MSE News: Tory Conference: State pension age could rise early

kennyboy66_2

patchwork_cat wrote: »

However do you not think that they are not counting on much 'grey' vote as those of us that are grey or going! still remember the last Tory government and are certainly not going back there!

There are roughly 12.5 million people in the UK over the age of 60.

In the last election 27 million people voted.

Old people are more likely to vote than young people.

Polling evidence from 2005 (and 1997 ) showed that Conservatives got significantly more votes (6-10% lead) than Labour with the over 65's (and over 55's for that matter).

I find in impossible to believe that the Tories would win an election next year without winning the "grey" vote.

cyclingyorkie

Politicians have known for at least 30 years that there was going to be a funding crisi for pensions. I'm 47...but I was taught at school that my NI contributions go to pay the pensions of those already retired...they aren't put aside for me later...

So falling birthrate as the babyboom moves through to become pensioners......

all governments are to blame - but a governments aim is to get reelected....and changing pensions is a potentially votelosing policy.

tonysbt

bumpoowee wrote: »

More harsh that I would have put it but this is pretty much how I feel - it's all very well saying 'look at the poor old dears/gents, having to survive on £95 a week', but those poor old dears/gents were once young able-bodied people who obviously didn't want to take any responsibility for their own futures.

What a one-eyed viewpoint! A lot of people had to work for low pay, didn't have a company pension scheme, etc and weren't in a position to do anything to enhance their futures.


Don't comment on something you know nothing about!

Harry_Powell

I think you'll find that the few older voters the tories lose will be replaced by lots of younger voters who are sick of the way the baby boomers have raped the finances of this country to feather their own nests. I can't retire until 68 and there is talk of moving this to 70, so I won't be shedding a tear for those who have to do an extra year.

Baby boomers have had female retirement at 60 & male retirement at 65, they enjoyed final salary pensions within large industries, they have enjoyed cheap share deals from those same industries when they were practically given away by Thatcher, the list goes on. If after all the financial advantages they have enjoyed they didn't manage to put a bit by to fund even one year of 'early retirement' (i.e. retire at 65 before receiving state pension at 66), then more fool them.

fg22

It seems to be an ill-conceived policy.

Women's state pension ages are moving up to 65 by 2020. Cameron appears to have ruled out increasing this any faster. Instead he wants to create sex discrimination by increasing just the male retirement age in 2016 (despite it being females who live longer). This will not help the deficit now and will give people a short time to adjust retirement plans. (Cameron talks of an independent review so if they win the election I wouldn't be suprised if it doesn't make statute until 2010).
I'm not opposed to increasing the retirement age and think that it may need to happen faster than currently planned but any changes should be made after 2020.

(There was a paper recently showing the cost of paying the state pension in future, unfornately I can't remember who it was by. I think it showed that even with the current plans the cost in 2024 would be lower than it is today but it was the period after this when costs would rise and hence where changes would need to be made)

I can only guess that the Tories are counting the grey vote as won and are therefore trying win younger voters

roddydogs

This only applies to people who have other pensions/savings, otherwise you get pensions credit of £110 PW from 60, even if youve never paid a penny in NI contributions.

Old_Slaphead

dunstonh wrote: »

Many should have already started to phase their risk down on their investments.

Agreed but many 50 somethings will still have a reasonable proportion in equity-cbased investments and looking to 'lifestyle down'. Hence most of ongoing contributions will be in low risk which is attracting negligible returns and little upside potential to recover losses in equities.

Hopefully not too many will have invoked automatic lifestyling in last 12 months and missed the 'recovery'

kennyboy66_2

roddydogs wrote: »

This only applies to people who have other pensions/savings, otherwise you get pensions credit of £110 PW from 60, even if youve never paid a penny in NI contributions.

While this is true, the age increases to 65 in stages from 2010 to 2020.

I also can't see the Tories increasing this level of benefit, whereas they have said they will increase pensions by average earnings rather than RPI.

In which case over time this benefit withers away to some extent.

Old_Slaphead

Harry_Powell wrote: »

I think you'll find that the few older voters the tories lose will be replaced by lots of younger voters who are sick of the way the baby boomers have raped the finances of this country to feather their own nests. I can't retire until 68 and there is talk of moving this to 70, so I won't be shedding a tear for those who have to do an extra year.

By age 66 I will have contributed 50 years of NI. On that basis, today's generation should be required to work up to 71 or 72 (perhaps a little longer to accomodate the benefit of increasing longevity).

Not sure how many of us 'raped' the countries finances - what exactly do you mean?

Harry_Powell

Old_Slaphead wrote: »

By age 66 I will have contributed 50 years of NI. On that basis, today's generation should be required to work up to 71 or 72 (perhaps a little longer to accomodate the benefit of increasing longevity).

Not sure how many of us 'raped' the countries finances - what exactly do you mean?

You cut out the explanation when you quoted my text. I suggest you re-read it.

You'll have contributed 49 years of NI to get your pension at 65 (65 - 16 = 50) and I'll have contributed 52 years of NI (68 - 16 = 52) and that's only if they allow us to retire at 68, there is talk of age 70 which means I'll have contributed 54 years to your 49 years. What's your point?