'Most of us WANT to work past 65': Astonishing claim by IDS as he unveils overhaul which could pus

'Most of us WANT to work past 65': Astonishing claim by IDS as he unveils overhaul which could push retirement age beyond 70

www.dailymail. co.uk

Most workers want to work on when they reach 65, Iain Duncan Smith claimed yesterday.
He insisted that higher life expectancy meant people should – and usually want – to work for longer before taking their pension.
The Work and Pensions Secretary made the extraordinary claim on the eve of unveiling reforms that could push the retirement age beyond 70.
The idea that employees do not want to stop work at 65 was rubbished by critics last night.
Ros Altmann, of Saga, said all the research showed most over-50s wanted to retire as soon as was practical. ‘There are terrible consequences for

(visit the link for the full news article)

So basically we all wan't to work until we drop?? Iain did not ask me!
The reason why we will work until 70 is because we will fricken HAVE TO and not wan't to!

Looks like the government are pinning their hopes on most of us kicking the bucket before they have to pay us a state pension...

These people do not live in the real world nor do they represent the people as a whole.. Its about time we got rid of the lot of them in all sides of the the house..

www.dailymail. co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)

Didn't Greece (I think it was Greece) try to raise the retirement age...and people took to the streets?

reply to post by Yissachar1


Are you serious?? Is this article really trying to imply we all want to work past 65??

I am 26 and i would stop working tomorrow if i could!!


Look at someone like Justin Bieber, he is almost 17 and earnt 100 million last year!! WTF

I was one number off first division in powerball and it was devastating

Work past 65?.....seriously?

Hell I just wanna make it to 65!

I'm getting about to the point where I am want to send the IRS an IOU as part of my payment to them!!!

I figure between state, federal, and local taxes, my share of the contribution going towards all these "poor" moms and their kids is more than $5, so well, I think I should start just withholding that $5 every year, putting it in an evelope and saving it for when I get too sick to work but still can't go to the doctor because they've changed my medicare to a needs bases system that I will be making a few bucks too much a week to qualify for! ....
although my husband, who is just a few years older than me, will probably still be getting his!!

how about some of these moms who are popping out babies every year, and those babies fathers start having to apply themselves a little more to supporting their own children....like we had to do????
Is that too much to ask??? I mean at least they are young and and more capable of working than a 70 year old!!!

It is unconstitutional, when you have so many people not being able to afford to live, not being able to afford to go to the doctor when they are sick...to take money from them so you can pick and chose who who deem as worthy for help and who isn't!!!
you want to cut social security??
well, then you cut just as much from the other handouts!!
the hud, the food stamps, the heap, the afdc, the chips, the medicaid, AND THE CORPORATE WELFARE!!!

otherwise, well, don't expect me to be contributing much anymore for anything!!!

oh, and all those IOU's that are in the social security fund, they are treasury notes, that are payable on demand.....if the gov't doesn't have to make good on those, then I guess I shouldn't have to make good on any of by debts either, right???

Originally posted by dawnstar
I'm getting about to the point where I am want to send the IRS an IOU as part of my payment to them!!!

I figure between state, federal, and local taxes, my share of the contribution going towards all these "poor" moms and their kids is more than $5, so well, I think I should start just withholding that $5 every year, putting it in an evelope and saving it for when I get too sick to work but still can't go to the doctor because they've changed my medicare to a needs bases system that I will be making a few bucks too much a week to qualify for! ....
although my husband, who is just a few years older than me, will probably still be getting his!!

how about some of these moms who are popping out babies every year, and those babies fathers start having to apply themselves a little more to supporting their own children....like we had to do????
Is that too much to ask??? I mean at least they are young and and more capable of working than a 70 year old!!!

It is unconstitutional, when you have so many people not being able to afford to live, not being able to afford to go to the doctor when they are sick...to take money from them so you can pick and chose who who deem as worthy for help and who isn't!!!
you want to cut social security??
well, then you cut just as much from the other handouts!!
the hud, the food stamps, the heap, the afdc, the chips, the medicaid, AND THE CORPORATE WELFARE!!!

otherwise, well, don't expect me to be contributing much anymore for anything!!!

Two words....HELL and YES!!!

reply to post by Yissachar1


IDS is talking utter rot? You astound me sir ! But all sarcasm aside, I must say I saw this coming, this sort of nearsighted ignorance from the government sooner or later. The fact is they havent got a clue what most people WANT. What most people WANT is to have a government that do as they are told by the people, not a government who tell the people what to do. What most people want is a government which ONLY protects the interests of its citizens , and not the interests of international banks (which do NOT amount to the same thing, despite the lies of the economists) and a government which doesnt just behave as if it cares, but DOES care for the elderly , the young and everyone else in a helpful way, rather than insisting on a decade of form filling by people on the edge of poverty before offering them proper assistance with thier troubles.

On this specific point regarding retirement and so on, IDS is making a rookie mistake. People do not want to work past sixty five, but many have been put in the position (by the government) of HAVING to work past sixty five. This is because the cost of living has been allowed (by government) to increase beyond the level which the citizen finds comfortable.
And another thing!!!! Never mind the fact that people are living longer, there has been no particular change in the age at which a person becomes infirm, they just last longer after that point due to betterments of medical science and care! Long term illnesses are on the RISE not the fall, so when my generation get to work past sixty five, we will be working despite massive levels of diabetes, osteoperosis, heart failiure, obesity , and christ knows how many other ills that are yet to make themselves known.

The government in this country need to wake up and smell the ignorance under thier armpits, and CEASE, and I mean flat out stop and never again try, changing what is not broken. If the government wish to save money, they need to start dictating to those who have been ripping them off for years, for everything from computers to stationary , from biros to desk fans. I am talking about contractors of course. Contractors have been overcharging government for sub par products and services by as much as 80% for years, and no one has ever thought to change that, and yet, no one benifits from this state of affairs. So how can the government suggest the people, and more importantly the elderly take the flak for what is THE GOVERNMENTS MISTAKES?? We the people are not responsible for the problems with the economy . It is high time we were insulated from the consequences, and a good government would make that happen.

Guess its a shame we have the bloody stinking Tories again eh?

reply to post by Yissachar1

Looks like the government are pinning their hopes on most of us kicking the bucket before they have to pay us a state pension...

These people do not live in the real world

I think it’s the people who are outraged that aren’t living in the real world.

Putting aside whether or not people want to work, something that is immaterial, the fact of the matter is we have an aging population with a projected 23% of the population being over the age of 65 by 2034 compared to 16% today*.

We need to pay for this somehow and either means taxing people very heavily, reducing spending or increasing the pension age. Which would you choose?


* www.statistics.gov.uk...

reply to post by Mike_A


See my comments above. The money saved by eliminating contractor thievery would more than cover the issue there.

Let's just get rid of the need for us to work - if we build robots to do the necessary stuff no one (or not enough of us) wants to do, we will not need to do it. If we get rid of money, no one will need to work in banking, insurance, Wall Street, advertising, sales, accounting, banking, or any other business that is purely over money.

How can we do this? I offer two threads. The End of Entropy is the foundation - read first - and The Ethical Planetarian Party Platform is the structure. Both are linked in my sig.

reply to post by Mike_A


my choice would be hang the legislators that gave the funds within social security to a bunch of people who found a way not to work, and still live!!! and to banks in such places a libya, and to corps that pay their uppermanagement obscene bonuses, and............

how much do each of those legislatures make???

as it is, as soon as it gets warm, I am gonna be heading into the mountains, find myself a nice out of the way place to build my home away from home, start stocking it with food and such, and well......I guarentee ya, I'll have disappeared before I hit 64, so you can forget about me contributing to the tax base at the age of 70!!!
Find someone else to feed the kids, their moms, and in some cases their dads too!!! the idea of social welfare is that we help those that need it, but then, when we need it, it's there for us....
It wasn't there when I broke my ankle, it hasn't been there many, many times, and well, I got a feeling people are thinking I am gonna be still helping the "needy" at the age of 90.....

I'm bailing, sorry, you help more..............and more................and still more!!!

I've come to the conclusion that I would have a better chance living outside of your society, thank you!!!

reply to post by Yissachar1


well i am glad he can so easily put words into my mouth to give the public the impression that everybody wants it, therefore giving the illusion to those who are against it that everybody else wants it.

well let me give it a try, Ian Duncan smith wants to give all british workers a pay rise(jedi mind trick).

reply to post by Mike_A


Or we need to do away with having to pay. See my post above.

reply to post by TrueBrit


I think that’s wishful thinking, every government in god knows how long has come in with the battle cry “efficiency savings!” but it never works out like that.

reply to post by Amaterasu


Read it before, it’s bull; it usually is if in response to a difficult question someone gives you an easy answer.

Reply to post by Mike_A

About 80% of statistics is made up however i personally would fund it by getting out of the EU, bring all troops back home, stop getting involved in other countries wars, stop sending our money abroad on international development and sorting our own country out 1st!


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

Wow Mr Duncan Smith, how out of touch are you.

Does he think that most companies actually want to keep a person on way past pensionable age? As soon as people near that age, most are at top of the list for redundancies and cuts.
In my area, the NHS Mental Health Services pretty much put everyone coming up to pensionable age on early retirement. Consultants, Nurses, Receptionists/Admin and brought in younger employees, which I assume they are doing up and down the Country.

What about people who do hard labour jobs? Does he think they can work these jobs up to the age of 70? When they start losing the work because they are getting to old and frail to do the labour that a younger person could do in half the time for less money, what happens then? They'll likely not be able to find work as nobody will hire them because of their age and will have to claim benefits untill they are able to claim a state pension, which will ultimately make the unemployment figures rise.

reply to post by dawnstar

...how about some of these moms who are popping out babies every year, and those babies fathers start having to apply themselves a little more to supporting their own children....

ARE YOU KIDDING????

I know a guy who has FIFTY TWO kids with the moms on welfare. HE collect money from each of "His Women" and/or lives off them.

Social services must make an appointment to inspect the housing where welfare Moms live so there is no chance to catch these deadbeat dads living off our tax money.

BUT Social Services can break down OUR doors and grab our kids if we do not give them risky psychoactive drugs likeRisperdal: see story Detroit mom jailed over daughter's meds

It's quite convenient that the "epidemic" in childhood Bipolar disorder came about at the same time that drug companies started marketing new and very expensive anti-psychotic drugs like Zyprexa, Risperdal, Abilify, Seroquel and Geodon. They wanted to market these drugs to kids for ADHD because almost any kid can easily be diagnosed with ADHD. However, these new antipsychotics are so powerful and risky to give to kids and they have so many bad side-effects like causing diabetes, heart failure and suicide that the FDA would not approve these drugs for kids with the exception of kids with Bipolar disorder which used to be called schizophrenia and was quite rare in people. So curiously, we are now "discovering" a lot of kids have Bipolar disorder and many of the psychologists and psychiatrists pushing this have been found to be getting huge amounts of money from drug companies... info.detnews.com...

The Rockefellers OWN the pharmaceutical industry which traces directly back to

IG Farben & Auschwitz

Auschwitz was the largest mass extermination factory in human history. However, few people are aware that Auschwitz was a 100% subsidiary of IG Farben.... The Nuremberg Tribunal dissolved IG Farben into Bayer, Hoechst and BASF, each company 20 times as large as IG Farben in 1944. For almost three decades after WWII, BASF, Bayer and Hoechst (Aventis) filled their highest position, chairman of the board, with former members of the Nazi regime. Bayer has been sued by survivors of medical experiments....

Seems ever time you lift up a rotting piece of fecal material you find a Bankster under it

That of course is what this work till age 70 is all about. Got to keep the SLAVES working.

2009– Year of the Slave

reply to post by dawnstar


Typical uneducated "attack the poor" spiel.

Not to mention, it's completely off-topic. This topic is about the retirement age in the UK.

Does the insanity ever stop. I mean come on my grandpa retired at the age of 55 and i never once heard him say, hey owe by the way if i had to do it all again i would wait another 15 years
It is not that people want to wait till the day they die to retire, but they cannot as the system sucks their lifes blood and their lifes savings, again nice catch, op, however this sick and twisted rabbit hole, never ends does it