This site is an archive of the OneSpace Forums. Return to forum index.
This site is an archive of the OneSpace Forums. Return to forum index.
I've been reading about today's strike actions and was interested that one article mentioned the situation of a working single mum:
"Anna, 33, works 21 hours a week as a claims processor and earns £10,000.
She will have to find an extra £25 a month in pension contributions and
if she retires at 60 will find herself an estimated £37,800 worse off,
according to the online calculator. A single mother with two children,
there is no slack whatsoever in her monthly budget to make the extra
payments."
See the following article for more:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/jun/29/public-sector-strikes-bene...
I'm in the process myself of trying to get back into paid work and am finding that everything available is poorly paid, certainly insufficient for a sole-earner to support a family. Worse, many of those jobs are not likely to be around for much longer. I'm applying for positions very similar to Anna's in the article.
"The lowest grade of paper-based administrative workers, who deal with
post and input data from paper on to computers, are seeing their roles
phased out. The future of the service will be digital, they are being
told, with most applications for the new universal credit from 2013
expected to be submitted online."
It is all very disturbing.
I do have a bit of money in a private pension - well a bit I had, plus half of The Git's.
I'm rather tempted to cash this in when I can at 55 so that I can possibly help the children out with things - and get to Scotland.
Everything that happened to my Mum is happening to me 10 years earlier. She died at 67.
My brother and sister are that much older than me and will be able to retire - in fact, my brother has retired at 61 (a decision he reached due to failing vision), and my brother-in-law has retired at 59. My sister works very part time as she loves what she does.
Same family, yet a generation apart...
I think its sad though, as in a way you'll be working until you are more or less standing over your grave. No chance to travel, sit and read a book or enjoy granchildren.
I do think it's very, very sad.
I totally agree, sparkling, I think men and women should ALL be able to retire at 60, then everyone couild shuffle jobs and the young people get a chance as well. At the moment my retirement will be at 66, and my sons will have to work past 70.
Same here. Somehow it just seems such a kill-joy! I'll have to tell the fifteen year old he has to work for 55 years!!
I bet he doesn't like it, Sparklinglime.
My adult daughter is in the process of trying to buy her first home, mainly because she and her partner are really struggling to pay their rent which costs much more than monthly mortgage payments would. While hunting for information for her, I came across this:
"But the reality of this mortgage is that you will pay considerably more
interest over the term of the loan than you would with a shorter term
or repayment deal, while your family will never own the property."
Could you imagine telling a teenager that he/she's going to inherit your mortgage debt one day!
It's pretty much setting them up for a lifetime of bonded labour - slavery, in other words! What future IS there for our children and grandchildren??
I certainly didn't think life would be like this!
The mortgage thing: I remember having a holiday in Austria in the days when I was married and pre-children and they have houses where three generations live, and the mortgage debt does pass down as the older generation pass on, so that has been going on for ages over there.
I have also heard recently about dreadful homelessness in Paris.
What I am saying is that worrying things are happening all over the place.
Thanks for posting that. I find the rise in the retirement age worrying as well, all this business about increased life expectancy belies the fact that I hear of and know of many people who have died much younger, and already have barely had a retirement at all.