State pension age increase to 68 brought forward 7 years to 2037

Muscle750 wrote: »

Im in a manual job have been all my life and spend most of my day repairing cars or dragging cars out of ditches and off the motorway etc yet and have to carry on regardless yet in the public sector most manual workers think they cant work past 55 doing their job. Plus as ive said we had a FS scheme ripped from under our feet as many did, The present pension sees a misly 5% paid in by employer matching my 5% unlike the public sector where 12% plus from the employer (tax payer)is the norm.

I genuinely sympathise with you. But the reason why the retirement age on the new public sector schemes has been changing is because it is unfair. It is also unfair to make changes at short notice. The decisions to change should have been made earlier than they were I agree. Most schemes for emergency workers changed in 2005 to increase retirement age from 55 to 60. But I agree it could rise further. I guess the difference is that a fireman has to be fit enough to carry a human being down stairs but as hard as your work is you do not.

You make a fair point about the generosity of public sector schemes. But the pension is a part of the reward package. Personally, if firemen were offered your pension and asked to work to 69, I doubt that there would be enough volunteers unless they were paid a lot more. One of the considerations (which I know is also faced by older manual workers) is that someone retiring at 55/60 will find problems getting another job to tide them over to 68, so why would they work as a fireman in their 50s, far better to find a different job earlier.

_AB wrote: »

Remember for people in this age range, the state pension has moved three years - it was 65 and now 68. So that's 3 x £8,300 (per year) = almost £25k that's gone missing. It all adds up quickly and Government will keep moving it unless we all stand up to this. I'm seeing my MP and suggest everyone else does the same.

A better idea would have been to respond to the Cridland Review with practical ideas for a fairer and sustainable state pension.

I trust that those objecting to the recent rises took that opportunity to put forward realistic ideas for a better system for everyone.

Of course they were wrong, they were assumptions. Life expectancy is a continuum which means the chances of actual life expectancy equalling projected life expectancy is nil.

Were they wrong enough to justify a change to the increases to State Pension Age - which were inadequate to keep up with life expectancy anyway, meaning that if life expectancy continues to increase slightly more slowly than previously expected, the SPA increase only becomes slightly less inadequate? No. If you think they are, by all means see your MP.