MSE News: Pension age to rise earlier than planned

artha

joolzred wrote: »

When state pensions were introduced, they were meant to be a small cushion to meet life's necessities for the average 7 years before one met the grim reaper.

It's called progress and improving peoples expectations from life and improving standards of living. You could say the same of education, the health service, social security etc

A man retiring in 1946 at the age of 65 had a general expectancy of living until he was 71-73. State pensions were not meant to pay for cars, holidays and other so-called necessary stuff we have today (so says my ex nan-in-law who remembers them being introduced)
Fast forward 60 years and the same situation isn't occurring. A man of 65 today generally will have 20+ years to look forward to. People are generally healthier at 65 than they used to be thanks to pollution control, cleaner jobs, drop in smoking rates and better medical care and screening.

Wake up. Life expectancy has been increasing steadily for over 100years. Are you saying we've just discovered that and need to do something about it as soon as possible. I would dispute that many people are healthier. We just keep people alive longer. In fact there are concerns that the lifestyles of current young/middle age generations may reverse the life expectancy trend.

The fact is that people have to face the figures, and the demographics and perhaps the baby-boomer generation will have to make a few sacrifices for the sake of their following generations - just as their parents and grandparents did for them!

Many of the so called baby boomer generation have already made sacrifices in having to spend childhood in the late forties and fifties and even into the sixties. The long period of austerity and rationing following the war saw to that. Everyone walked to school and there were no university places freely available as there have been in recent years. In all of my working life since graduating in the early seventies there have only been a few periods of a couple of years when there was no talk of redundancy and cut backs. Many baby boomers, having grown up and worked in such situations, are actually the ones who have been saving for their retirements. The current generations have, whether they realise it or not have had it easy, and yes they should be paying for their future pensions not those who have earned them

[Deleted User]

artha wrote: »

Many of the so called baby boomer generation have already made sacrifices in having to spend childhood in the late forties and fifties and even into the sixties. The long period of austerity and rationing following the war saw to that. Everyone walked to school

Rationing ended by the mid 50's.

The sacrifices were only made by the parents, not children. Having a slightly austere childhood does not = sacrifices. (If that were so I made sacrifices being educated in the early 80's when everything was cut to the bone, even the school milk was axed). Massive investment was made into schools and housing. And as far as I know my childhood was the same after I was born in 1971 as regards walking to school!

artha wrote: »

and there were no university places freely available as there have been in recent years.

But there were grants then for those whose family could not afford university - When I was at university it the last year of grants and the introduction of loans. There are plenty of places now - but also students leave university with £10000 + of debt. No grants except exceptional grants for disabled people and certain nursing/teaching degrees.

The choices made by the generation born immediately post-war are coming home to roost; unless the issues are debated then I fear a huge amount of inter-generational resentment will build up.

My parents freely admit they benefited from the conditions prevailing from the late 50's onwards - they had free healthcare, child benefits and housing was affordable to buy rather than rent. They are totally astounded at the level of rent and mortgage people in their 20's & 30's are shelling out now.

I believe that the massively skewed housing situation in this country is the single biggest factor - if food costs had inflated the same degree as housing then a dozen eggs would cost £9.30 odd. We wouldn't stand for it.:eek:

So - what *do* the older, soon to retire generation actually want the rest of us to do? Bankrupt ourselves paying for earnings-linked state pensions and free social care? This situation has been predicted for over a decade. Is there some other way to deal with it?

On a not so serious note - if you guys had given birth to a few more of us and shared the wealth rather than giving it to holiday companies and golf courses (no mentions of SAGA cruises ) then it might just have been feasible!

I have no wish to deny anyone retiring a fair and decent retirement - it's just working out what standard we set this at - and when it should start to be paid. People at the sage of 65 today are nowhere as "old" as they used to be. Most people of 65 I know would be offended to be called "elderly"

artha

joolzred wrote: »

Rationing ended by the mid 50's.

I know. I still have my identity card and part of a ration book

The sacrifices were only made by the parents, not children. Having a slightly austere childhood does not = sacrifices. (If that were so I made sacrifices being educated in the early 80's when everything was cut to the bone, even the school milk was axed). Massive investment was made into schools and housing. And as far as I know my childhood was the same after I was born in 1971 as regards walking to school!

There were many children growing up in deprived conditions as a result of shortages, bomb damaged cities etc. The whole nation was in a depressed state trying to come to terms with the physical, mental and economic devastation that was the legacy of the war. So the sacrifice was not having the normal childhood that most following generations enjoyed.
As for school milk:eek:It was often either freezing cold because the heating didn't work properly in the winter(no school closures in those days) or it was on the turn through being left next to a radiator when the heating was working. By the time it was axed the nutritional intake of most children was such that it wasn't needed just as national health orange juice had been earlier

But there were grants then for those whose family could not afford university - When I was at university it the last year of grants and the introduction of loans. There are plenty of places now - but also students leave university with £10000 + of debt. No grants except exceptional grants for disabled people and certain nursing/teaching degrees.

I got a full grant but it wasn't the norm and I ended up with significant debt despite living a much more meagre lifestyle than current students(including my own children-but that was to some extent their choice). Grants were affordable then largely because significantly fewer people went into higher education and most graduates were sought after by industry. Today is a different story and probably a different debate

The choices made by the generation born immediately post-war are coming home to roost; unless the issues are debated then I fear a huge amount of inter-generational resentment will build up.

Not sure I understand this and why choices I(if typical) made are having a detrimental effect on the pension situation

My parents freely admit they benefited from the conditions prevailing from the late 50's onwards - they had free healthcare, child benefits and housing was affordable to buy rather than rent.

Unfortunately can't say that my parents would have agreed but that's a different story

They are totally astounded at the level of rent and mortgage people in their 20's & 30's are shelling out now

.
As an absolute amount it does seem to me to be very high but as a % of income it's about the same as we were paying when our daughter was born and interest rates were at around 15% I think. We managed by going back to basics and I and my wife worked evening jobs taking turns to look after our daughter whilst the other was at work. However it is frightening to think what would happen with todays level of debt if interest rates took off. In those days of course you were limited to 3.5xhigher salary+1x other salary as a loan and 100% mortgages were unknown

I believe that the massively skewed housing situation in this country is the single biggest factor - if food costs had inflated the same degree as housing then a dozen eggs would cost £9.30 odd. We wouldn't stand for it.:eek:

This is just supply and demand but fuelled by the crazy amounts people have been allowed to borrow. You can't blame the baby boomers for that;)

So - what *do* the older, soon to retire generation actually want the rest of us to do? Bankrupt ourselves paying for earnings-linked state pensions and free social care? This situation has been predicted for over a decade. Is there some other way to deal with it?

It is a very difficult situation and there is no easy answer that I know of. Personally, I have always tried to live within my means which I believe has its roots in the austerity I experienced in the fifties and sixties. It is probably stating the obvious that far too many people are living beyond their means and if you do that then you have to pay for it at some stage. It's a hard pill to swallow but it's those who have to pay. You can't have your cake and eat it. The problem I see is that the economy is now reliant on people spending more and more. Someone in another post described the state pension as a ponzi scheme. I think there is a danger that the whole economy is a ponzi scheme.

I do think that people will have to take more responsibility for funding their later life but simply telling them is not enough. Give them the tools and advice on how to use them is the only way. Finance and economics should be a fundamental part of education (as this site has been trying to raise awareness of)

On a not so serious note - if you guys had given birth to a few more of us and shared the wealth rather than giving it to holiday companies and golf courses (no mentions of SAGA cruises ) then it might just have been feasible!

I've done my bit;). Call me tight (my wife does!) but I don't really like "holidays" or playing golf. My children are making sure I share my wealth!

I have no wish to deny anyone retiring a fair and decent retirement - it's just working out what standard we set this at - and when it should start to be paid. People at the sage of 65 today are nowhere as "old" as they used to be. Most people of 65 I know would be offended to be called "elderly"

Giving people a fair and decent and longer retirement(if they choose it)following a productive and rewarding working life is a sign of an advancing society. That has to be paid for but the knee jerk actions we have just seen are regressive.

Not sure about the "oldness" perception of people at 65. I'm now 59 and reasonably healthy but when I think about my Dad at 59 he did not seem any older physically than I am now. At 65 he was still very active. My FIL who is now in his late 80s (but is now sadly in care suffering from dementia) retired at 58 and then at 60 bought a market garden business which was physically demanding. Although he continued to be physically fit it was his values that seemed to me to make him elderly. I think that many people now age less in terms of behaviour and outlook. Possibly the more liberal and positive thinking that came out of the sixties?

Anyway, I could go on forever but it's not going to change what the goverment are going to do. Even if some see it as whining at least on here I can vent my spleen and no harm is done. If I were French I'd probably go and throw a brick through someones window

Sapphire

I think people should be allowed to carry on working after 65 if they want to. I have relatives in their seventies who are still working in senior academic positions abroad – their work is an incredibly important part of their lives and they would be lost without it.

I also think that attitudes towards older people in the workplace should be changed, just as work has been done on attitudes to minority ethnic groups in this country. We all have a lot to learn from people with a great deal of work and life experience – as previous generations have acknowledged in the past.

Rupert_Bear

My dad is due to retire in early September 2015 and is concerned now he will be affected by the change to 66.

jamesd

Rupert Bear, probably not at all but it's still not decided. What he can do about it is plan for the possibility by getting a state pension forecast. That will tell him how much basic and additional state pension he would get each year. Then he can plan for possible ways to save or invest to accumulate that much extra money before he retires at 65, using the accumulated money to substitute for the state pensions.

Stargazer57

artha wrote: »

Anyone of my generation who was in the teachers pension scheme has probably got much poorer benefits than in many industries. I just think it's a bit of a myth that public sector pensions like the TPS are "overgenerous" and "gold plated". Perhaps that is true of some civil service areas and would of course seem that way to the many people who do not have occupational pensions.

I think, as you rightly advised, that the scheme is not to be sniffed at but I don't think(historically) it's that good in the broader scheme of things. My wife is now in the teachers scheme and is now currently trying to buy back years of rights that she was incorrectly excluded from.

Is this based on any calculations, or just a hunch?
The contribution that would be necessary to buy a teacher's pension (which is guaranteed by the government) in the private sector would be over 30% of pay, of which a teacher pays a mere 6% of pay.
If that isn't "good in the broader scheme of things", please show me something that is.

uk1

Rupert_Bear wrote: »

My dad is due to retire in early September 2015 and is concerned now he will be affected by the change to 66.

The current discussion is about men retiring at age 66 from 2016. As yiour father would have retired in September 2015 under both current rules and under the current ideas being floated it is highly unlikely these proposals will effect him.

When the ideas are floated is is also fairly likely that there will be a short term phasing of retirement dates and that it will not simply be an additional year for everyone. Politically any other proposal is unlikely to be supported.

He seems to have little to worry about.

artha

Stargazer57 wrote: »

Is this based on any calculations, or just a hunch?
The contribution that would be necessary to buy a teacher's pension (which is guaranteed by the government) in the private sector would be over 30% of pay, of which a teacher pays a mere 6% of pay.
If that isn't "good in the broader scheme of things", please show me something that is.

I was making a comparison based on large company pension schemes that I am familiar with in the chemical/heavy industrial area, not what someone in the private sector who had to make their own provision for. i.e.I was trying to compare like with like.

exil

bexster1975 wrote: »

Well its made my decision easier. Once I hear how much more I will be expected to pay per year into my public sector pension in October, and how much less I will get when I actually retire, I fully intend to withdraw from the scheme and deal with my own wealth accumulation. As I have some shares and savings already and am only 30, I have plenty of time to make my own investments and will be able to cash them in whenever I like!
bexster:)

That would be EXTREMELY unwise. I'm also in the same boat, but whatever horrendous changes are planned the employer (or taxpayer) is still going to be chipping in a large part of the pension and this is "free money".