Archive for forum.sports-pro.co.uk A discussion forum devoted to people who want to talk about sports and sports betting! People without a sense of humour need not apply!!
Do you agree with the Tory initiative to fastrack raising the age of retirement from 65 to 66?
Todays serious issue.
Death n Taxes
Saves £13 billion a year I think. We need to cut costs somehow. It is only a year but my fear is that a year here and a year there at in no time we are retiring at 70.
I am presently sticking 20% of my salary into my pension in the expectation that by the time I retire state pensions will be means tested. I am lucky I can afford to but I believe that we are heading to a point where poverty in old age is going to be a big problem.
lewijay
Another thing to look forward to as we get older, aching bones, dodgy eyes, baldness, menopause and now working forever and ever and ever.
I guess it is inevitable as we are living longer as a race.
jennywales
To be honest (or at least controversial!) I think that having a fixed retirement age is really quite stupid. For every person who wants to retire at 60/65 (and I support anyone who says that women and men should retire at the same age, regardless of what that age is), others are willing and happy to work, if work is available, to age 70 and possibly beyond. In some professions (eg the judiciary) there is a compulsory retirement age, which is for senior judges, I think, 75. I do also think that there should be compulsory retirement ages for doctors and so on, unless they are able to show that they are still competent and up to date. In this area you have to balance up the on-costs of reviewing competence at several stages, or forcing people to retire whether competent or not; thus saving the money that would have to be spent on competence reviews, but also losing talent and ocmmitment from older people who might be perfectly competent to continue.
Certainly the state pension should start to be paid at a fixed age - but what that age is has to be subject to fiscal and actuarial considerations.
The fixed retirement age is basically a hangover from the days when people were expected, and indeed themselves expected, to stay in one career for a lifetime. That is no longer the case, and provisions for retirement (including secure contributory private pensions) should be much more flexible and tax friendly, as should decisions about whether older people can or can't go on working, depending on age, competence and type of sector.
dogsaver
anyway the people it affects are the people who's school leaving age was 16 the one's coming up to retirement age in the next few years left at 15 so you wont be working any longer than the one's that are that little bit older
MT VESSELS
Am sure it will now become compulsory to install a Stannah stairlift in every business around the country. Not for customers but for the staff. Werthers will be in every vending machine in the staff canteen and unions will insist that a nap time will need to be introduced into the afternoon.
Cant wait
MT jnr
geordie_racer
please dont confuse the age of retirement with the age at which old age pension kicks in
for men the latter is currently 65 and sometig like 60% of men ae not i work atr the time they ge their pension
I would support the mutual movement of theage at which an employer can effect the compulsory retirement of a worker to 70 and the introduction of the OAP at 68.
we wont all be decrepit (at least not my generation, MT can speak for his own) and you might think that it was in part a lack of experience and "grey hairs" that contributed to eg the banking crisis.
jennywales
MT VESSELS wrote:
Am sure it will now become compulsory to install a Stannah stairlift in every business around the country. Not for customers but for the staff. Werthers will be in every vending machine in the staff canteen and unions will insist that a nap time will need to be introduced into the afternoon.
Cant wait
MT jnr
As a 63-y-o and still working (because I want to, am competent, and my various employers think I'm good enough, also robust enough in health and other ways to spend months abroad in some pretty difficult places!) I find that really insulting, unless you meant it to be funny, in which case I still find it really insulting!
In fact looking at it another way, I actually do two jobs - farming to produce food that you eat, and the consulting one which I do because I want to. Stannah stairlift - I don't think so!
accajacca
you might think that it was in part a lack of experience and "grey hairs" that contributed to eg the banking crisis.
or you might argue that it was the oldies on the boards of these banks making the strategic decisions and failing to stay in touch with what their young traders were doing or understand any of the products, that caused the collapse. you don't get many thirty-somethings running financial institutions so i don't really get your point at all.
personally i hope to be retired (or able to retire) long before 66, and won't be depending on a state pension that may not exist by the time i get there or if it does will probably be dolled out to those who haven't saved anything themselves.
Papa 3
Having been out of work for twenty years I would not mind working until I am at least 70, subject to good health and the capability to do the job.
MT VESSELS
jennywales wrote:
MT VESSELS wrote:
Am sure it will now become compulsory to install a Stannah stairlift in every business around the country. Not for customers but for the staff. Werthers will be in every vending machine in the staff canteen and unions will insist that a nap time will need to be introduced into the afternoon.
Cant wait
MT jnr
As a 63-y-o and still working (because I want to, am competent, and my various employers think I'm good enough, also robust enough in health and other ways to spend months abroad in some pretty difficult places!) I find that really insulting, unless you meant it to be funny, in which case I still find it really insulting!
In fact looking at it another way, I actually do two jobs - farming to produce food that you eat, and the consulting one which I do because I want to. Stannah stairlift - I don't think so!
Forgot to mention about IT barring all website use of knittingpatterns.com instead of the usual ban of Facebook
Seriously though, why someone should be forced into retirement is beyond me. People should only retire because of health reasons. There shouldnt be any other reason why you cant top up what is by rights a meagre pension by working for as long as you want.
The person concerned should decide how long they work.
MT jnr
Papa 3
MT VESSELS wrote:
jennywales wrote:
MT VESSELS wrote:
Am sure it will now become compulsory to install a Stannah stairlift in every business around the country. Not for customers but for the staff. Werthers will be in every vending machine in the staff canteen and unions will insist that a nap time will need to be introduced into the afternoon.
Cant wait
MT jnr
As a 63-y-o and still working (because I want to, am competent, and my various employers think I'm good enough, also robust enough in health and other ways to spend months abroad in some pretty difficult places!) I find that really insulting, unless you meant it to be funny, in which case I still find it really insulting!
In fact looking at it another way, I actually do two jobs - farming to produce food that you eat, and the consulting one which I do because I want to. Stannah stairlift - I don't think so!
Forgot to mention about IT barring all website use of knittingpatterns.com instead of the usual ban of Facebook
Seriously though, why someone should be forced into retirement is beyond me. People should only retire because of health reasons. There shouldnt be any other reason why you cant top up what is by rights a meagre pension by working for as long as you want.
The person concerned should decide how long they work.
MT jnr
Thanks son.
geordie_racer
accajacca wrote:
you might think that it was in part a lack of experience and "grey hairs" that contributed to eg the banking crisis.
or you might argue that it was the oldies on the boards of these banks making the strategic decisions and failing to stay in touch with what their young traders were doing or understand any of the products, that caused the collapse. you don't get many thirty-somethings running financial institutions so i don't really get your point at all.
personally i hope to be retired (or able to retire) long before 66, and won't be depending on a state pension that may not exist by the time i get there or if it does will probably be dolled out to those who haven't saved anything themselves.
[1] dont confuse age with experience. how many yars in banking did they have/
[2] the rest is a lovely piece of "Im alright jack".
accajacca
geordie_racer wrote:
accajacca wrote:
you might think that it was in part a lack of experience and "grey hairs" that contributed to eg the banking crisis.
or you might argue that it was the oldies on the boards of these banks making the strategic decisions and failing to stay in touch with what their young traders were doing or understand any of the products, that caused the collapse. you don't get many thirty-somethings running financial institutions so i don't really get your point at all.
personally i hope to be retired (or able to retire) long before 66, and won't be depending on a state pension that may not exist by the time i get there or if it does will probably be dolled out to those who haven't saved anything themselves.
[1] dont confuse age with experience. how many yars in banking did they have/
[2] the rest is a lovely piece of "Im alright jack".
1. i suspect the answer is "a lot" - if you seriously think the people running our top banks were inexperienced i can go and get specific numbers for you, but frankly there's no way you really think that, so let's just stop being silly shall we?
2. i really don't know what your problem is. i have never "known" such a bitter person. what on earth is wrong with saying that i have ambitions of retiring early on a thread about retirement age? or with saying that i don't trust that the state pension will still exist for all by the time i retire (which someone else has also said and i see you didn't pull them up on)?
geordie_racer
accajacca wrote:
geordie_racer wrote:
accajacca wrote:
you might think that it was in part a lack of experience and "grey hairs" that contributed to eg the banking crisis.
or you might argue that it was the oldies on the boards of these banks making the strategic decisions and failing to stay in touch with what their young traders were doing or understand any of the products, that caused the collapse. you don't get many thirty-somethings running financial institutions so i don't really get your point at all.
personally i hope to be retired (or able to retire) long before 66, and won't be depending on a state pension that may not exist by the time i get there or if it does will probably be dolled out to those who haven't saved anything themselves.
[1] dont confuse age with experience. how many yars in banking did they have/
[2] the rest is a lovely piece of "Im alright jack".
1. i suspect the answer is "a lot" - if you seriously think the people running our top banks were inexperienced i can go and get specific numbers for you, but frankly there's no way you really think that, so let's just stop being silly shall we?
2. i really don't know what your problem is. i have never "known" such a bitter person. what on earth is wrong with saying that i have ambitions of retiring early on a thread about retirement age? or with saying that i don't trust that the state pension will still exist for all by the time i retire (which someone else has also said and i see you didn't pull them up on)?
1 as you know none of them had any banksing qulaifications so whats silly about that
2 the thread question was about fast-tracking an increase in the retirement age, I have already (and well before you i think) pointed out that most men have stopped working before drawing a state pension. the issue isnt whether me, you, I him, she have a cosy nest egg; it its about the majority of people who will be dependent on a state pension.
I have never "known" anyone so defensive.
accajacca
i think you questioned how many years banking experience they had rather than how many bits of paper they had didn't you?
geordie_racer
accajacca wrote:
i think you questioned how many years banking experience they had rather than how many bits of paper they had didn't you?
OK lets take the easy one;- Fred Goodwin, no banking qaualifications, joined national bank of australia as deputy chief, clydesdale bank in 1995 from Touche Ross after no working history as a banker. He was appointed deputy chief executive of RBS in 1998 with 2 full years experience of working in banking. 10 years later he had bankrupted the bank.
No experience of working as a banker, either retail or commercial, no experience as a trader.
accajacca
geordie_racer wrote:
accajacca wrote:
i think you questioned how many years banking experience they had rather than how many bits of paper they had didn't you?
OK lets take the easy one;- Fred Goodwin, no banking qaualifications, joined national bank of australia as deputy chief, clydesdale bank in 1995 from Touche Ross after no working history as a banker. He was appointed deputy chief executive of RBS in 1998 with 2 full years experience of working in banking. 10 years later he had bankrupted the bank.
No experience of working as a banker, either retail or commercial, no experience as a trader.
can i just ask before addressing the rest of it, what banking qualifications you would like him to have had?
geordie_racer
accajacca wrote:
geordie_racer wrote:
accajacca wrote:
i think you questioned how many years banking experience they had rather than how many bits of paper they had didn't you?
OK lets take the easy one;- Fred Goodwin, no banking qaualifications, joined national bank of australia as deputy chief, clydesdale bank in 1995 from Touche Ross after no working history as a banker. He was appointed deputy chief executive of RBS in 1998 with 2 full years experience of working in banking. 10 years later he had bankrupted the bank.
No experience of working as a banker, either retail or commercial, no experience as a trader.
can i just ask before addressing the rest of it, what banking qualifications you would like him to have had?
being a member of the chartered institute of bankers and going through their prgramme might have been a start, don't you think?
if you are seeking to try and expose a gap in my knowledge please dont bother. y father and my son have and do worked in banking.
i think you questioned how many years banking experience they had rather than how many bits of paper they had didn't you?
OK lets take the easy one;- Fred Goodwin, no banking qaualifications, joined national bank of australia as deputy chief, clydesdale bank in 1995 from Touche Ross after no working history as a banker. He was appointed deputy chief executive of RBS in 1998 with 2 full years experience of working in banking. 10 years later he had bankrupted the bank.
No experience of working as a banker, either retail or commercial, no experience as a trader.
can i just ask before addressing the rest of it, what banking qualifications you would like him to have had?
being a member of the chartered institute of bankers and going through their prgramme might have been a start, don't you think?
if you are seeking to try and expose a gap in my knowledge please dont bother. y father and my son have and do worked in banking.
I'm not - i never have and probably never will work in banking, so wouldn't presume to know any more than anyone else about it.
the point i am making is that his cv and experience more than entitled him to his position (i hadn't actually realised his full background until today) and he was lauded by most as a bit of a legend until recent events.
anyway, you've cleverly led me off on a bit of a tangent. the point is that top banks don't hire inexperienced and underqualified people onto their boards. the people making the decisions at the top had been around the block plenty of times and their age and experience counted for nothing set against their greed and stupidity. simple as that.
geordie_racer
accajacca wrote:
geordie_racer wrote:
accajacca wrote:
geordie_racer wrote:
accajacca wrote:
i think you questioned how many years banking experience they had rather than how many bits of paper they had didn't you?
OK lets take the easy one;- Fred Goodwin, no banking qaualifications, joined national bank of australia as deputy chief, clydesdale bank in 1995 from Touche Ross after no working history as a banker. He was appointed deputy chief executive of RBS in 1998 with 2 full years experience of working in banking. 10 years later he had bankrupted the bank.
No experience of working as a banker, either retail or commercial, no experience as a trader.
can i just ask before addressing the rest of it, what banking qualifications you would like him to have had?
being a member of the chartered institute of bankers and going through their prgramme might have been a start, don't you think?
if you are seeking to try and expose a gap in my knowledge please dont bother. y father and my son have and do worked in banking.
I'm not - i never have and probably never will work in banking, so wouldn't presume to know any more than anyone else about it.
the point i am making is that his cv and experience more than entitled him to his position (i hadn't actually realised his full background until today) and he was lauded by most as a bit of a legend until recent events.
anyway, you've cleverly led me off on a bit of a tangent. the point is that top banks don't hire inexperienced and underqualified people onto their boards. the people making the decisions at the top had been around the block plenty of times and their age and experience counted for nothing set against their greed and stupidity. simple as that.
actually i still disagree; it is hard to manage and control an activity when you have never been involved in it
goodwin and his ilk had no or isufficient grasp of what his commercial banking and trading teams were doing, he was too remote from it and he had no insight into it.
accajacca
a CEO of a bank has overall responsibility for the performance of the company - a company which will engage in advisory services, FX, prop trading, retail banking, credit and money markets, mortgages, and any number of other services. so expecting him to have experience of that which he has responsibility for is ridiculous. it's not possible.
he had experience which was appropriate to the overall running of the bank - if he didn't he wouldn't have got the job and spent many years being respected as one of the city's top men.
geordie_racer
accajacca wrote:
if he didn't he wouldn't have got the job and spent many years being respected as one of the city's top men.
well theres the rub
i dont think thats right but lets not fall out over it
accajacca
fair enough
theGoingStick
That's something about top FTSE companies I've never understood, why are directors allowed to sit on more than one board, surely it isn't in the companies best interests to do that. How can one director devote a few days to one company per month and be doing it justice.
Also why do some directors sit on boards of such different industries, like a telecom and a pharmaceutical company, surely the industires don't have that many synergies to make it worthwhile.
Oh how I wish I'd gone to Eton
accajacca
theGoingStick wrote:
That's something about top FTSE companies I've never understood, why are directors allowed to sit on more than one board, surely it isn't in the companies best interests to do that. How can one director devote a few days to one company per month and be doing it justice.
Also why do some directors sit on boards of such different industries, like a telecom and a pharmaceutical company, surely the industires don't have that many synergies to make it worthwhile.
Oh how I wish I'd gone to Eton
are you thinking about non executive directors tgs? their job is very different frm that of an executive director.
theGoingStick
accajacca wrote:
theGoingStick wrote:
That's something about top FTSE companies I've never understood, why are directors allowed to sit on more than one board, surely it isn't in the companies best interests to do that. How can one director devote a few days to one company per month and be doing it justice.
Also why do some directors sit on boards of such different industries, like a telecom and a pharmaceutical company, surely the industires don't have that many synergies to make it worthwhile.
Oh how I wish I'd gone to Eton
are you thinking about non executive directors tgs? their job is very different frm that of an executive director.
Hmm I can't remember the specifics I noted it from some of the shareholder blurb I get, but even so non-exec or exec sharing your time between companies like that can't be in the best interests of any one of the companies.
geordie_racer
theGoingStick wrote:
accajacca wrote:
theGoingStick wrote:
That's something about top FTSE companies I've never understood, why are directors allowed to sit on more than one board, surely it isn't in the companies best interests to do that. How can one director devote a few days to one company per month and be doing it justice.
Also why do some directors sit on boards of such different industries, like a telecom and a pharmaceutical company, surely the industires don't have that many synergies to make it worthwhile.
Oh how I wish I'd gone to Eton
are you thinking about non executive directors tgs? their job is very different frm that of an executive director.
Hmm I can't remember the specifics I noted it from some of the shareholder blurb I get, but even so non-exec or exec sharing your time between companies like that can't be in the best interests of any one of the companies.
