Male state pension at 66 from 2016?

zygurat789

hugheskevi wrote: »

Maybe not in your area, but median male full-time salary in London=£37,201 (mean=£54,440).

So not far off half of male full time workers in London earn that.

Source here, (table 5.7a sheet Male Full-Time)

Actually it says what they are paid not what they earn!

This is bound to be the case because London is where all the MPs are based and the overpaid civil service not to mention all those bankers who get credit-crunch making boni and all the fat cats like the BT guy wh's just paid himself a £1.2m bonus.
Yes it's not surprising that the [STRIKE]lies, damned lies[/STRIKE] statistics say that but if you look deeper it really doesn't mean that much
other than there are too many fat cats and there all in London

hugheskevi

This is bound to be the case because London is where all the MPs are based and the overpaid civil service not to mention all those bankers who get credit-crunch making boni and all the fat cats like the BT guy wh's just paid himself a £1.2m bonus.
Yes it's not surprising that the lies, damned lies statistics say that but if you look deeper it really doesn't mean that much
other than there are too many fat cats and there all in London

Those statistics cover 1,237,000 people, of which 7% are MPs and Civil Servants (650 are MPs and 84,390 are Civil Servants) so they don't have a big impact on the statistics, especially as the figure quoted was median, and most of those Civil Servants will be earning below £37,201 p/a.

The point is that in a large part of the country people earn a lot more than elsewhere, and have much higher expenses (mainly housing) but we do not have a tax system that recognises this.

It is even more galling to have people blindly asserting that people are rich if they earn more than £44,000 without any reference to whether they live in London or the rural north east which has a massive impact on the standard of living £44,000 buys.

And it is particularly annoying when people decide that people earning over £44,000 should stump up ever increasing amount of cash for whatever the needy group of the day may be.

artha

Those statistics cover 1,237,000 people, of which 7% are MPs and Civil Servants (650 are MPs and 84,390 are Civil Servants) so they don't have a big impact on the statistics, especially as the figure quoted was median, and most of those Civil Servants will be earning below £37,201 p/a.

If we are dealing in statistics then one which is relevant to the origins of this thread is that, as someone born in 1951, my average life expectancy is 70 years. If the coalition has its way then I may lose 20% of my lifetime state pension allowance based on that statistic. Is that fair?

The point is that in a large part of the country people earn a lot more than elsewhere, and have much higher expenses (mainly housing) but we do not have a tax system that recognises this.

Why should we have a tax system that differs according to where you live? The reason that house prices are higher in certain areas is a supply and demand driven. If you choose to live in a certain area then you pay what it costs. (I realise that this may be a bit of an oversimplification but the principle holds)

It is even more galling to have people blindly asserting that people are rich if they earn more than £44,000 without any reference to whether they live in London or the rural north east which has a massive impact on the standard of living £44,000 buys

.
If you are talking about the North East of England it is mostly industrial and not rural. Apart from housing in some areas that you just would not want to live in the cost of living is much the same. In fact the standard of living is lower given statistics on life expectancy etc. To achieve the same standard of living in the North East compared to London it could be argued that for some things it costs more. As a simple example the cost of winter heating in the North East is greater than in London.

And it is particularly annoying when people decide that people earning over £44,000 should stump up ever increasing amount of cash for whatever the needy group of the day may be.

As someone who has been in that category I did not like it but at least assumed that I would get my state pension at 65

Stargazer57

artha wrote: »

If we are dealing in statistics then one which is relevant to the origins of this thread is that, as someone born in 1951, my average life expectancy is 70 years. If the coalition has its way then I may lose 20% of my lifetime state pension allowance based on that statistic. Is that fair?

Life expectancy for a male aged 59 is about 86.

hugheskevi

If we are dealing in statistics then one which is relevant to the origins of this thread is that, as someone born in 1951, my average life expectancy is 70 years. If the coalition has its way then I may lose 20% of my lifetime state pension allowance based on that statistic.

Rather pessimistic, unless you are in ill-health or come from an area of particularly low life-expectancy. As a former higher rate tax payer you would have a higher than average life expectancy, other things being equal.

A 59 year old male in the UK in 2010 would expect to live another 26.7 years (Cohort life expectancy for UK, found here).

So that is a much less severe loss, though still unwelcome.

Is that fair?

5 or 6 year notice period is rather short. 10+ years would seem more reasonable, or at the very least some sort of tapered rather than cliff-edge increase.

Remember that it is common for a Govt. to announce a very harsh decision initially in order to allow themself room to retreat to secure agreement as the measure is actually enacted.

Personally I'd prefer any increase to take place in 2020, after female SPA equalisation, and be the same for males and females. That is what I think will end up happening once everything is decided.

artha

Stargazer57 wrote: »

Life expectancy for a male aged 59 is about 86.

I was quoting life expectancy at birth from National Statistics online.
Currently a newborn boy has a life expectancy of 77.4 years

Stargazer57

hugheskevi wrote: »

5 or 6 year notice period is rather short. 10+ years would seem more reasonable, or at the very least some sort of tapered rather than cliff-edge increase.

Remember that it is common for a Govt. to announce a very harsh decision initially in order to allow themself room to retreat to secure agreement as the measure is actually enacted.

Personally I'd prefer any increase to take place in 2020, after female SPA equalisation, and be the same for males and females. That is what I think will end up happening once everything is decided.

But the pension will increase by the higher of earnings, prices or 2.5% from 2011 rather than in line with prices, as had previously been expected. It's difficult to say how much higher the pension will be as a result, partly because the last Government had been giving higher increases, albeit on a year-by-year basis, and they were due to put in the earnings link by 2015, but BSP could easily be 5% higher than previously expected by 2016, which is approximately the loss caused by the year's delay.

If I remember correctly Osborne justified the delay in State Pension Age in part as necessary to pay for the earnings link.

So I think the increase will still happen in 2016.

Stargazer57

artha wrote: »

I was quoting life expectancy at birth from National Statistics online. Currently a newborn boy has a life expectancy of 77.4 years

If you read the whole article:

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=168

rather than just the first three lines, you'll see how you are so far out in your assumptions.

artha

hugheskevi wrote: »

5 or 6 year notice period is rather short. 10+ years would seem more reasonable, or at the very least some sort of tapered rather than cliff-edge increase.

Remember that it is common for a Govt. to announce a very harsh decision initially in order to allow themself room to retreat to secure agreement as the measure is actually enacted.

Personally I'd prefer any increase to take place in 2020, after female SPA equalisation, and be the same for males and females. That is what I think will end up happening once everything is decided.

Although I didn't take it I had the option last year to take an enhanced pension for the next few years until I reached 65 when my company pension would have dropped to take into account that I would start getting state pension. Glad I didn't do that but I knew of people that did when we were made redundant and retired. Don't know how that situation will be resolved if it is a cliff edge move.

I do believe that it must be a staggered move just as the recent changes to the bus pass at 60 benefit has been. Probably a different thread but I would rather have seen benefits like bus pass/winter fuel allowance been means tested than broadbrush changes to state pension. Perhaps I'm speaking too soon and they may also go along with the long overdue changes to child benefit and other give-aways to people who don't need them

artha

Stargazer57 wrote: »

If you read the whole article:

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=168

rather than just the first three lines, you'll see how you are so far out in your assumptions.

OK, fair enough. I probably didn't do enough research. I did post earlier that I was looking at a possible 9.3% lifetime loss if I lived till 80 but then decided I should check my assumptions. I must admit I was surprised at the low average life expectancy based on birthdate rather than current age.