Eupedia Forums
Site NavigationEupedia Top > Eupedia Forum & Japan Forum

View Poll Results: Are you in favour of increasing the retirement age in your country ?

Voters
23. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes, I am in favour

    16 69.57%
  • No, I am against it

    6 26.09%
  • Don't know

    1 4.35%
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 30

Thread: Retirement age increased by a few years - for or against ?

  1. #1
    Satyavrata Achievements:
    Three FriendsRecommendation First ClassVeteran50000 Experience PointsTagger First Class
    Maciamo's Avatar
    Join Date
    17-07-02
    Location
    Lothier
    Posts
    6,544
    Points
    325,753
    Level
    100
    Points: 325,753, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 82.0%


    Ethnic group
    Celto-germanic
    Country: Belgium - Brussels



    Question Retirement age increased by a few years - for or against ?



    The Spanish and German government are planning to increase the legal retirement age from 65 to 67 years old. Other European countries are considering the idea too.

    With the declining birth rate and the ageing of the population prognostics for the future are grim. If people do not keep working for a few more years there just won't be enough tax money to pay for the retirement allowances in a few decades. Measures have to be taken now.

    I am all in favour of postponing retirement. Not only is it necessary, the number of healthy years in life increases constantly and it has been proven that staying active also helps staying fit and mentally alert. The new measures shouldn't apply to particularly demanding and stressful jobs though.

  2. #2
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Three Friends5000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Wilhelm's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-10-09
    Location
    Spain
    Posts
    1,634
    Points
    9,486
    Level
    29
    Points: 9,486, Level: 29
    Level completed: 23%, Points required for next Level: 464
    Overall activity: 14.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b-S26
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H1

    Ethnic group
    Celtiberians
    Country: Spain - Catalonia



    I think more and more young people have difficulties to find a job when they finish their studies because people are retiring much later. I think this is a big problem. I would go for more young people , instead of more old people.

  3. #3
    ^ lynx ^
    Guest


    I voted yes. It makes sense.

  4. #4
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1 year registered1000 Experience Points
    Marianne's Avatar
    Join Date
    24-03-09
    Location
    Athens
    Posts
    260


    Country: Greece



    I am in favor too. I think that since live expectancy becomes higher, retirement age should increase too. Two years should be enough for now. I also think that women should retire 2-4 years earlier than men, but this is a different topic and from what I read EU politicians are not huge fans of it

  5. #5
    No Beer No Point Achievements:
    1 year registered
    Starship's Avatar
    Join Date
    03-09-07
    Location
    Dublin
    Age
    42
    Posts
    171


    Ethnic group
    Irish
    Country: Ireland



    Im not sure, I know of people forced to retire at 65 who were not ready to go and had plenty still to offer but as some one else said what about the younger generation trying to get a foot on the ladder.

    The other consideration should be the different types of occupation, do we want 68, 70 or maybe 75 year old police men on the beat, firemen, teachers, brick layers etc just a thought.

  6. #6
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Three FriendsVeteran10000 Experience Points
    Cambrius (The Red)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    27-06-09
    Posts
    2,641
    Points
    12,808
    Level
    34
    Points: 12,808, Level: 34
    Level completed: 23%, Points required for next Level: 542
    Overall activity: 0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b (RL-21*)
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H3

    Ethnic group
    Gallaecian Celtic
    Country: USA - Ohio



    Yes, something like 68 is probably fair. People today are living longer and, on average, much healthier than even just a few decades ago.

  7. #7
    Regular Member Achievements:
    3 months registered
    Gwyllgi's Avatar
    Join Date
    28-02-10
    Location
    Wales (UK)
    Posts
    215

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    I don't drop acid
    MtDNA haplogroup
    Well, not any more!

    Ethnic group
    Welsh
    Country: UK - Wales



    Do away with a fixed pension and instead make all support means tested.

    While people can provide for themselves, even if only in part, they should. That includes sale of any property to fund their lives when they can't work.

  8. #8
    Elite member Achievements:
    Tagger First Class10000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Awards:
    Master Tagger
    edao's Avatar
    Join Date
    10-02-10
    Location
    Britain
    Posts
    439
    Points
    14,047
    Level
    35
    Points: 14,047, Level: 35
    Level completed: 99%, Points required for next Level: 3
    Overall activity: 3.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H

    Country: UK - Scotland



    I think everythig is life is being delayed a few years.

    People are studying longer, leaving it later to get married, later to have kids, and children are living at home longer. I think its a natural extension of our longer life spans. I am all for increasing the retirement age, the 60 year olds of today are in much better shape than those 40 years ago.

    Although when I get there perhaps I wont be so sure.

  9. #9
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1000 Experience PointsVeteran

    Join Date
    25-02-10
    Posts
    61
    Points
    4,520
    Level
    19
    Points: 4,520, Level: 19
    Level completed: 68%, Points required for next Level: 130
    Overall activity: 8.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b1b2a1a
    MtDNA haplogroup
    J1c1

    Ethnic group
    Appalachian American
    Country: USA - West Virginia



    As long as they are doling out one welfare check, then no. Cut out all entitlements to the young an healthy before denying those who worked their whole lives.

  10. #10
    Sennin Achievements:
    3 months registered

    Join Date
    08-04-10
    Location
    Absurdistan
    Posts
    15

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b

    Ethnic group
    Celitalic
    Country: Belgium



    It makes no sense to keep the same retirement rules now as in the 1950's. The pyramid of age is completely different and so is the economy !

  11. #11
    Seeing is believing Achievements:
    Veteran5000 Experience Points
    Minty's Avatar
    Join Date
    26-02-06
    Location
    Paris
    Age
    29
    Posts
    438
    Points
    7,408
    Level
    25
    Points: 7,408, Level: 25
    Level completed: 72%, Points required for next Level: 142
    Overall activity: 0%


    Country: France



    France's retirement age is 60 years old, everybody else from other countries all can work longer and retire longer, and I don't see why the French can't work longer. Anyway either you increase the pay for retirement or you decrease the pay for retirement, which both have made different people very upset, increase retirement looks like the best option.

    France has one of the world's highest standards of social benefits; this attracts foreigners coming over here trying to get a piece of the share of the benefits. The problem is we know for sure one day the government will no longer be able to feed all these people, of course here we are not just talking about retired people.

    Sarkozy has tried to reform many of these problems and his approval rating has taken a dive. The French are never happy; I think he will not win for the next election.

    It also depends on how many years a person has contributed working for the French economy, right now you need to have worked up to 41.5 years in France to receive the full retirement here.
    Last edited by Minty; 14-06-10 at 23:27.

  12. #12
    Junior Member Achievements:
    3 months registered

    Join Date
    03-08-10
    Posts
    4


    Country: United Kingdom



    I have no intention of retiring until my health forces it. Hopefully I will die at my desk!

  13. #13
    Regular Member Achievements:
    3 months registered
    Aristander's Avatar
    Join Date
    15-07-10
    Posts
    194

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b1b2a1b*
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H1

    Ethnic group
    German
    Country: USA - Texas



    Quote Originally Posted by Marianne View Post
    I am in favor too. I think that since live expectancy becomes higher, retirement age should increase too. Two years should be enough for now. I also think that women should retire 2-4 years earlier than men, but this is a different topic and from what I read EU politicians are not huge fans of it
    I think since women live longer than men they should retire 2-4 years after men!

    Seriously here in the US there is a sliding scale depending on what year you were born in. For me I have to wait until 66 years old. People younger than me have their retirement ages adjusted up to 67. Anyone born in 1955 has to wait until 66 years 2 months, 1956 66 and 4 months, and so on, until any one born in 1960 or later has to work until 67. This has been in place since the Clinton presidency.
    This is for the Government provided retirement stipend. The place I have worked at for 38 years has a fully funded retirement system that allows full retirement at 62. It used to be you could get fully funded retirement at 58, but we were sold to a new company and they adjusted our retirement up to 62.

  14. #14
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Veteran5000 Experience Points
    Chris's Avatar
    Join Date
    05-06-09
    Location
    England
    Age
    60
    Posts
    151
    Points
    6,055
    Level
    23
    Points: 6,055, Level: 23
    Level completed: 1%, Points required for next Level: 495
    Overall activity: 0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R-L48+
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H

    Ethnic group
    English
    Country: UK - England



    It's inevitable, when you look at the state of the global economy and the changing demographics of society.

  15. #15
    Regular Member Achievements:
    3 months registered500 Experience Points
    GP850mAh's Avatar
    Join Date
    07-04-11
    Location
    Norway
    Age
    25
    Posts
    15


    Country: Norway



    I voted yes, we can't afford having people retire at such an early age as they are some places. We need all the workers we can get to create wealth.

  16. #16
    Banned Achievements:
    3 months registered1000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    13-12-10
    Location
    Brabant
    Age
    61
    Posts
    768

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b1b2a2* SNP P312

    Ethnic group
    Proto Celtic
    Country: Netherlands



    2 out of 3 members found this post helpful.
    I vote NO, because global economy is a disaster nowadays. Money that was saved by my generation for a pension, wasted by companies that used it to speculate on shares instead of using it to build houses, where it was originally meant for.
    Now that the capitalists have destroyed a lot of assets, the older people must not be the victim of that fraud!

    In many European countries taxes are the reason why people can't save enough money themselves to take care for a life after work. Fir instance in The Netherlands you can only have a 20.000 euro savings per person, without having to pay some wealth tax.
    If you sell a house, and earn let's say 100.000 euro per person, you have to do something with it, or you lose it in a few years.
    If you hire a house, the rents are even higher than when you buy a house.

    And let us not forget, it's ridiculous that older people should work so hard like they still do.
    The younger are poorly educated. Whose fault is that?
    Indeed, the stupid right wing governments.
    I work with young people, and it takes at least a year or two to get them some experience in the technology industry.
    The management is bad and ignorant. Older workers still work hard, and are badly paid.
    Companies kick out skilled workers, and then simply ask them back for a poorer wage.

    Who wants to work anymore for those leeches?
    Not me.

  17. #17
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1 year registered1000 Experience Points
    Regulus's Avatar
    Join Date
    08-11-10
    Location
    New Jersey
    Age
    47
    Posts
    430


    Ethnic group
    Irish and Italian
    Country: USA - New Jersey



    Quote Originally Posted by Reinaert View Post
    I vote NO, because global economy is a disaster nowadays. Money that was saved by my generation for a pension, wasted by companies that used it to speculate on shares instead of using it to build houses, where it was originally meant for.
    Now that the capitalists have destroyed a lot of assets, the older people must not be the victim of that fraud!

    In many European countries taxes are the reason why people can't save enough money themselves to take care for a life after work. Fir instance in The Netherlands you can only have a 20.000 euro savings per person, without having to pay some wealth tax.
    If you sell a house, and earn let's say 100.000 euro per person, you have to do something with it, or you lose it in a few years.
    If you hire a house, the rents are even higher than when you buy a house.

    And let us not forget, it's ridiculous that older people should work so hard like they still do.
    The younger are poorly educated. Whose fault is that?
    Indeed, the stupid right wing governments.
    I work with young people, and it takes at least a year or two to get them some experience in the technology industry.
    The management is bad and ignorant. Older workers still work hard, and are badly paid.
    Companies kick out skilled workers, and then simply ask them back for a poorer wage.

    Who wants to work anymore for those leeches?
    Not me.
    I have to agree with some of these points.
    Those in control of pension funds should know that they must invest properly, avoiding speculative markets, or face severe puishment.
    I do not agree with those who claim that we should raise the retirement age simply because people are living longer. The fact that we are living longer does not make one more able to work or more vigorous at 65 years old than a person of similiar age twenty years ago.

    Of course the age minimum of 65 applies to the US, but the principle is the same for all countries when it comes to changing whatever minimum there is and by extension forcing older people to work longer.
    Last edited by Regulus; 19-04-11 at 20:53.

  18. #18
    Elite member Achievements:
    Tagger First Class10000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Awards:
    Master Tagger
    edao's Avatar
    Join Date
    10-02-10
    Location
    Britain
    Posts
    439
    Points
    14,047
    Level
    35
    Points: 14,047, Level: 35
    Level completed: 99%, Points required for next Level: 3
    Overall activity: 3.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H

    Country: UK - Scotland



    A video about the world aging population from everyones favourtie institution the IMF!

    "The world's population is getting older. Countries need to think about how fewer young people can continue to support the elderly."

    Watch video


  19. #19
    Advisor Achievements:
    Three FriendsVeteranTagger First Class25000 Experience Points
    Awards:
    Posting Award
    LeBrok's Avatar
    Join Date
    18-11-09
    Location
    Calgary
    Posts
    4,307
    Points
    27,001
    Level
    50
    Points: 27,001, Level: 50
    Level completed: 46%, Points required for next Level: 549
    Overall activity: 99.3%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b1b2a
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H1c

    Ethnic group
    Citizen of the world
    Country: Canada-Alberta



    I've heard this many times in many forms. Usually the theme goes that in past, when pension, retirement started (about 100 years ago) there was 30 people working for one retiree. Now we have 8 working for one retired, and it will get to 4 in a generation.

    It made me thinking, how is it really possible, to achieve in 8 now what 30 had to do in a past. On top of it our retired people have much better retirement than people one hundred years ago could afford.
    The explanation that I found is in production, economy, the growth of GDP per capita.
    I found this:
    http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/eco_gdp_per_cap_in_190-economy-gdp-per-capita-1900
    It shows GDP per capita in 1900 for many countries, in today’s dollars.

    It means that GDP per person has risen roughly 10 fold, in last 110 years. It makes sense when we compare what life was like in our countries 100 years ago and now. We have bigger and nicer houses, fast shiny cars, phones, tv, more food, bigger bellies, clothes, travel, health care, fly around the world, you name it.
    How is it possible?
    Do we work harder? - No
    Do we work longer? - No
    So how can we produce 10 times as much as hard working people of the past? How today's worker can produce as much as 10 workers century ago? Did we become a super humans, supermen? What do we have they didn't?
    A magic wand maybe?

    Well, we have machines, machines everywhere. Many more, faster and efficient machines than ancestors did one hindered years ago. Machines harvest, produce, dig, carry goods, lift loads, build cars, calculate, solve problems, wash, pump, cut. Generally they do work for 10 men. Today’s people are as efficient at work as our grandpas were long time ago, but the production progress, the GDP growth was achieved by our beautiful machines. Often undervalued, and working tirelessly behind the scenes, are taken for granted, and are forgotten how valuable they are. Surely people have to operate and maintain them, but the combination of workers and our powerful machines is awesome.

    Yes, it's true that only 8 today’s workers pay dues for one retiree, but if one compares it to efficiency from hundred years ago, it's like 80 workers from old times paying for one man over 65 now.
    Now, it doesn't sound that scary anymore, does it?

    Let's go 100 years in the future. Let's assume nothing really bad happened, meteorite didn't wipe us out, and the WW3 was avoided. Even Greece is doing well again.
    Thanks to science we created even better machines, and finally robots. GDP grew another 10 fold. It would mean that one worker from future can produce 100 times of what worker 200 years back could. It also means that one single worker will be able to support one retiree.......Scrap this.
    All people will be retired, robots work for all people, robots operate machines,....scrap this. Machines operate and fix themselves; they even design new machines to produce even more for us. We all retire; nobody works, and still has a sweet life.

    What I was trying to explain is that we look at numbers of how many works for retired people the wrong way. We are not comparing apples to apples.

    Besides, in western world, 65+ seams to be the richest age group from them all.

  20. #20
    Banned Achievements:
    3 months registered1000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    13-12-10
    Location
    Brabant
    Age
    61
    Posts
    768

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b1b2a2* SNP P312

    Ethnic group
    Proto Celtic
    Country: Netherlands



    Quote Originally Posted by edao View Post
    A video about the world aging population from everyones favourtie institution the IMF!

    "The world's population is getting older. Countries need to think about how fewer young people can continue to support the elderly."

    Watch video

    Well.. You say it... Fewer young people...
    Why? Because in the capitalist mayhem of the last thirty years it isn't very wise to have a bunch of children.
    Parents plan 2 or 3 children, simply because they can't afford more.
    Education has skyrocketed in costs.
    And then there are the companies moving their activities to China.
    That has less jobs as a result.
    I had a nice career in electronics and IT in the 80's and 90's, but my children saw the jobs disappear to the far east, so they weren't interested in a technical study anymore.
    The governments also were good friends with the banking boys, and together they created the hot air bubble that collapsed a few years ago.
    Now the citizens should pay, while the business jackals get away with extremely high bonuses? NO WAY!

  21. #21
    Elite member Achievements:
    Tagger First Class10000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Awards:
    Master Tagger
    edao's Avatar
    Join Date
    10-02-10
    Location
    Britain
    Posts
    439
    Points
    14,047
    Level
    35
    Points: 14,047, Level: 35
    Level completed: 99%, Points required for next Level: 3
    Overall activity: 3.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H

    Country: UK - Scotland



    Good point Lebrok, i do think people love to sensationalize global warming, obesity, old age.
    We love to think about how doomed we all are!

    I wonder though if we are becoming to automated, we now have auto check outs in the UK in supermarkets meaning they save money on staff, personally I prefer them as they are quicker and easier that queuing for small talk with some half wit. I have done work with an international printer who are moving their whole business model online, they are basically planning on closing their entire franchise net work over the net ten years. They make a bigger margin the customer get a lower price by cutting out the franchise who acts as a middle man. The internet has allowed them a sales outlet which used to be the high street. While you might argue this is win win, its just more jobs lost, I wonder how we match up a growing population with falling jobs?

  22. #22
    Passione Mediterranea Achievements:
    Three Friends10000 Experience PointsVeteran
    julia90's Avatar
    Join Date
    24-09-10
    Location
    Florence-Prato
    Posts
    1,076
    Points
    19,840
    Level
    42
    Points: 19,840, Level: 42
    Level completed: 99%, Points required for next Level: 10
    Overall activity: 0%


    Ethnic group
    Tuscan
    Country: Italy



    here in italy there was a scandal some decades ago:
    basically the government allowed some of its public workers the so called "Baby Pensions".
    Baby Pensions = In 1973 with the Rumor Government where approved pensions for statal workers as soon as they reached 14 yeras and sixth months of contributions for women married with children, or 20 yeras of contributions for men public workers or for women without children.
    Thankfully these kind of injustices were eliminated in 1992.
    In Italy in the past (more), but also nowdays, public workers are more protected (expecially on pensions, as they still go to pension earlier than private workers) than private workers; this is a huge injustice.. the wearing effect of time on men is the same for everybody public or private worker.. then why are they still threated differently??... i have a personal answer to this.. because they are votes for socialists... that so socialists and egualitarian aren't because they threat people differently...

  23. #23
    Regular Member Achievements:
    3 months registered250 Experience Points
    The Alani Dragon's Avatar
    Join Date
    22-11-11
    Posts
    11


    Country: United Kingdom



    There needs to be flexibility in the age of retirement as some people wish to carry on working, while others can't wait to retire. Should the age increase? I'm not too keen on an increase, but if there are finacial problems in a country then a small increase might be sensible, as long as medical research backs up the ability of the population to cope.

  24. #24
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1 year registered1000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    06-06-11
    Location
    Newcastle upon Tyne
    Posts
    54
    Points
    1,811
    Level
    11
    Points: 1,811, Level: 11
    Level completed: 87%, Points required for next Level: 39
    Overall activity: 0%


    Ethnic group
    White (Nordic)
    Country: UK - England



    The thing is, if people wanted to, they could retire at 40 or 50. If people choose to be a 9-5 slave all their life then expect to work later, of course. It makes sense if our population is getting older and there's not enough working people to support them.

  25. #25
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1 year registered1000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    03-03-12
    Posts
    212
    Points
    1,827
    Level
    11
    Points: 1,827, Level: 11
    Level completed: 93%, Points required for next Level: 23
    Overall activity: 15.0%


    Ethnic group
    Serbian
    Country: Netherlands



    Quote Originally Posted by LeBrok View Post
    I found this:
    http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/eco_gdp_per_cap_in_190-economy-gdp-per-capita-1900
    It shows GDP per capita in 1900 for many countries, in today’s dollars.

    It means that GDP per person has risen roughly 10 fold, in last 110 years. It makes sense when we compare what life was like in our countries 100 years ago and now. We have bigger and nicer houses, fast shiny cars, phones, tv, more food, bigger bellies, clothes, travel, health care, fly around the world, you name it.
    How is it possible?
    Do we work harder? - No
    Do we work longer? - No
    So how can we produce 10 times as much as hard working people of the past? How today's worker can produce as much as 10 workers century ago? Did we become a super humans, supermen? What do we have they didn't?
    A magic wand maybe?

    Well, we have machines, machines everywhere. Many more, faster and efficient machines than ancestors did one hindered years ago. Machines harvest, produce, dig, carry goods, lift loads, build cars, calculate, solve problems, wash, pump, cut. Generally they do work for 10 men. Today’s people are as efficient at work as our grandpas were long time ago, but the production progress, the GDP growth was achieved by our beautiful machines. Often undervalued, and working tirelessly behind the scenes, are taken for granted, and are forgotten how valuable they are. Surely people have to operate and maintain them, but the combination of workers and our powerful machines is awesome.
    its not only usage of machines,,,
    we have learned that merchandize is not just a real product, but anything one may wish to buy....
    majority of products today are non touchable things like informations and services....
    industry has turned into a matter of convincing people to buy what they do not really need...
    and very process of convincing is another new industry with lot of money...
    but with steadily growing population it is matter of time where real products like food and water (and maybe even air one day?) will become scarce resources and their price will rise...so we will again work just to feed ourselves...

    and population needs to keep steady increase as otherwise there will be not enough money for retired people....
    in mean time, nature is turning in fast pace into one big garbage can where we dispose of all products that we do not really need...

    to conclude, this can not last forever....
    economist should think of better models of aranging resource usage of a society...

    there is illusion being created about carrying for environment by talks of CO2... but CO2 is not a problem, it is merely a consequence....when temperature rises CO2 rises as well....real problem is destroyed ozone layer due to immature techologies we use - e.g. for our refrigerators... real problems are piles of garbage that we produce increasingly more....we are civilization that destroys itself...

    taking that into account i am not sure I need to worry about retirment.... life as we know it may ceaze to exist before that time...

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Increased complaints at Belgian police from population
    By Maciamo in forum European News & Hot Topics
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 05-11-06, 19:47
  2. Solidarity 25 years ago
    By Index in forum European News & Hot Topics
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 13-10-05, 01:09

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •