

Karma Rankings
ScoobySnacks
HoZay
Paracetamol
lilmookieesquire
Ankylosaur