State pension goalposts moved again

[anonymous-user]

The government have messed around with pensions so often it has become difficult to plan for the long term, some have encouraged people to save with one hand while robbing the piggy bank with the other. Then our politicians wonder why people thing saving for a pension is a waste of time, etc, etc.

The pension actuaries are also at fault because they didn't see the impact of increased life expectancy on pensions and living standards.

Maybe life expectancy stabilising is the first financially sensible thing that happened.

[gooner1]

JagLover said:

smifffymoto said:

The whole thing is bks.Maybe an insurance clerk can work until 68 but how does a bricky or a plasterers mate.Most of the building trade are physically done by their mid fifties.

I would suggest that this also applies to many performing mentally challenging and stressful jobs.

Working part time later in life does not mean doing the same job as you are doing now.

At what age do you advocate the manual worker switches jobs. Will employers suddenly
be welcoming near to retirement workers, that may possibly have no experience of thier new chosen career. Also don't forget, how long will it be before robotics and AI will come into thier own?

[Tiggsy]

Regard state pension as a benefit for those who fall on hard times and need it - like most benefits.

Look after your own retiree funding and when you stop work is down to you.

Moving the state pension age should have no impact on anyone's actual retirement age if they have self provided.

I'm 43 and if they stopped it tomorrow for anyone with their own means, good.

[Otispunkmeyer]

Yipper said:

The harsh reality is -- Britain is one of the poorest countries in the Western world, it is burdened with huge public / private debt, and the nation simply cannot afford big pensions for large armies of old folk living decades well into their 70s, 80s and 90s.

With ~80% of Britain a post-industrial, post-service, economic wasteland, and the rich Southeast ~20% about to decline because of Brexit, the country has no choice but to start slashing future public pensions.

If you are under 50, you need to save aggressively for the next 10-20 years and think seriously about moving abroad to somewhere cheaper for retirement, like Bulgaria, Panama or Thailand.

Saving yes.... Agressively? Trying, but it is hard without feeling like a total pauper (old cars, old clothes, cheap food, short or no holidays etc etc and we don't have those money leeches yet. And the missus wants 2 of em!).

I mean I've worked hard to get where I am. My OH has too. Agressively saving means we're not seeing any fruits of that work in the now....in the hope that it won't all be pulled from under us in 40 years time. It's a difficult prospect to put some faith in to be honest.

I also don't want to have the years where I am flush to be the years where I might be too old or in too poor health to enjoy it.

I could also end up on my death bed tomorrow wishing I'd spent some money on that sports car I wanted or gone to see some more of the world.

Sometimes I think those who do nothing and let the government fix them up have it sussed. Not the other way round.

I mean between us we earn well (well above average) and we live in the Midlands. We have a modest mortgage as our only major outgoing and yet I don't feel like I can have a fancy holiday or a new TV or drive round in a BMW like everyone else seems to be able to. I don't actually understand how a family of four does it....big house and 2 German Marques on the drive. I mean they can't all be affording that AND saving enough right?

[anonymous-user]

Atomic12C said:

Jimboka said:

Was this in the Election Manifesto?
Thought not..

Does it have to be?

Is a government restricted to its manifesto?

Are manifestos legally binding in the first place?

Thought not...

Of course not. But they should. Hence they get rightly criticised & wonder why they are seen as untrustworthy liars.
Not that it affects me

[Grandad Gaz]

I can understand why the pension age has to increase.

As an example: my uncle who is now 91 years old worked for the council as a maintenance engineer on their properties in London (GLC as it was called then). He was given the opportunity to take early retirement when he was 60. He has now been drawing his pension for 31 years. That adds up to a lot of money!

[Mr GrimNasty]

We were told in the 70's that we'd all be sunning ourselves on the beach by now because of robots.

And just about every decade since the Victorian times they said the same thing.

https://timeline.com/robots-have-been-about-to-tak...

[CoolHands]

Grandad Gaz said:

I can understand why the pension age has to increase.

As an example: my uncle who is now 91 years old worked for the council as a maintenance engineer on their properties in London (GLC as it was called then). He was given the opportunity to take early retirement when he was 60. He has now been drawing his pension for 31 years. That adds up to a lot of money!

yeah comparing something that is not comparable is really helpful

[kuro]

Blaster72 said:

BoRED S2upid said:

Oh yes the robot revolution it will need an army of 70 year olds to pull them out of fountains when they all try and drown themselves.

[227bhp]

Otispunkmeyer said:

I don't actually understand how a family of four does it....big house and 2 German Marques on the drive. I mean they can't all be affording that AND saving enough right?

Correct, a lot are living beyond their means in the hope someone will look out for them in the latter years. It's a gamble as you've outlined in your post.

[anonymous-user]

Yipper said:

The harsh reality is -- Britain is one of the poorest countries in the Western world...

Not true. Your net national wealth is huge (more than everyone except USA, China and Japan and they have a slight population advantage!). Half the households in the UK don't even have a mortgage. Smile you're rich.

[Sa Calobra]

Save agrresively?

What as well as pay 50k for your media/etc degree in debt?

[Robertj21a]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Quite agree, as I also referred to earlier. Starting full-time work at 16/18 and getting your State pension at 65 means that you have been contributing for at least 47 years. Those going to Uni (and possibly doing a bit of part time work along the way) would need to work into their 70s before they will have worked as long. This announcement is just adjusting the age to 68, hardly surprising in view of expected life expectancy.

[Countdown]

Dixy said:

It is only reasonable in a civilised society that no one should be forced to work until they die. As a man who has to wait 2 years longer than I expected when I started working, I think they should have changed the age to 70 straight away.

Devil's advocate....is it reasonable for others to have to fund somebody's retirement because they haven't made provision for themselves?

And, if it is, how many years should somebody's retirement be funded? 5 years? 20 years?

[grumbledoak]

227bhp said:

Correct, a lot are living beyond their means in the hope someone will look out for them in the latter years. It's a gamble as you've outlined in your post.

The problem is, it's a gamble the other way too. Put a large sum of money where a greedy Chancellor can see it, and the one-eyed changes the tax laws...

[Moonhawk]

Countdown said:

Devil's advocate....is it reasonable for others to have to fund somebody's retirement because they haven't made provision for themselves?

Whilst this is true - the government (in particular the last Labour government) have made it much more difficult to do so - particularly for those in the private sector.

[b2hbm]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Good points. I'm one of your fortunate 5%, didn't start full time work until 21 and to make matters worse I even took early retirement. I won't get a full state pension and that's fine because I didn't contribute long enough. No complaints at all.

The concept of qualifying years seems perfectly reasonable, either you start work later (21+) and enjoy freedom when you (usually) have the best health of your life, or you start work at 16 and retire earlier. Why should someone start work at 16 on a building site and have to work for 5 years longer than those having the benefit of an additional 5+ years of education and most likely followed by a working life behind a desk ? That hardly seems fair to me (and I was one of those behind a desk)

[JagLover]

Some facts about the issue

https://www.cchdaily.co.uk/people-their-40s-will-h...

Not sure why so many are convinced there wont be a state pension for them. As...

CCH said:

The UK currently spends 5.2% of GDP on the state pension. Without any rises in the state pension age this is set to rise to 6.5% by 2039/40. The government’s proposed timetable reduces this to 6.1% of GDP by 2039/40

An increase of 0.9% of anticipated GDP (after the changes in retirement age) doesn't sound like a level to cause the complete removal of the state pension to me.

[XCP]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Depends a great deal on what the job entails. I work part time in the funeral industry. If it wasn't for workers over 60 the company would cease to function, some of my colleagues are working full time at 70.

[Countdown]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Can't be dismissed on grounds of incapability?