Call me cynical but...

Becky

Does anybody have an idea what the increase is in the number of deaths between 65 - 68 (or 69). :eek:

No reason for asking but maybe it helps the Government out a little if a few of us die before we get to the pension age.

CIS

Thats eaxctly one of the reasons why they've increased the proprosed age, great way to save money.

Its also one of the reasons they allow a lump sum deferment of current state pensions curretly whilst advertising the nice amounts you could get if you defer long term = long term deferral = no money paid = person dying = lost of money saved.

Iona_Penny

Probably fewer than you think, and have you thought how many are living beyond the age of 65? The latter probably costs more than is saved in the former?

There are some jobs that it would be impossible to carry on doing after the age of 65 or even 60 for some and I think this is something that needs to be taken into account; but I also heard somewhere that the majority of the population left school at 14 and worked all their lives in hard manual roles. This just doesnt happen and we have holidays, better lifestyles. The result is that we can't have a retirement age that was selected for a whole different era. And NO I do not have a fab pension pot or a cushy retirement to look forward to,and we struggle along each month using our money now because we have to; but I do recognise our expectations are too costly for the country.

rchddap1

One thing they haven't thought of though is that in the years between the 65 years now and the furutre 68 or 69 healthcare will improve, so more people than they expect my live to get their pension.

cymro1170

Hello cynical....

CIS

Good news ? on the BBC - GB is saying taht he doesn't think the plan is affordable and wants SPA to stay at 65.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4465652.stm

rchddap1

Like that's a shock. Old Brown has been screaming from the rooftops that it isn't going to happen for the past week...despite the report not being published. If he's so smart then what does he suggest then?

Sorry, but he just take the biscuit barrell sometimes.

Becky

What is the annual expenditure on pensions compared to, lets say, benefit fraud - those that make a career out of fiddling the system?

If the benefits system was improved so people couldn't use it as their 9-5, how would that impact upon improving pensions for people?

deemy2004

State pension is £48 billion

Public sector pensions deficit is £10 billion

Benefits fraud - perhaps £6 billion.

But as the number of retirees is expected to double you can more than double the costs 15 years forward.

Pal

Dunno about age 68 or 69, but of those people who make it to age 65, 97% will make it to 67, the previously suggested state retirement age.

In practice if you manage to live to 65 the chances are good that you are going to live a few more years. I will look up the figures for 68 and 69 when I get the chance.

Of course once you get past age 70 the death rates start accelerating rapidly. Those people who make it to 105 are highly unlikely to make it to 107.

Charlton_Taz

You do not get a huge number of deaths in the 65-67/68 age bracket. According to mortality table if you reach 65 you are on average going to live another 21 years as a man, 24 years as a woman.

The reason they want to raise the retirement age is that all it means that in your retirement they will have to pay you 2-3 years less with the state pension - therefore cheaper!!

People have got to realise we do need to do things like raising retirement ages or much higher pension saving or ideally both, as individually, and as a country we simply cannot afford it. When the pension was first thought of it certainly wasn't the case that people ages 65 were going to live another 20+ years, also back then we had a growing working population that could pay for it vis their taxes. The combination of longer lives and a static population means that we can no longer afford it.