Most Popular Tags
Search
| Retirement is for losers |
 |
 |
 |
| Written by Gordon Prentice | ||||||||||||
| Friday, 04 February 2011 21:22 | ||||||||||||
|
So says "Tom Tomorrow". The talented and amusing American satirist and cartoonist. I recall reading Blair’s Journey and pausing to think when he confessed he couldn’t contemplate retirement or “not working”. Seems to me that delivering a few well-paid speeches to well-heeled Canadians in Toronto or well connected Chinese entrepreneurs in Singapore doesn’t really amount to “work”. In my book, digging up a road is “work”. And yet the worn out 57 year old road digger will get his State pension at the same time as the bronzed former PM and Middle East “envoy”. Hmmmm. There is a big difference between having to work after 65 before you collect your State Pension and choosing to work after 65. I see that the Institute of Directors (not too many ex road diggers there) is arguing that “in the light of the great increases in life expectancy, and healthy life expectancy” the state retirement age should move “swiftly to 70”. This little nugget comes from an excellent paper on pensions produced by the House of Commons Library, where I spent many a happy hour. It also reminds me that State pensions were introduced under the Old Age Pensions Act 1908 and that these were paid on a non-contributory basis to everyone over 70. I know, I know. Everyone is living longer. Except that some are living way longer than others. At 65, a woman in Pendle can expect to live another 20.6 years. But in Kensington & Chelsea she looks forward to another 26.5 years. Male life expectancy at birth in Kensington and Chelsea is 84.4 years. But in Pendle 76.9. What do I conclude from all this? Not too many construction workers live in K&C. 
|
||||||||||||
| Last Updated on Friday, 04 February 2011 22:55 |
