Social Security up to pay for care in old age
Thursday 21st July 2011, 2:59PM BST.
Social Security Minister Ian Gorst
ALL Islanders are going to pay more Social Security to fund long-term care for the elderly.
In a landmark decision taken by the States this morning, everyone’s Social Security contributions will rise by 1.5%.
The extra money will be ring-fenced, topped up with £30 million from the States each year and used to fund the Long-Term Care Law, which will remove the need for Islanders to use their life savings or sell their family home to pay for care as they get older.
The new scheme, similar to one already being used in Guernsey, is expected to come into force in 2013.
New Social Security rules for employers with high earners and the self-employed were also passed in the States yesterday.
• See Thursday’s JEP for full reports
Read the full story in the Jersey Evening Post. Click here for subscription details. Individual editions are also available online.
Travel
To, from and around the Island
Airport Arrivals/Departures
Harbours Arrivals/Departures
Bus Information/Timetables
JOIN US ON...
Facebook and Twitter
Follow us on Facebook
Follow us on Twitter
Got a story? Get in touch
KIT 4 CLUBS
Win a share of £10,000
2012 is the year of the London Olympics and to celebrate this great event the Jersey Evening Post, in association with sponsors Ogier is giving all sporting clubs a chance to win a share of £10,000.
This is Jersey
Jersey Evening Post
Useful links
THIS IS ABSOLUTELY DISGUSTING!!!
The elderly should use their savings or sell their homes for their care. Why should I foot the bill.
They should have to use every last penny until they receive care on the tax payer, although i still don’t agree that free care should be given to the elderly or otherwise.
If you haven’t saved enough money thats your problem why should you be allowed to be a drain on society through poor planning!!!
It really is past a joke how this island is being run.
Report abuse
Is this a joke, I am not laughing?
Report abuse
I do not care for this arrogant man and the way he lords it over us all.
Is his remit to bankrupt those of us who are struggling enough as it is?
Report abuse
UM……… I thought there was plenty of cash and that was why high wage earners SS increase was scrapped?
Report abuse
Whats wrong with people planning for their own care in their own age.
I am sick to death of working my fingers to the bone just to see my hard earned cash squandered on those within our community who are too lazy to work, and/or can’t be bothered to take responsibility for themselves.
Yet more sacrifices my family have to make to fund the lifestyles of the workshy and wreckless.
Report abuse
whats, instore for the self employed , now?
less in the pocket again.
Report abuse
Great, so we can all stop saving then and enjoy life in the comfort that our old age will be taken care of. Brilliant!
I was starting to get worried when those pension adverts came up on the TV as I don’t have a pension. I guess this is crisis averted then. Happy days.
Report abuse
So I dont have to bother providing for my old age anymore !
I pity subsequent gereations who dont have the earning potential/pensions of the current bunch of cosy pensioners.
Report abuse
Maybe it is time to force people to put some private insurance in place to cover any issues caused by old age. Those who choose not to do so can sell their homes to fund it. The current system penalises those that have bought their homes forcing them to fund those that have always rented, that’s hardly fair.
Report abuse
About time to this will encourage more to make an effort as they will know that their children’s inheritance will be passed on as intended.
Why should one person who has been frugal all their life and paid their way have to pay whilst others who have had lots of holidays and enjoyed themselves etc not pay?
I am quite happy to pay a bit more even if I don’t use it. Mind you if the cap were taken off of social security you might find that this extra levee wouldn’t be needed.
Or you could ask big business and the rich to assist and sponsor a group of oldies each.
Report abuse
I would rather this, having everyone contribute, as most of us are likely to grow old, than work my butt off to buy my own house, only to have it taken from me, while those who have rented/been subsidised and used spare cash for luxuries, get their care paid for.
Taxes are inevitable, but at least they should be fair and imposed on everyone.
Report abuse
Kept this quiet. I see ALL of the States members voted for this (those that were present).
So all of them agree i should pay the extra money for my retirement if i need care? The scheme starts in 2013 so what is the betting by the time i retire there will be no money left to pay for my care!
Criteria i must be resident for 10 continuous years in any one period and be present on island for a year before retirement.
I planned to move away when i retired to warmer climates but if i am going to pay for the present OAP’s in care then i will make damn sure i end up coming back to Jersey and burden the next few generations of tax payers with my care!
Oh and i forgot, before i move to a warmer climate i will sell all my assets and live a life of Reily so that when i return i am flat broke and the States will pay for my care when i return, hopefully i will live right up to the ripe old age of 102!
Oh and by the way the 1.5% is only froze until 2015 and then it will be up, up and away. But then again did they not promise to freeze GST?
Also higher earners have been lied to! Only the other week this one was dropped an yet it pops up again. The States are saying to the public don’t ask for pay rises! well i am demanding a pay rise now from my employer now.
Elections are coming but the problem is they ALL voted for it!
Report abuse
Worst of all- the vote passed by 48-0. So it doesn’t matter which States Members you regard as being anti-Establishment because they ALL did what the executive asked them to do. The nodding dogs included Shenton, Le Claire, the Pitmans, Southern, De Sousa, Tadier etc.
Every single St Helier deputy voted for this, as did the full Constable’s Block vote of 12.
If this was a minor uncontroversial issue then it wouldn’t be so bad but quite clearly public opinion is divided and the States vote is totally out of step with that opinion.
This comes only 2 weeks after similar whitewash debates on the twin ID cards/Population Register were approved by 46-2 and 47-1.
Then of course last month they voted to increase the pension age from 65 to 67 starting in just nine years time and they voted not to refer that to Scrutiny.
Never mind about getting rid of the Council of Ministers- we have to clear out the so-called Opposition as well.
Report abuse
1-5
I think you rather miss the point. If someone like myself has a mortgage, I am still paying the same SS like everyone else, if I also make sacrifices and save some money for when I am older why should I then be forced to sell up and use every penny saved for my family for healthcare if I need it? I may as well not bother and p*** it all up the wall like all the other wasters who don’t work, so don’t pay any SS,yet come on here and class anyone with a mortgage as a rich finance worker who should keep them in fags & white lightning!!
By the way I do not work in finance, I am a tradesman who owns a flat & puts in 50+ hours a week so I also pay more SS than I need to.
Report abuse
What next, GST rises, SS to rise, I have little money as it is, I am a single mum and have to work hard to keep my flat. I think I may as well sell up and give my job up,then go on social at least I wont have to pay so the states can save
Report abuse
Gorst is quite happy being ,hail fellow well met in giving hundreds of thousands of our money to foreign aid projects and picking up the accolades..yet the relatively small man is getting it in the Butt here again…40k is not that much of a threshold..the small self employed are far more important to the community than most..take an independent window cleaner or tradesman…has to have a van,van needs petrol,tyres ,servicing etc+ garage man earns a living,he buys tools etc the tools/material suppliers etc all get a bite of this one guys apple,doctor,dentist,retail..all get something from this micro capitalist who only earns when he shows up…no sick pay except the SS pittance,remember the self employed guy knocked off his bike had paid in for 24 yrs missed a payment was crippled and SS wanted to give him nothing…this whole Social Security thing represents very bad value for money ,you could purchase better deals in the private sector,but they use the law to keep us in it ,which is Govt sponsored extortion nothing more…..and now they want to milk the middle earners even more…notice how the high earners who would feel the pinch the least get let off every time….Place is nuts and corrupt.
Report abuse
12. I’m surprised people haven’t kicked up a stink over the raising of the retirement age from 65-67 this will cost a married couple 30k in lost pension plus having to work for another 104 weeks and also pay social for another 104 weeks. Not what you want when you were expecting to be living in Thailand at 65 to save money on the likes of GST etc.
What’s the odds on it being raised to 70 before too long? Odds on I’d say. So much for promises eh?
Why would the majority oppose paying a bit extra for care in old age? I would say its a must since people are living longer. However it will be interesting to see if this promise is honoured or will it be like the 65 myth in 10 years time?
Report abuse
The States have simply voted for higher unemployment.
Report abuse
What a hoot!
This issue is winding up the very people who stand to gain from it.
They don’t want to pay extra but they do want to leave their estate to their brats!
Jersey accidentally becomes a socialist state by trying to protect the wealthy.
I love it!
Ask yourselves. Why would any of them have voted against it?
Report abuse
I am surprised at the negative comments.Indeed, this is excellent news. People who have worked hard all their lives to buy houses and children who have cared for their parents will no longer have to worry about the specter of a private care company sucking in all the family silver. The pain of having to sell your grandmother’s jewellery, use money which is much needed by young grandchildren to pay extortionate university fees or in some cases loosing a family home is unbearable. The elder generation fought wars, the least the government can do is give them dignity and basic human care on social welfare.
Report abuse
I don’t like the idea of yet another tax increase, we’ve just had that with GST BUT – if it ensures that all of us are guaranteed care when we get old then fair enough. Especially if it ensures that those of us who have chosen to work hard, save hard and buy our own homes don’t forfeit them to pay for our care. While people who have earnt a similiar amount but squandered it are provided for, this two tier system is punitive and unfair.
My main concern is that it will increase further, worse still by the time I retire I’ll likely be in my 70′s, does this increase guarantee security for all of us paying for it now?
Agree with Adrian if the cap was taken off high earners there would be no need for an increse or at worst it would be less.
Report abuse
Wonderful news! At last the worries of having to sell the family home (which my Grandparents worked hard for over 40 years to get) are over if my Mother ever needs any care in a few years time.
Thank you States of Jersey!
Report abuse
You know this is just bloody typical.
Since the age of 18 I started paying 15% of pay into my company pension. The reason for this was so once I hit 60 I would have more then enough to live on.
Now the retirement age is 67, and I have to pay more to SS for people that are old. What is the point of my pension, I scrimp and scrape now so I can have a good pension. I am just wasting my time. I might as well spend that 15% each month now if the younger generation will keep us.
Report abuse
Wake up people – You are already paying for those who have refused to save so nothing will change. For those who have saved they will be permitted to keep those savings or pass them on to their children. All this does is ensure that everybody contributes and receives the same benefits. It is so easy to criticise when that criticism is based on a five minute glance at a headline and combined with a deeply entrenched prejudice and bigotry.
And of course unlike those with the bottle to stand for election you will never be held accountable for your actions.
Report abuse
Great I’ll stop saving now – and let the states take care of me – I’ll be quids in – but long term the States will pay out far more than they get back – another own goal from the idiots who run the place
Report abuse
What message is this giving to young people, i’m 25 and my partner and i worked hard to buy our flat 4 years ago, now with ITIS going up, GST going up and SS to increase, i really wonder sometimes why we don’t just quit our jobs, sell our flat and push out a couple of kids and put our feet up and watch some Jeremy Kyle.
It’s like we’re being punished for trying to make a good life for ourselves, we want to buy a house and have children but i really can’t see how we are ever going to be able to afford to.
So maybe i should just let the taxpayer pay as that seems to be the only way to get ahead in Jersey.
Report abuse
No 1 BR
I hope you never get ill in yoyr old age and need any care because I wonder if you would be able to afford £1500 a week? That is what it costs now in a nursing home, then you still have to pay doctors fees and even paper towels! Good luck to you with your kind attitude in life.
Report abuse
What a bunch of wingers!!! I take it your’re all under 40 and don’t think you’ll get any older. Well done the States for making a sensible descison for a change.
Report abuse
Jerry Gosselin (13) quite clearly public opinion is divided and the States vote is totally out of step with that opinion.
That Jerry is because Jersey lack a true representative democracy. We have layer and layer of elections and elected representatives. I can vote for a Constable, Senator and Deputy. Not one but in many cases several votes.
Our electoral system is skewed and on need of fundamental reform, root and branch.
Report abuse
Adrian #10
OMG, I think this is the first time I whole heartedly agree with you!
There are so many ignorant comments against this proposal it really does concern me that a lot of you are allowed to vote!
Under the CURRENT system everyone paying social security is already paying for the lazy and the workshy who didn’t bother to better themselves and want a free ride from cradle to grave. Worse yet it penalised those who did better themselves, paid tax and were not a burden on the tax payer, how is that fair?
We’re not talking about paying for the rich here who have trusts to protect their wealth assets, we are talking about hard working middle and working class people who contribute yet do not have enough wealth to protect their assets like the rich do.
The new system won’t stop the bone-idle from getting a free ride. It might however encourage more people to save and better themselves if they know they will not lose it all in old age which means these people will be less of a burden on the tax payer today.
As for those moaning they will have to pay more social, well you too will be old one day and will be grateful the fund is healthy for your needs.
It would be incredibly naive to think that private insurance premiums wouldn’t be far more expensive then paying an extra couple percent social contribution. And what do you propose for those who can’t afford insurance – leave them on the street to die?
Report abuse
I own my own home, yet I do not believe this policy is fair. I thoroughly expected to have to sell my home to pay for care when I am older (hopefully that will not be the case and I will be fit until I die!). I did not expect to leave anything to my kids, just like I do not expect to be left anything by my parents. I worked hard all my life, sacrificed and earned a good job. I have private healthcare, and pay into two pensions – all this to ensure I will be looked after in my old age through my own means, so I would not need to rely on the state to do so. I hate all this “I worked hard to fund lazy people, why should I sell my house etc etc”..of course it does annoy me to see people on benefits sitting outside coffee shops while I am at work, but I remember that I have a nice home, good job, can pretty much do what I want with my money (although not rolling in it by any means!) and while it is tempting to assume life is all rosy for the jobless in reality its not. I just concentrate on how my life is, and don’t think about how others lead theirs.
Report abuse
glad to hear it, as a worker i will have less in my pocket, at the moment i rent , but will be a home owner, and will be glad to leave , our home to the kids to help them get a home , the alternative is to build more social housing.
this will be needed as the “lost generation” of unemployed youngsters , require housing.
if (god forbid) is should become terminaly ill, is to end it all, to protect , the kids future.
Report abuse
28 Surfer Girl –
What a bunch of wingers!!! I take it your’re all under 40 and don’t think you’ll get any older. Well done the States for making a sensible descison for a change.
Are they left or right wingers, could be worse they could be whingers.
Report abuse
Sense at last. At least everyone will be contributing to their care in old age and not just those that have saved and WORKED hard all their lives!!
Report abuse
Right wingers in Jersey, Spelling Bee!
Jersey, the home of all right thinking people.
Report abuse
Spare a thought for the hundreds like me – transfered over here by my employer for 5 years before being sent somewhere else = looks like my money will be used for somebody else – who pays for my retirement = Jersey – no way
Report abuse
But exactly what care can we expect.?
Gorst says we will be able to ‘top up’ our level of care if required.Does that mean to achieve a level of care appropiate to our health we would have to use our life savings or sell the home.Kind of defeats the point doesn’t it?
If so this new increase is just a con to get more out of us.
I still think its disgusting that employees earning over £44 have their contributions capped,but now their employers have to pay an extra 2% on their behalf.
Guernsey doesn’t seem to have half the problems we have, maybe because their cap on social contributions is £91k.
It seems that now the finance industry is shrinking the only trick the States have left is to encourage rich people to come and live and work here,enticing them in with a 1% tax rate for the very rich and no social contributions for those earning over £44k.So while these people get almost a free ride the tax burden gets pushed onto the low and middle classes.Disgusting.
Report abuse
What absolute rot !!!
Report abuse
#36. I am sure that you have the sympathy of all long term residents.
Their hearts must all be bleeding for you!
Report abuse
36 contract man .
good question , what did the states do with your contributions .
if you and many others remember your social number , when you get to retirement, apply for your money, i will guess they have to pay you some thing ( it may be a quid) or they may say , “sorry mate” you have not paid in enough.
in that case , do you not think that you have had money taken from you under false pretences .
Report abuse
There not called the SS for nothing!
But the rich are being rewarded again!by looking after there eletist needs paying little tax.
Look at the state of the island,how is it benefitting from thre rich exactly!
Report abuse
The best decision the SOJ have made in a long time.
48-0.
Report abuse
So I am not only contributing towards a pension pot that will be empty by the time I reach retirement in 37 years but I will also be funding all the elderly as well, no doubt that coffer will be as empty as the pension pot by the time I need it!
Report abuse
Mrs Mc S and I had planned to retire abroad as soon as the States have paid for our children’s education, but now it makes financial sense for us to stay in Jersey, for at least part of each yea When we eventually require full time care, it’s good to know that the States will pay for this and our children can inherit our properties in Jersey.
I’m really glad that I am close to retirement age and will not have to pay the increased social security for long.
Report abuse
Irrespective of what excuse they came up with, they are still raising tax.
I’m sorry but if children want to inherit a house then THEY should look after their parents in their old age and preserve the family’s fortune, the way it was before the welfare state.
Do you honestly believe that this will not be increased further – Ozouf has guaranteed it won’t be increased until 2015, I remember another tax that they promised not to raise for three years and three years and one day later it went up 66%.
Still I better look at getting into the care home business, if the states are paying you can bet they will not be prudent in their spending or get value for money. I very much doubt that the ‘care’ will be very caring.
Report abuse
In actuality this decision has very little to do with elderly care, it is more about maintaining the cost of housing.
An average family home costs twice what a couple both earning average wages (and they are few and far between) can afford to buy, so house prices are overvalued in the economy.
If elderly people had to sell their houses and flood the market with yet more homes then the prices would start coming down rapidly.
You have to see through the window dressing and see where the profit is to understand the motivations of this government – many of whom own a significant amount of property.
Report abuse
#36 You should get something from where you’ve contributed, you just wouldn’t get it all from one place, but that applies to lots of people these days.
Report abuse
No 1 I take it you or your family are never going to get old or ill. These old people that you are very disrespectful to must have worked hard to own their homes, they would have worked hard all their lives, like we all do, so why shouldnt they get help when they need it. How would you like to work all your life, buy your home and have a little nest egg and then no fault of your own you get ill and your wife has to sell your home for your care.
Report abuse
Fully agree with Darius in post 46. This is going to play havoc for first time buyers, I honestly don’t think this will encourage graduates back to the island.
It does seem a bit suspect that every single politician voted for this when it doesn’t reflect the views of the general public.
What were the deputies of St Brelade, st clement and st helier doing? Surely the majority of the people they represent rent their properties? How is this new measure going to benefit these people?
Report abuse
I spoke to a Jersey Politician over a year ago regarding this matter.
It seemed the states were worried that selling your home in old age would decrease the inheritance given to the next generation and thus make it difficult for them to become home owners themselves.
Is this the same old SOJ too short sighted to see that this protection of monetary supply will only keep property prices high and out of reach of the average working Jersey man…
Or am I failing to give them credit for protecting their own self interest – the majority of Island Politicians are at least home owners and/or landlords with Family property passed down the generations and thus have a vested interest in house prices remaining high.
Don’t be under the delusion this is to cater for those who have not made provisions, as the article clearly states – this will protect those with property and savings, those without already had state support – this is to ensure “family money” is not squandered and the next generation inherit the wealth and influence of their predecessors.
Report abuse
#49 – Jersey Boy, you are wrong.
Residents who rent will also be ‘covered’ by this Care in Old Age Policy. Everyone now has their assets protected up to £750K, be this in property or in savings. So if you rent and have to go into a home at some stage in your live; the savings that you have accumulated will not be taken from you for your care.
This system is a good one as it works for Property Owners and People who Rent also
A
Report abuse
@46 I rather suspect you are planning on running for election this year since you seem to be raising your profile very high just weeks before the election.
I would have thought the last bloody nose the establishment gave you would have put you off or at least convinced you to tow the line.
At least you seem to understand the real motivations of Ozouf (the owner of half of St Saviour).
@48 Just what exactly are you setting aside a nest egg for – if not to look after yourself in your retirement?
Report abuse
Ahhh election year.. 48-0 vote in the states is this due to the fact that the majority of voters are of a certain age…
less money in my pocket NOW! I can’t afford any more deductions from my salary.. struggling now. will be dead before i’m 67 due to a poor diet!
Report abuse
@52 A nest egg is exactly that, for looking after yourself during retirement- it is not for paying ridiculous amounts of money to exspensive care homes. Most peoples nestegg amounts to nothing, we are not talking about millions here.
Report abuse
It’s simple really – what was happening was people were selling their house to their children at very low prices with lifetime enjoyment (i.e. they could live in it rent free for the rest of their life) in order to avoid having to stump up the costs of their care.
It was fine when it was just a few advocates who knew about this loophole and they could charge their clients for the advice, but it was becoming common knowledge and no one was making any money, so put the tax up instead.
Report abuse
#52 ‘Just what exactly are you setting aside a nest egg for – if not to look after yourself in your retirement?’
Horse drawn funerals with two solemn men walking ahead don’t come cheap,James. One has to budget for the important things in life.
Report abuse
I am surprised at the requirements for the free care. As someone who has paid social all their life and hopefully will have paid off a flat and was loooking forward to living off the rent in 20 years I now find that to benefit from my life payments into the ss I need to know that I am going to be ill a year in advance and run back to Jersey with by hands out begging to get what I am owed.
Disgusting.
Report abuse
#57 That’s because it is (in terms of healthcare) entirely an insurance scheme. there is no ‘free’ care, it’s just ‘free at source’ (i.e. you won’t be invoiced by the hospital after they treat you). I can’t work out why anyone thought it was anything else. If you go and live elsewhere you will pay their equivalent (or join a private scheme) and will be entitled to healthcare there. It’s fairly standard, and you can’t have a system where people are tempted to come back to Jersey only because they are already ill, that would cripple the system. You aren’t paying now for healthcare you may need in the future, you are keeping up to date with insurance instalments in case you need healthcare tomorrow. Stop the payments and your cover ends.
Obviously pensions are slightly different, more like a ‘savings’ scheme in some ways and if you pay in you should be able to collect later on, even if you have moved away, but only according to how much you paid in while you lived here.
Report abuse
@58 It is not and never has been a savings scheme.
The people who were paid pensions in 1945 had never paid in – their pensions were paid for by the contributors then, the pensioners now are paid for by the current workers.
It is a tax plain and simple.
Even the ‘fund’ has been utilised to make loans to Jersey farmers hence the current shortfall.
When there was more workers than old people it was OK, now there is (or soon will be) more old people than workers.
Lets face it average age of death in 1945 was 66 so most people got one year of pension, now it is different.
People should work until they are unable to due to ill health not due to reaching some arbitrary age.
Report abuse
Wonderful news! My parents have saved & worked hard to pay for their house all their lives a have hardly ever been on holiday. My father who is 89 has been in residential care for three years, my mother who is 83 Has been obliged to sign over their house to SS to pay for my father’s care & eventually the money will run out as tyhe cost of keeping my father in care costs 3000 pounds a month, all of you who are complaining do you all realise that this is happening, my parents would have been better off not woking hard & paying for their house!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Report abuse
@60 Why did you not look after your parents? surely that would have made more financial sense?
Report abuse
#59 Don’t worry yourself, I’m well aware of how it is actually funded, my point is that from the point of view of the eventual recipient of the money it can be viewed as more of a ‘savings’ scheme (my post did use that phrase in contrast with an insurance scheme).
How it is actually funded wasn’t relevant to the point since I was trying to point out that your contributions towards your pension are NOT an insurance scheme (i.e. if you pay in for 10 years then move away, so stop paying in, you will still get money back, unlike the scenario with healthcare).
Hope that clears it up for you.
#60 Not all people who go into residential care can be looked after by their children. Some residential care homes offer medical staffing, unless one of the children was medically trained it simply wouldn’t be acceptable to have the parent looked after by their child. Or it could be that there isn’t room in their house to take the parent in and provide them with the space and security they need, but nor can they be asked to leave their other loved ones and move into their parents’s home.
Report abuse
#59 Just saw your last sentence.
Given that there are many illnesses that prevent you from working but with which you can still enjoy life, why should those who are able work till they drop while their peers (in this case those ‘lucky’ enough to now be unable to work) get to enjoy life? And what about jobs that are sensibly exempted from the States’ retirement age? With high unemployment (and given the nature of most such jobs) they will find it very hard to get employment without retraining but will be of an age where retraining is particularly difficult. But if they cannot retire and are not ill they’ll still have to pay the States their stamp every month, from their non-existent earnings, or lose all healthcare!
Report abuse
From 63 – that Doctor’s will certify you as unfit for work when you clearly are fit for work is another matter and would have to be addressed separately.
That GP’s abuse the social security system by seeing patients on HIE far more often that they need to, I personally haven’t been to the Doctor for over twenty years – but my friends on income support seem to go every few weeks because they don’t have to pay.
If I were a GP I would see HIE patients regularly to make sure I was paid enough by the States to keep me going
Report abuse
James Wiley it wouldn’t surprise me if there is a sharp rise in illness from those reaching 65, who will now be expected to work past the finish line from which they were expecting to enjoy life without the burden of an increasingly hostile work environment.
An extra 2 years social, 104 weeks extra at the coal face, more income tax to pay if in the taxable bracket, and the loss of up to £30k for not working if you are married person is not going to go down well.
Report abuse
Well the Netherlands allows people to take retirement at any age they wish… but once they have taken retirement they can never work again, not even part time. If you want to retire at 25 and condemn yourself to a life of benefit dependency you are free to choose to do so.
For normal people this will depend on whether they are fit for work, how much they have accumulated already, what standard of living they want etc.
Setting a retirement age is a form of age discrimination and it will not be too long before it becomes illegal to do so, if it is not already counter to the European Convention on Human Rights.
I know many 65 year olds and over who simply cannot afford to live on their pensions and have no choice but to continue working and maybe its me getting older, but 65 year olds do not seem as old as they used to.
I would like a retirement, but one which I can enjoy and I very much doubt that I will not still be working in my 80′s just like John Farley.
Report abuse