Recommended changes to the state pension age.
Discussion
It may pass unnoticed, but theree are two reports on the state pension age today, one by John Cridland and the other by the Government Actuary's Dept (GAD). Cridland is suggesting no early access to the state pension for workers in more demanding occupations (steelworkers, armed forces personnel etc may have seen that due to increased likelihood of earlier death in retirement), the state pension age may creep up by a year for those even in their early fifties, it'll almost certainly jump to seventy for those in their forties and access to personal pension is now programmed to lag the state pension by ten years.
Also baked in to the legislation of many public sector pensions, is that deferred members have their access age linked to state access too, so that might be another wait. Government is not obliged to follow the report, but it's an indicator of what's going to happen. GAD suggests that people currently aged 30 or under should prepare themselves for the prospect of working longer. Also, the government has got its excuse now, to scrap the triple lock, because that's mentioned too. Cridland recommends the state pension age should not change before April 2028, when it is due to reach 67 anyway. Folk of my age then, will be waiting an extra year.
https://www.theguardian.com/money/2017/mar/23/stat...
Also baked in to the legislation of many public sector pensions, is that deferred members have their access age linked to state access too, so that might be another wait. Government is not obliged to follow the report, but it's an indicator of what's going to happen. GAD suggests that people currently aged 30 or under should prepare themselves for the prospect of working longer. Also, the government has got its excuse now, to scrap the triple lock, because that's mentioned too. Cridland recommends the state pension age should not change before April 2028, when it is due to reach 67 anyway. Folk of my age then, will be waiting an extra year.
https://www.theguardian.com/money/2017/mar/23/stat...
What strikes me about the report, is firstly, it's a good one. It's pragmatic.. let's be honest, we all know the state pension is not affordable. But that we have one at all, as good as it is (and it is, in many ways) is because we realised in the 90s (finally) that it was becoming unaffordable. And it still is - if reports came with sound, you'd hear the excruciating sound of well buffed Whitehall shoe leather being dragged over gravel as government is being compelled to dish out the bad news.
It's using Cridland as its foil of course - all government use quangos etc to insulate themselves from the accountability, responsibility and the ramifications of having to say to an electorate.. 'Well, we alone decided to do it". What strikes me, secondly, is how incongruous the gap is between Osborne's mantra about "pension freedoms" (it always was nonsensical, of course) the other year, and the increasing sense of helplessness we feel at how ever more distant the state version is.
It's using Cridland as its foil of course - all government use quangos etc to insulate themselves from the accountability, responsibility and the ramifications of having to say to an electorate.. 'Well, we alone decided to do it". What strikes me, secondly, is how incongruous the gap is between Osborne's mantra about "pension freedoms" (it always was nonsensical, of course) the other year, and the increasing sense of helplessness we feel at how ever more distant the state version is.
I'm not against this policy, I know we need to cut the amount we spend on state pension, but I am against how long this would take to make any effect on public finances even if we applied it now to somebody aged 50. We do not have clear foresight of what the public finances will look like for 5 years time let alone 20 years, how do we know this will be enough?
I would much rather we implemented means tested state pensions for all, even those already retired so we start saving today. It will be hugely unpopular but if it is structured correctly it will mean everybody is doing their part rather than pushing it off onto future generations of pensioners.
You didn't pay tax/national insurance for your own pension, you paid for your parents or grand parents pensions and your children and their children will be paying for yours.
I would much rather we implemented means tested state pensions for all, even those already retired so we start saving today. It will be hugely unpopular but if it is structured correctly it will mean everybody is doing their part rather than pushing it off onto future generations of pensioners.
You didn't pay tax/national insurance for your own pension, you paid for your parents or grand parents pensions and your children and their children will be paying for yours.
Ginge R said:
Folk of my age then, will be waiting an extra year.
The state pension started off at age 70, in 1908.It was reduced to 65 in 1925.
The women's age was reduced to 60 in 1940.
In 1995, the women's age returning to parity with men was announced.
In 2007, the increases to 68 were announced.
In 1910, the average life expectancy was 53.
In 1925, the average life expectancy was 55.
In 1960, the average life expectancy was 71.
In 2000, the average life expectancy was 78.
In 2014, the average life expectancy was 81.
Further increase in the pension age, to 70, really shouldn't be a surprise to anybody - even before you consider the shape of the population by age.
My prediction is they will eventually do away with the state "pension" + "retirement age" and instead just have universal benefits for all that need it at any age; I also think people will naturally work longer anyway as health seems to be better generally at around 60ish vs say my grandparents who were definitely "old" at that age. They've already pushed a lot of it over to the private sector remember so the pressure on state pensions must be decreasing all the time?
TX.
TX.
TooMany2cvs said:
The state pension started off at age 70, in 1908.
It was reduced to 65 in 1925.
The women's age was reduced to 60 in 1940.
In 1995, the women's age returning to parity with men was announced.
In 2007, the increases to 68 were announced.
In 1910, the average life expectancy was 53.
In 1925, the average life expectancy was 55.
In 1960, the average life expectancy was 71.
In 2000, the average life expectancy was 78.
In 2014, the average life expectancy was 81.
Further increase in the pension age, to 70, really shouldn't be a surprise to anybody - even before you consider the shape of the population by age.
Remember it's life expectancy at retirement that most relevant, not simply average life expectancy!It was reduced to 65 in 1925.
The women's age was reduced to 60 in 1940.
In 1995, the women's age returning to parity with men was announced.
In 2007, the increases to 68 were announced.
In 1910, the average life expectancy was 53.
In 1925, the average life expectancy was 55.
In 1960, the average life expectancy was 71.
In 2000, the average life expectancy was 78.
In 2014, the average life expectancy was 81.
Further increase in the pension age, to 70, really shouldn't be a surprise to anybody - even before you consider the shape of the population by age.
sidicks said:
Remember it's life expectancy at retirement that most relevant, not simply average life expectancy!
Sure. And they're the average life expectancies for people born in those years, as guesstimated in those years, so based on the live of those who were elderly at that time.TooMany2cvs said:
The state pension started off at age 70, in 1908.
It was reduced to 65 in 1925.
The women's age was reduced to 60 in 1940.
In 1995, the women's age returning to parity with men was announced.
In 2007, the increases to 68 were announced.
In 1910, the average life expectancy was 53.
In 1925, the average life expectancy was 55.
In 1960, the average life expectancy was 71.
In 2000, the average life expectancy was 78.
In 2014, the average life expectancy was 81.
Further increase in the pension age, to 70, really shouldn't be a surprise to anybody - even before you consider the shape of the population by age.
Indeed. Our early pensions were nothing more than bribes to get knackered 50 year olds to leave the fields and emerging factories, to make way for a booming, youthful population. They would pay out, typically, for a few years until the pensioner died naturally. Then, post WW2, retirement became not a time to quietly live out your final few years in meagre misery, but a god given right to wander along the surf or play golf for thirty five years or more. In effect, the marketers got hold of pensions, and creamed off obscene amounts at our expense.It was reduced to 65 in 1925.
The women's age was reduced to 60 in 1940.
In 1995, the women's age returning to parity with men was announced.
In 2007, the increases to 68 were announced.
In 1910, the average life expectancy was 53.
In 1925, the average life expectancy was 55.
In 1960, the average life expectancy was 71.
In 2000, the average life expectancy was 78.
In 2014, the average life expectancy was 81.
Further increase in the pension age, to 70, really shouldn't be a surprise to anybody - even before you consider the shape of the population by age.
Now, we enter the third phase - the one that says you aren't going to be induced to finish work early, you aren't going to have a languid few decades on the golf course; no.. for you, unless you do something about it and start saving properly (early), and unless you start soon, the prospect of retirement is going to be one of living off a few quid dished out to you and dying not in squalor, but in bland, unremarkable and unenjoyable obscurity.
I started work at 16, proper paid, taxable work. I'll have done my 50 years+ of paying into the system before I get anything back.
These days most people don't start working until they're in their 20's, often mid 20's before they get a proper taxable job. So 70+ state retirement is not unfair.
These days most people don't start working until they're in their 20's, often mid 20's before they get a proper taxable job. So 70+ state retirement is not unfair.
Edited by megaphone on Thursday 23 March 15:00
I should feel relieved that I started work at age 16 and started to receive my State pension 49 years later...that's 49 years of paying my taxes, and NICs, and on the way paying for my own private defined benefits pension for 45 years, son's private education and also for our family's private healthcare which none of us has claimed, yet! I do feel I'm a fully paid up pensioner and have paid for every State benefit I can get.
No doubt I can expect some wrath from some PHers for being so "lucky".
R.
No doubt I can expect some wrath from some PHers for being so "lucky".
R.
What annoys me the most is that we have been told to save into pensions for the last few years. So I have.
It was always the plan to access the pension at 55 for both my wife and myself but now its looking like we will be into 60 or maybe older. That is unfair IMHO. We should be able to access our personal pension at 55 or even 50. Its our money and I see no reason why they are to keep it 10 years behind SPA.
It was always the plan to access the pension at 55 for both my wife and myself but now its looking like we will be into 60 or maybe older. That is unfair IMHO. We should be able to access our personal pension at 55 or even 50. Its our money and I see no reason why they are to keep it 10 years behind SPA.
Gassing Station | Finance | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff