Male state pension at 66 from 2016?

Rupert_Bear

exil wrote: »

As I understand it (and it is vague, we'll have to await the official announcement) the age will be 66 on 6 April 2016, so anyone born on or after 6 April 1950 will have to wait until they're 66. That is, at least some current 60 year olds will have to wait a year. And if it's phased in starting a year before, 61 year olds could be affected too though they'll only have to wait a few months rather than a whole year. The devil will be in the detail.

It's claimed this will save 13 billion a year. It would be interesting to see how they worked that out considering that the total cost of pensions and pension credit is only abut 100 billion a year. Even assuming people decide to keep working a year (how many people still have a full time job at 65?) and so pay more tax.... or indeed if the over 65 tax allowance is now going to be "over 66" - it's hard to arrive at that figure -maybe they're including the cost of bus passes, free prescriptions and the rest, and perhaps they will also accelerate the raising of the pension age for women.

I think it is best to wait and see without all this scaremongering. My father is due to retire on early September 2015 and after readling through your vague post is now worried. Personally I cannot see how anyone retiring in 2015 would be affected by changes in 2016. I think it is best to wait and see rather than just speculating and as such worrying people needlessly.

'Our aim will be to bring forward the date when the pension age rises... For men this means the pension age will not start to rise to 66 until at least 2016. For women this means the pension age will not start to rise from 65 to 66 until at least 2020.'

Read more: http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/pensions/article.html?in_article_id=491514&in_page_id=6#ixzz0omSvvaHH

artha

exil wrote: »

Even assuming people decide to keep working a year (how many people still have a full time job at 65?) and so pay more tax.... or indeed if the over 65 tax allowance is now going to be "over 66" - i

As I posted earlier in this thread, what about those like me who have already retired with a financial assumption that I will have my state pension kicking in at 65 to top up my low company pension. Do I try to go back to work to earn enough to make up the difference. Fat chance of anyone taking me on at my age

bigfreddiel

exil wrote: »

As I understand it (and it is vague, we'll have to await the official announcement) the age will be 66 on 6 April 2016, so anyone born on or after 6 April 1950 will have to wait until they're 66. That is, at least some current 60 year olds will have to wait a year. And if it's phased in starting a year before, 61 year olds could be affected too though they'll only have to wait a few months rather than a whole year. The devil will be in the detail.

!!!!!! - thats what I thought, I was born July 1951 - so July 2016 I am 65 - so its going to be another year, July 2017 before I get my state pension!

The next question is how will it be moved to 66 - one fell swoop,or a gradual move over the 12 months from April 2016 to aprril 2017,like the womens shift from 60 to 65 is being done right now?

jamesd

In 2008 there were 646,000 people aged 64 in the UK. However, if you look beyond that towards the peak of the baby boomer generation, there were 843,000 aged 61 and 806,000 aged 60. It falls back to around 730,000 average in the late fifties.

Using the 714,000 people who were aged 57 in 2008 gets an annual saving of £18,207 per person needed. About £8,000 per person can come from not paying the basic and additional state pensions for a year.

Assuming everyone was making the average income of £28,000 a year that's about £21,000 a year and about £7,300 of basic rate income tax, employee and employer's NI paid.

That's only around £3,000 per person short of the target so I don't think it's too incredible once you consider that those about to retire are often at or near the peak of their lifetime earning levels, not the average. The per person average saving needed is only £15,400 per person for the age 61 peak of the baby boomer retirees.

Getting the increase in before a lot of the early baby boomers reach retirement age is a good move if the idea is to maximise the annual saving. It should really have been done sooner, with more notice as well, though.

It would still be interesting to see the numbers behind the claim.

artha

bigfreddiel wrote: »

!!!!!! - thats what I thought, I was born July 1951 - so July 2016 I am 65 - so its going to be another year, July 2017 before I get my state pension!

The next question is how will it be moved to 66 - one fell swoop,or a gradual move over the 12 months from April 2016 to aprril 2017,like the womens shift from 60 to 65 is being done right now?

I would hope that it's moved gradually as, if it is to happen, then this would surely be a fairer way of making such a radical change over a relatively short term for those who cannot make adjustments to their plans.

I've been looking at the proposal and now realise the full impact for me (also born July 1951). IF I assume that I have a reasonable life expectancy of reaching 80 then I will get 14 years of pension at around 5K instead of 15 years. This then means that my lifetime state pension will be reduced by 9.3%. If it had been put this way in the manifesto then how would people have voted!

seven-day-weekend

ukmike wrote: »

Surely someone who is 60 now(or later this year)will be OK?

I was 60 at the end of January 2010 and received my State Pension on 1 February . However, women who are 60 this year but after 6 April will have to wait longer for their pension, albeit only by a few weeks or months.

ukmike

Quote:
Originally Posted by ukmike
Surely someone who is 60 now(or later this year)will be OK?

I was 60 at the end of January 2010 and received my State Pension on 1 February . However, women who are 60 this year but after 6 April will have to wait longer for their pension, albeit only by a few weeks or months.

I was talking about men as the OP was *Male state pension at 66 from 2016?*

exil

jamesd wrote: »

In 2008 there were 646,000 people aged 64 in the UK. However, if you look beyond that towards the peak of the baby boomer generation, there were 843,000 aged 61 and 806,000 aged 60. It falls back to around 730,000 average in the late fifties.

Using the 714,000 people who were aged 57 in 2008 gets an annual saving of £18,207 per person needed. About £8,000 per person can come from not paying the basic and additional state pensions for a year.

Assuming everyone was making the average income of £28,000 a year that's about £21,000 a year and about £7,300 of basic rate income tax, employee and employer's NI paid.

That's only around £3,000 per person short of the target so I don't think it's too incredible once you consider that those about to retire are often at or near the peak of their lifetime earning levels, not the average. The per person average saving needed is only £15,400 per person for the age 61 peak of the baby boomer retirees.

Getting the increase in before a lot of the early baby boomers reach retirement age is a good move if the idea is to maximise the annual saving. It should really have been done sooner, with more notice as well, though.

It would still be interesting to see the numbers behind the claim.

There are some doubtful assumptions here. The fact is average income starts to decline from about age 50 onwards, it doesn't peak at age 65. And you seem to assume that if someone stays at work after 65 this magically creates a job out of thin air, rather than the person concerned preventing someone else getting promoted or being recruited. Also, a large number of people age 65 are already out of the workforce and are thus claiming benefit - so the saving in that case is more lik £5k per head. Those who are retired on an occupational pension will have to wait a year for their state pension so that will save the 8k you mentioned.

I would have thought the average saving would be 8k per head - that is, about £5-6 billion.

By the way - it seems to be unacceptable to worry people now in their 60s, but perfectly OK to do the same to those in their 50s.

seven-day-weekend

ukmike wrote: »

I was talking about men as the OP was *Male state pension at 66 from 2016?*

Ah...right.

See, this is what happens when you are a Pensioner. I'd better start practising pushing in at bus stops, waving my bus pass.

jamesd

exil, the numbers were approximations to get some idea of whether the number might be right. It doesn't seem too bad as numbers from politicians go. Worrying people in their 50s beats worrying people in their 60s because people in their 60s have less time to save up a year's state pension if they still want to retire at 65.