In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
bert wrote:
I used to work in TV in London. Some live current affairs progs finished
late - by the time we'd cleared up etc, PT had stopped. So under those
circumstances got a (shared) private hire car home. Often took far longer
than the PT journey at worst, depending on who you were sharing with. ;-)

To and from place of work if provided is a taxable benefit.

Even where your normal method of travel, ie PT, is no longer running?
I'm not aware of any such exclusion
BTW, many who worked there had season tickets, so a car home didn't save
them any money.


And we were taxed on it as a benefit. But MPs who appeared on that prog I
was working on, not. They could claim the full cost of their taxi - or had
a free private hire car provided.

Nothing to do with being an MP but to do with fact that studio was not
their place of work.

It was actually a place many of them worked at more than me. It wasn't my
normal place of work.

Normal place of work is a specific definition with HMRC (Don't ask me to
quote it) The fact they often went there doesn't affect that. Where MPs
are unusual is that they have two places of work - Westminster and their
constituency.
--
bert

In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
Adrian wrote:
On Mon, 28 Sep 2015 14:58:38 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

People will insist on living ever longer but not wanting to increase
their working years by a similar %age. Something's gotta give.

Many have had their working years increased.

Not by anywhere near as much as life expectancy has increased.

Just because someone will live longer doesn't mean they are capable of
having their retirement age extended by the same amount. And the big snag
is there's no real way of predicting the health and fitness of a person
when they're much younger.


Well there never has been so what's new?
And, even
then, it's been solidly whined about.


--
bert

In article , charles
writes
In article ,
Adrian wrote:
On Mon, 28 Sep 2015 13:59:08 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Teachers ... a guaranteed free pension.

Free pension? So my aunt should demand back all the payments she's made
into her pension scheme?

It was certainly 'free' at one time. And not a funded pension, but paid
from taxation.

"Paid for by other people" is an odd definition of "free".

So this free pension was once paid for by everybody else, but is now paid
for by the teacher themselves.

Once upon a time, many jobs in the public sector provided free this and
free that and the salaries were based on those "free" things. Someone
decided that it was difficult to make comparisons with outside jobs under
these circumstances and the salaries were raised to compensate for the loss
of these free things.

And ended up with salaries well above the comparable work in the private
sector.
People will insist on living ever longer but not wanting to increase
their working years by a similar %age. Something's gotta give.


--
bert

In article ,
writes
Adrian wrote:
People will insist on living ever longer but not wanting to increase
their working years by a similar %age. Something's gotta give.

I'm perfectly happy to work a larger percentage of my life, when is
somebody going to force soembody to actually pay me for that work?

jgh
You refer to companies that mascarade as charities, get massive tax
breaks and staff their shops with unpaid "volunteers" whilst paying
"Chief executive Officers" more than the PM?
--
bert

In article , bert
wrote:
In article , charles
writes
In article , Adrian
wrote:
On Mon, 28 Sep 2015 13:59:08 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Teachers ... a guaranteed free pension.

Free pension? So my aunt should demand back all the payments she's
made into her pension scheme?

It was certainly 'free' at one time. And not a funded pension, but
paid from taxation.

"Paid for by other people" is an odd definition of "free".

So this free pension was once paid for by everybody else, but is now
paid for by the teacher themselves.

Once upon a time, many jobs in the public sector provided free this and
free that and the salaries were based on those "free" things. Someone
decided that it was difficult to make comparisons with outside jobs
under these circumstances and the salaries were raised to compensate for
the loss of these free things.

And ended up with salaries well above the comparable work in the private
sector.

if you are referring to teachers, those in the private sector earn a lot
more than those in the state one.

--
Please note new email address:

"charles" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Adrian wrote:
On Mon, 28 Sep 2015 13:59:08 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Teachers ... a guaranteed free pension.

Free pension? So my aunt should demand back all the payments she's
made
into her pension scheme?

It was certainly 'free' at one time. And not a funded pension, but paid
from taxation.

"Paid for by other people" is an odd definition of "free".

So this free pension was once paid for by everybody else, but is now paid
for by the teacher themselves.

Once upon a time, many jobs in the public sector provided free this and
free that and the salaries were based on those "free" things. Someone
decided that it was difficult to make comparisons with outside jobs under
these circumstances and the salaries were raised to compensate for the
loss
of these free things.

In fact what actually happened was that plenty of outside jobs
had lots of free perks and that meant that they could pay lower
salarys and that meant that less income tax was paid, so the
reason they weren't allowed to do that any longer was because
the tax system wanted income tax to be paid on the real income,
including the 'free' perks.

People will insist on living ever longer but not wanting to increase
their working years by a similar %age. Something's gotta give.

"charles" wrote in message
...
In article , bert
wrote:
In article , charles
writes
In article , Adrian
wrote:
On Mon, 28 Sep 2015 13:59:08 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Teachers ... a guaranteed free pension.

Free pension? So my aunt should demand back all the payments she's
made into her pension scheme?

It was certainly 'free' at one time. And not a funded pension, but
paid from taxation.

"Paid for by other people" is an odd definition of "free".

So this free pension was once paid for by everybody else, but is now
paid for by the teacher themselves.

Once upon a time, many jobs in the public sector provided free this and
free that and the salaries were based on those "free" things. Someone
decided that it was difficult to make comparisons with outside jobs
under these circumstances and the salaries were raised to compensate for
the loss of these free things.

And ended up with salaries well above the comparable work in the private
sector.

if you are referring to teachers, those in the private sector earn a lot
more than those in the state one.

Not in the roman catholic systemic schools they don’t.

On 28/09/15 20:32, bert wrote:
In article ,
writes
Adrian wrote:
People will insist on living ever longer but not wanting to increase
their working years by a similar %age. Something's gotta give.

I'm perfectly happy to work a larger percentage of my life, when is
somebody going to force soembody to actually pay me for that work?

jgh
You refer to companies that mascarade as charities,

Masquerade, bert. Masquerade..

Mascarade is a drink made of eyeliner

get massive tax
breaks and staff their shops with unpaid "volunteers" whilst paying
"Chief executive Officers" more than the PM?


--
Global warming is the new Margaret Thatcher. There is no ill in the
world it's not directly responsible for.

On Monday, 28 September 2015 20:36:11 UTC+1, bert wrote:
In article , charles
writes
In article ,
Adrian wrote:
On Mon, 28 Sep 2015 13:59:08 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Teachers ... a guaranteed free pension.

Free pension? So my aunt should demand back all the payments she's made
into her pension scheme?

It was certainly 'free' at one time. And not a funded pension, but paid
from taxation.

"Paid for by other people" is an odd definition of "free".

So this free pension was once paid for by everybody else, but is now paid
for by the teacher themselves.

Once upon a time, many jobs in the public sector provided free this and
free that and the salaries were based on those "free" things. Someone
decided that it was difficult to make comparisons with outside jobs under
these circumstances and the salaries were raised to compensate for the loss
of these free things.

And ended up with salaries well above the comparable work in the private
sector.

far more didn;t.
we have 'lost' two lectures recently the high pensions and saleries couldn;t keep them here when one went to google the other went to Apple inc.

In article ,
bert wrote:
Just because someone will live longer doesn't mean they are capable of
having their retirement age extended by the same amount. And the big snag
is there's no real way of predicting the health and fitness of a person
when they're much younger.


Well there never has been so what's new?

Moving the retirement age upwards is what's new. For quite some time
before, it was moving in the opposite direction.

--
*I get enough exercise just pushing my luck.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
charles wrote:
And ended up with salaries well above the comparable work in the
private sector.

if you are referring to teachers, those in the private sector earn a lot
more than those in the state one.

And agency nurses cost a lot more than staff ones.

--
*Why isn't there a special name for the back of your knee?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
bert wrote:
Just because someone will live longer doesn't mean they are capable of
having their retirement age extended by the same amount. And the big snag
is there's no real way of predicting the health and fitness of a person
when they're much younger.


Well there never has been so what's new?

Moving the retirement age upwards is what's new. For quite some time
before, it was moving in the opposite direction.

But your "snag" is the same whatever the retirement age. So nothing is
new other than a new opportunity for you to make yet another irrelevant
comment.
--
bert

In article ,
whisky-dave writes
On Monday, 28 September 2015 20:36:11 UTC+1, bert wrote:
In article , charles
writes
In article ,
Adrian wrote:
On Mon, 28 Sep 2015 13:59:08 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Teachers ... a guaranteed free pension.

Free pension? So my aunt should demand back all the payments she's made
into her pension scheme?

It was certainly 'free' at one time. And not a funded pension, but paid
from taxation.

"Paid for by other people" is an odd definition of "free".

So this free pension was once paid for by everybody else, but is now paid
for by the teacher themselves.

Once upon a time, many jobs in the public sector provided free this and
free that and the salaries were based on those "free" things. Someone
decided that it was difficult to make comparisons with outside jobs under
these circumstances and the salaries were raised to compensate for the loss
of these free things.

And ended up with salaries well above the comparable work in the private
sector.

far more didn;t.
we have 'lost' two lectures recently the high pensions and saleries
couldn;t keep them here when one went to google the other went to Apple
inc.


So they went to the private sector for a drop which rather proves my
point
--
bert

In article , The Natural Philosopher
writes
On 28/09/15 20:32, bert wrote:
In article ,
writes
Adrian wrote:
People will insist on living ever longer but not wanting to increase
their working years by a similar %age. Something's gotta give.

I'm perfectly happy to work a larger percentage of my life, when is
somebody going to force soembody to actually pay me for that work?

jgh
You refer to companies that mascarade as charities,

Masquerade, bert. Masquerade..

OOPS - no wonder the spill chicken didn't compute
Mascarade is a drink made of eyeliner

get massive tax
breaks and staff their shops with unpaid "volunteers" whilst paying
"Chief executive Officers" more than the PM?



--
bert

In article ,
bert wrote:
In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article , bert
wrote:
Just because someone will live longer doesn't mean they are capable
of having their retirement age extended by the same amount. And the
big snag is there's no real way of predicting the health and fitness
of a person when they're much younger.


Well there never has been so what's new?

Moving the retirement age upwards is what's new. For quite some time
before, it was moving in the opposite direction.

But your "snag" is the same whatever the retirement age. So nothing is
new other than a new opportunity for you to make yet another irrelevant
comment.

Ah right. So you obviously think people are all capable of working and age
makes no difference. Bully for you.

--
*War does not determine who is right - only who is left.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Tue, 29 Sep 2015 18:30:31 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Just because someone will live longer doesn't mean they are capable
of having their retirement age extended by the same amount. And the
big snag is there's no real way of predicting the health and
fitness of a person when they're much younger.

Well there never has been so what's new?

Moving the retirement age upwards is what's new. For quite some time
before, it was moving in the opposite direction.

But your "snag" is the same whatever the retirement age. So nothing is
new other than a new opportunity for you to make yet another irrelevant
comment.

Ah right. So you obviously think people are all capable of working and
age makes no difference. Bully for you.

Umm, how does that differ for people under retirement age?

Think about it a mo, Dave.

Not everybody over retirement age is fit to work, no. But many - an ever-
increasing percentage - are.

That won't change much if the retirement age changes. The proportion will
move a bit, yes, but not much.

And since when was 60/65 such a magical change-over point, anyway?

In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
bert wrote:
In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article , bert
wrote:
Just because someone will live longer doesn't mean they are capable
of having their retirement age extended by the same amount. And the
big snag is there's no real way of predicting the health and fitness
of a person when they're much younger.


Well there never has been so what's new?

Moving the retirement age upwards is what's new. For quite some time
before, it was moving in the opposite direction.

But your "snag" is the same whatever the retirement age. So nothing is
new other than a new opportunity for you to make yet another irrelevant
comment.

Ah right. So you obviously think people are all capable of working and age
makes no difference. Bully for you.

You really are thick as pig ****.

--
bert

In article ,
Adrian wrote:
Ah right. So you obviously think people are all capable of working and
age makes no difference. Bully for you.

Umm, how does that differ for people under retirement age?

Age makes no difference?

Think about it a mo, Dave.

Have you thought about it?

Not everybody over retirement age is fit to work, no. But many - an ever-
increasing percentage - are.

It depends very much on the work.

That won't change much if the retirement age changes. The proportion
will move a bit, yes, but not much.

Have you got any figures for this? Many age related illnesses are becoming
more common. Not less so. Some things on the body can wear out at the same
sort of time - but may not prove fatal.

And since when was 60/65 such a magical change-over point, anyway?

It was a figure arrived at from experience.

--
*Always drink upstream from the herd *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
bert wrote:
Ah right. So you obviously think people are all capable of working and
age makes no difference. Bully for you.

You really are thick as pig ****.

Typical right wing response. Loose the argument and resort to insults.

--
*If at first you don't succeed, avoid skydiving.*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Adrian wrote:
Ah right. So you obviously think people are all capable of working and
age makes no difference. Bully for you.

Umm, how does that differ for people under retirement age?

Age makes no difference?

Think about it a mo, Dave.

Have you thought about it?

Not everybody over retirement age is fit to work, no. But many - an ever-
increasing percentage - are.

It depends very much on the work.

That won't change much if the retirement age changes. The proportion
will move a bit, yes, but not much.

Have you got any figures for this? Many age related illnesses are becoming
more common. Not less so. Some things on the body can wear out at the same
sort of time - but may not prove fatal.

And since when was 60/65 such a magical change-over point, anyway?

It was a figure arrived at from experience.

Like hell it was. It was just plucked out of the air.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
bert wrote:
Ah right. So you obviously think people are all capable of working and
age makes no difference. Bully for you.

You really are thick as pig ****.

Typical right wing response. Loose the argument

He lost no argument.

and resort to insults.

Corse you never ever do anything like that, eh ?

In article ,
Rod Speed wrote:
It was a figure arrived at from experience.

Like hell it was. It was just plucked out of the air.

You'd certainly know about that.

--
*A bicycle can't stand alone because it's two tyred.*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Wed, 30 Sep 2015 11:26:05 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Ah right. So you obviously think people are all capable of working
and age makes no difference. Bully for you.

Umm, how does that differ for people under retirement age?

Age makes no difference?

Age makes a difference, of course it does. A sliding scale difference.
Some people are past-it for their careers in their 20s and 30s. Others
are perfectly hale and hearty and capable of working into their 90s. Yes,
the numbers are small at either ends of the graph, of course they are.
But there is no sharp cut-off at 60-for-women-65-for-men.

Not everybody over retirement age is fit to work, no. But many - an
ever-increasing percentage - are.

It depends very much on the work.

Indeed. Yet a single retirement age doesn't take account of that.

That won't change much if the retirement age changes. The proportion
will move a bit, yes, but not much.

Have you got any figures for this? Many age related illnesses are
becoming more common. Not less so. Some things on the body can wear out
at the same sort of time - but may not prove fatal.

Yes, they are - in people's 80s, not 60s. They're becoming more common
primarily because people aren't dying of other things first.

And since when was 60/65 such a magical change-over point, anyway?

It was a figure arrived at from experience.

It was a figure arrived at from experience at a time when the medical
profession had very different tools, and gave very different outcomes.

In article ,
Adrian wrote:
On Wed, 30 Sep 2015 11:26:05 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Ah right. So you obviously think people are all capable of working
and age makes no difference. Bully for you.

Umm, how does that differ for people under retirement age?

Age makes no difference?

Age makes a difference, of course it does. A sliding scale difference.
Some people are past-it for their careers in their 20s and 30s. Others
are perfectly hale and hearty and capable of working into their 90s.
Yes, the numbers are small at either ends of the graph, of course they
are. But there is no sharp cut-off at 60-for-women-65-for-men.

Never said there was. But it is going to depend on the job. Not many 70
year olds are going to be able to dig holes etc like a 20 year old. And
jobs where physical fitness is needed - say police or a fireman - tend to
have an earlier retirement age anyway. Of course that's not to say they
them become unfit for any work.

Not everybody over retirement age is fit to work, no. But many - an
ever-increasing percentage - are.

It depends very much on the work.

Indeed. Yet a single retirement age doesn't take account of that.

No single age takes account of all factors either. For anything.

That won't change much if the retirement age changes. The proportion
will move a bit, yes, but not much.

Have you got any figures for this? Many age related illnesses are
becoming more common. Not less so. Some things on the body can wear out
at the same sort of time - but may not prove fatal.

Yes, they are - in people's 80s, not 60s. They're becoming more common
primarily because people aren't dying of other things first.

That doesn't always seem to be the case with joint failure. Dementia of
the various types. And so on. They don't seem to happen in later life
commesurate with the ages people now live to.

And since when was 60/65 such a magical change-over point, anyway?

It was a figure arrived at from experience.

It was a figure arrived at from experience at a time when the medical
profession had very different tools, and gave very different outcomes.

And many died soon after retiring in those days.

It's all too convenient for a politician to sort the problem of people
living longer by simply upping the retirement age. But it's been changed
far more rapidly than any corresponding increase in life expectancy.

It's one thing for some old fart to take a taxi to the House of Lords when
it suits them and leave when they want to. And call it working. Different
matter for a bricklayer working outside in all weathers. Think you'll get
the drift?

--
*There are 3 kinds of people: those who can count & those who can't.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Wed, 30 Sep 2015 14:34:53 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Different matter for a bricklayer working outside in all weathers. Think
you'll get the drift?

Is it so very different for a 64yo and a 66yo brickie?

On Tuesday, 29 September 2015 17:20:16 UTC+1, bert wrote:
In article ,
whisky-dave writes
On Monday, 28 September 2015 20:36:11 UTC+1, bert wrote:
In article , charles
writes
In article ,
Adrian wrote:
On Mon, 28 Sep 2015 13:59:08 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Teachers ... a guaranteed free pension.

Free pension? So my aunt should demand back all the payments she's made
into her pension scheme?

It was certainly 'free' at one time. And not a funded pension, but paid
from taxation.

"Paid for by other people" is an odd definition of "free".

So this free pension was once paid for by everybody else, but is now paid
for by the teacher themselves.

Once upon a time, many jobs in the public sector provided free this and
free that and the salaries were based on those "free" things. Someone
decided that it was difficult to make comparisons with outside jobs under
these circumstances and the salaries were raised to compensate for the loss
of these free things.

And ended up with salaries well above the comparable work in the private
sector.

far more didn;t.
we have 'lost' two lectures recently the high pensions and saleries
couldn;t keep them here when one went to google the other went to Apple
inc.


So they went to the private sector for a drop which rather proves my
point

No I was being sacrastic. I would exopect Aple and google to pay more than they do here, othertwise I doubt they would have gone.
Or do you think everyone that goes to work for Apple/google goes for the 'honour' of saying where they work.

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .

In article , Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:

In article ,
bert wrote:
Ah right. So you obviously think people are all capable of working and
age makes no difference. Bully for you.

You really are thick as pig ****.

Typical right wing response. Loose the argument and resort to insults.

Oy! "Lose" is spelt with one "o". "Loose" is a different other word.

Associated with pig ****, it's not quite as thick.

In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
It's all too convenient for a politician to sort the problem of people
living longer by simply upping the retirement age. But it's been changed
far more rapidly than any corresponding increase in life expectancy.
So when was it set at 60/65 (or above and when was it changed?
--
bert

In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
bert wrote:
Ah right. So you obviously think people are all capable of working and
age makes no difference. Bully for you.

You really are thick as pig ****.

Typical right wing response. Loose the argument and resort to insults.

Resort to frustration when one tries to have a rational discussion with
someone who swings about like a loose cannon.
--
bert

In article ,
whisky-dave writes
On Tuesday, 29 September 2015 17:20:16 UTC+1, bert wrote:
In article ,
whisky-dave writes
On Monday, 28 September 2015 20:36:11 UTC+1, bert wrote:
In article , charles
writes
In article ,
Adrian wrote:
On Mon, 28 Sep 2015 13:59:08 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Teachers ... a guaranteed free pension.

Free pension? So my aunt should demand back all the payments
she's made
into her pension scheme?

It was certainly 'free' at one time. And not a funded
pension, but paid
from taxation.

"Paid for by other people" is an odd definition of "free".

So this free pension was once paid for by everybody else, but
is now paid
for by the teacher themselves.

Once upon a time, many jobs in the public sector provided free this and
free that and the salaries were based on those "free" things. Someone
decided that it was difficult to make comparisons with outside jobs under
these circumstances and the salaries were raised to compensate
for the loss
of these free things.

And ended up with salaries well above the comparable work in the private
sector.

far more didn;t.
we have 'lost' two lectures recently the high pensions and saleries
couldn;t keep them here when one went to google the other went to Apple
inc.


So they went to the private sector for a drop which rather proves my
point

No I was being sacrastic. I would exopect Aple and google to pay more
than they do here, othertwise I doubt they would have gone.
There's always greener grass on the other side of the hill. American
employers tend to take the view that if they want someone they will pay
whatever it takes.
Or do you think everyone that goes to work for Apple/google goes for
the 'honour' of saying where they work.




I've no specific knowledge why they go there.
--
bert

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Rod Speed wrote:
It was a figure arrived at from experience.

Like hell it was. It was just plucked out of the air.

You'd certainly know about that.

You never could bull**** your way out of a wet paper bag.

No surprise that you needed a union.

"Adrian" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 30 Sep 2015 11:26:05 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Ah right. So you obviously think people are all capable of working
and age makes no difference. Bully for you.

Umm, how does that differ for people under retirement age?

Age makes no difference?

Age makes a difference, of course it does. A sliding scale difference.
Some people are past-it for their careers in their 20s and 30s. Others
are perfectly hale and hearty and capable of working into their 90s. Yes,
the numbers are small at either ends of the graph, of course they are.
But there is no sharp cut-off at 60-for-women-65-for-men.

In fact there is no evidence that women wear out 5 years
sooner than men on average. In fact quite the reverse.

Not everybody over retirement age is fit to work, no. But many - an
ever-increasing percentage - are.

It depends very much on the work.

Indeed. Yet a single retirement age doesn't take account of that.

That won't change much if the retirement age changes. The proportion
will move a bit, yes, but not much.

Have you got any figures for this? Many age related illnesses are
becoming more common. Not less so. Some things on the body can wear out
at the same sort of time - but may not prove fatal.

Yes, they are - in people's 80s, not 60s. They're becoming more common
primarily because people aren't dying of other things first.

And since when was 60/65 such a magical change-over point, anyway?

It was a figure arrived at from experience.

It was a figure arrived at from experience at a time when the medical
profession had very different tools, and gave very different outcomes.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Adrian wrote:
On Wed, 30 Sep 2015 11:26:05 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Ah right. So you obviously think people are all capable of working
and age makes no difference. Bully for you.

Umm, how does that differ for people under retirement age?

Age makes no difference?

Age makes a difference, of course it does. A sliding scale difference.
Some people are past-it for their careers in their 20s and 30s. Others
are perfectly hale and hearty and capable of working into their 90s.
Yes, the numbers are small at either ends of the graph, of course they
are. But there is no sharp cut-off at 60-for-women-65-for-men.

Never said there was. But it is going to depend on the job. Not many 70
year olds are going to be able to dig holes etc like a 20 year old. And
jobs where physical fitness is needed - say police or a fireman - tend to
have an earlier retirement age anyway. Of course that's not to say they
them become unfit for any work.

Not everybody over retirement age is fit to work, no. But many - an
ever-increasing percentage - are.

It depends very much on the work.

Indeed. Yet a single retirement age doesn't take account of that.

No single age takes account of all factors either. For anything.

That won't change much if the retirement age changes. The proportion
will move a bit, yes, but not much.

Have you got any figures for this? Many age related illnesses are
becoming more common. Not less so. Some things on the body can wear out
at the same sort of time - but may not prove fatal.

Yes, they are - in people's 80s, not 60s. They're becoming more common
primarily because people aren't dying of other things first.

That doesn't always seem to be the case with joint failure. Dementia of
the various types. And so on. They don't seem to happen in later life
commesurate with the ages people now live to.

And since when was 60/65 such a magical change-over point, anyway?

It was a figure arrived at from experience.

It was a figure arrived at from experience at a time when the medical
profession had very different tools, and gave very different outcomes.

And many died soon after retiring in those days.

It's all too convenient for a politician to sort the problem of people
living longer by simply upping the retirement age. But it's been changed
far more rapidly than any corresponding increase in life expectancy.

Only because it took them a hell of a long time
to get around to changing the retirement age.

It's one thing for some old fart to take a taxi to the House of Lords when
it suits them and leave when they want to. And call it working. Different
matter for a bricklayer working outside in all weathers. Think you'll get
the drift?

**** all of the workforce do that sort of manual work anymore.

On Wednesday, 30 September 2015 20:03:37 UTC+1, bert wrote:
In article ,
whisky-dave writes
On Tuesday, 29 September 2015 17:20:16 UTC+1, bert wrote:
In article ,
whisky-dave writes
On Monday, 28 September 2015 20:36:11 UTC+1, bert wrote:
In article , charles
writes
In article ,
Adrian wrote:
On Mon, 28 Sep 2015 13:59:08 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Teachers ... a guaranteed free pension.

Free pension? So my aunt should demand back all the payments
she's made
into her pension scheme?

It was certainly 'free' at one time. And not a funded
pension, but paid
from taxation.

"Paid for by other people" is an odd definition of "free".

So this free pension was once paid for by everybody else, but
is now paid
for by the teacher themselves.

Once upon a time, many jobs in the public sector provided free this and
free that and the salaries were based on those "free" things. Someone
decided that it was difficult to make comparisons with outside jobs under
these circumstances and the salaries were raised to compensate
for the loss
of these free things.

And ended up with salaries well above the comparable work in the private
sector.

far more didn;t.
we have 'lost' two lectures recently the high pensions and saleries
couldn;t keep them here when one went to google the other went to Apple
inc.


So they went to the private sector for a drop which rather proves my
point

No I was being sacrastic. I would exopect Aple and google to pay more
than they do here, othertwise I doubt they would have gone.
There's always greener grass on the other side of the hill. American
employers tend to take the view that if they want someone they will pay
whatever it takes.
Or do you think everyone that goes to work for Apple/google goes for
the 'honour' of saying where they work.




I've no specific knowledge why they go there.

Most can take an educated guess(es), why would anyone uproot themselves to another country unless it was in their interest in some way.

Moving from the UK to USA getting a working visa etc .
Yeah sure ....