Quote Originally Posted by Nelsonca61 View Post
At 17 it was 65 for me, and I started a personnel pension scheme to align with 65, i do wish I paid more into it to retire at 60, just checked on the gov. web site and yes it's now 67 for me, but I will not work one day past my 65 birthday if i get there!!. I'm quite happy to contribute until 65, it's quite evident on this website that the modern day extreme lefty, typically career desk jockey in a gov dept. retire at 60 with a lumper and like to saint themselves, and seem quite happy that the generation born a couple of years too late have to wait a few more years to get a basic state pension and gloat about it as if every person of this generation voted out, it's like saying every single Cardiff fan is a hooligan based on the previous reputation of the soul crew isn't it ?. I consider myself a little fortunate now, I sit at a desk all day and do not have a physical job, but how are the likes of say roofers supposed to be climbing over roofs at 66/67, 67 isn't going to be the last rise in retirement age either, there isn't an easy fix, people are living longer, population is expanding and I aint voting again!!!, it's just an illusion of choice.
They want you DIVIDED.
DIVIDED by RACE.
DIVIDED by RELIGION.
DIVIDED by CULTURE.
DIVIDED by CLASS.
DIVIDED by POLITICAL AFFILIATION.
DIVIDED YOU ARE WEAK.
TOGETHER YOU ARE STRONG.
"Q"
Bold bit is the kicker. As knowledge increases and scientific techniques improve it is going to be pretty hard to justify making those who live shorter lives pay for those who live longer, especially if the underlying reasons for their young demise are down to genetics and detectable earlier in life...

No government or party is willing to talk about this kind of stuff because being pragmatic is a vote loser. In fairness to May, she tried to address this burden and the Tory core vote screamed treason. No one will touch it since.