Male state pension at 66 from 2016?

jamesd

artha, the life expectancy at birth statistics are useless for the purpose. The correct ones to use are cohort life expectancy for the age you are when you retire. There are a lot of early death causes included in the life expectancy at birth statistics that you've already lived through without dying. It's not really likely that you'll die of a fatal heart defect that normally kills people in their first month of life, nor a range of other conditions that normally kill children or young adults.

It's one of the most common mistakes people make when considering how long they might live, helping to cause most people to under-estimate.

artha

Stargazer57 wrote: »

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.

So basically the increase in state pensions that had been long campaigned for and eventually agreed have been cancelled. Once again if it had been put in these terms we would possibly still have a labour government.

Paul_Herring

artha wrote: »

I was quoting life expectancy at birth from National Statistics online.

'Average life expectancy at birth' includes all those that will die before the age of (say) 16.

Once you live to 16, the average age expectancy no longer includes those who've died, so the average for the cohort goes up.

Once you live to 50, all the people who've died between 16 and 50 are no longer included, so the average for the cohort goes up again.

artha

Paul_Herring wrote: »

'Average life expectancy at birth' includes all those that will die before the age of (say) 16.

Once you live to 16, the average age expectancy no longer includes those who've died, so the average for the cohort goes up.

Once you live to 50, all the people who've died between 16 and 50 are no longer included, so the average for the cohort goes up again.

So the older you are, the greater your life expectancy compared to the at birth projection? That seems reasonable but rather obvious.
How is the "average life expectancy at birth" a useful and meaningfull statistic? Does it have any value for government pension liability predictions - I would think not as most governments only look at 5 to 10 year terms. Is it then just a measure of changing early years healthcare/infant mortality/young peoples lifestyles/general living standards?.

I do recall seeing a "medical" article predicting that average life expectancy(presumably the at birth stat) is likely to have peaked with the baby boomers as the effects of "better"? living standards take their toll in the form of obesity/fitness/stress etc and outweigh the effects of improved medical care.

Paul_Herring

artha wrote: »

How is the "average life expectancy at birth" a useful and meaningfull statistic?

For comparison with other cohorts and within the cohort over time. Beyond that, I'm at a loss as to any other meaningful significant interpretation that could be made.

Does it have any value for government pension liability predictions

Nope. For the reasons stated above. Basically they're projecting too far into the future to make any useful government decisions, as you pointed out.

lvader

artha wrote: »

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.

The difference in living costs excluding houseing between London and Machester is around 7% according to this report. http://www.london.gov.uk/mayor/economic_unit/case_for_london/costofliving_report.pdf

jamesd

artha wrote: »

most governments only look at 5 to 10 year terms.

The Pensions Commission planning and Labour changes introduced as a result were planning to 2050 and beyond, to cover the peak retired person count for the baby boomer generation. Annuity providers also look that far ahead and have to buy inflation-linked UK government bonds to cover their anticipated payments far into the future for the annuities they sell. It's one reason why the UK government sells some gilts with very long lifetimes compared to many other countries - several decades.

That longer than usual government debt lifetime is also part of why the UK is not likely to suffer as Greece, with a relatively short debt refinancing timeline, has.

artha

lvader wrote: »

The difference in living costs excluding houseing between London and Machester is around 7% according to this report. http://www.london.gov.uk/mayor/economic_unit/case_for_london/costofliving_report.pdf

What has Manchester got to do with the North East?:rotfl:

Paul_Herring

artha wrote: »

What has Manchester got to do with the North East?:rotfl:

They're both north of Watford.

I thank you <bow>, I shall be here all evening....

zygurat789

Paul_Herring wrote: »

They're both north of Watford.

I thank you <bow>, I shall be here all evening....

Not according to my map, Newcastle is NNW of Watford, whilst Manchester is NW