State pension age rise needed to balance books

IveSeenTheLight

from http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-11038119

State pension age rise needed to balance books

Workers could find they will be commuting for more years to come
The state pension age would need to rise to 72 in 20 years' time to keep the cost to the government at the same level as in 1981.
That is the conclusion of the Pensions Policy Institute think tank in its submission to the government consultation about the issue.
It adds that people would need at least 10 years' notice of a policy change in order to adjust their retirement plans.
The pension age will rise, but there is debate over the speed of change.
Continue reading the main story Your Pensions

• Living longer: the pension problem
• Retirement rules and you
• Is your pension affected by CPI switch?
• Q&A: Why raise the pension age?

Plans
The state pension age for women is already being raised to 65 by 2020.
Now the coalition government wants to raise the age at which people are eligible to draw the state pension faster than the previous government planned to do.
The Labour government was planning to raise the state pension age to 66, starting in 2024, with the pension age eventually reaching 68.
But the new government is holding a consultation to on whether to make the change earlier. It will not be sooner than 2016 for men and 2020 for women.
The Pensions Policy Institute's submission explores how much it will cost to maintain a roughly constant proportion of an individual's total adult life in receipt of the state pension.
This takes into account the expected improvement to life expectancy.
In concludes that:

• To stay at the level seen in 2010 - the state pension age would need to go up by just six months to 66.5 by 2030.
• To keep it at levels seen in 2000 - the state pension age must increase to 68 by 2030
• To return to levels seen in 1981 - the pension age would need to go up to 72.

However, people would need plenty of notice if this was to happen, the think-tank said.
Men would need at least five years' notice, and ideally more than 10. Women would need more than 10 years' notice of a policy change.
"This is because women tend to drop out of the labour market at a younger age than men," it said.

bendix

Good. Make it 75 at least, or even 80, and force people to make private provision.

It might - just might - help us create a generation of people fiscally responsible, and mature enough to develop and sense of personal responsibility.

wymondham

At this rate most people will never retire, but die instead .. it's probably by design!

I think the Govt need to be careful ... if they extend it too much then many people might not bother getting pensions at all, or paying the absolute minimum as it could very well be wasted money if there is a high chance they won't be around to claim it!

Rainmaker_uk

I agree - there should be measures to force people to put away for their retirement. What would really annoy me is if they made it means tested. They would then be rewarding all the people who have let others cloth and feed them their entire lives at the expense of those who have sacrificed to plan for their retirement and need the state pension to top it up.

Graham_Devon

As long as it doesn't effect those with the money at the moment, it's all good.

I do like it when those designing the system always make sure they don't get hit by the system. Their kids are fair cop however.

Mr_Mumble

Peeps need to be given an individual basic state pension account where they can draw an annuity from a lump sum at an age of their choosing (within limits of course, probably 55 unless you are terminally ill).

It'll be transparent - nowt like a lump sum value - and so we can see whether the baby boomers are scamming generations x/y/z. It would also put a stop to the favouritism for the wealthy and women (Chelsea and Knightsbridge ladies have an average life expectancy of 83 years compared to 69 years for Glaswegian men). It would be flexible, so folk with different conditions who may die earlier are not disadvantaged, and it will put an end to the current regressive system where the poorer you are the less likely you are to draw the pension for a reasonable length of time.

IveSeenTheLight

Graham_Devon wrote: »

As long as it doesn't effect those with the money at the moment, it's all good.

I do like it when those designing the system always make sure they don't get hit by the system. Their kids are fair cop however.

To be honest, as the life expectancy increased, surely it's natural that the working life should also increase proportionally.
Otherwise the percentage of working life shrinks thus your provision has to go further.

I hope that it pushes more to provide for themselves such that they have the choice if they want to retire early regardless of the state retirement age.

Graham_Devon

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

To be honest, as the life expectancy increased, surely it's natural that the working life should also increase proportionally.
Otherwise the percentage of working life shrinks thus your provision has to go further.

I hope that it pushes more to provide for themselves such that they have the choice if they want to retire early regardless of the state retirement age.

The problem here is that my generation, those who are your normal average joe, find it hard to have pension provisions and housing provisions.

It's been one or the other. Indeed, in some cases, neither.

You are asking our generation to pay the highest rents, whilst saving up massive deposits, while making pension provisions, while paying ever increasing taxes, whilst paying off our student loans.

I'm not moaning, I have it relatively easy compared to some. I'm just making a point. It can't all be done, not when you are the average bloke in the street.

IveSeenTheLight

Graham_Devon wrote: »

The problem here is that my generation, those who are your normal average joe, find it hard to have pension provisions and housing provisions.

It's been one or the other. Indeed, in some cases, neither.

You are asking our generation to pay the highest rents, whilst saving up massive deposits, while making pension provisions, while paying ever increasing taxes, whilst paying off our student loans.

I'm not moaning, I have it relatively easy compared to some. I'm just making a point. It can't all be done, not when you are the average bloke in the street.

Graham, I'm probably in the same generation as you. My retirement age is planned to increase and may increase further.
I'm not asking anyone to do anything.
All I'm doing is getting on with life and providing for my family as best I can.
I suggest you should try and do the same

Graham_Devon

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

I suggest you should try and do the same

So after ignoring everything I said, you come out with that snide little line.

I actually thought I would do different, and do the worst I possibly could for my family.

Idiot.

IveSeenTheLight

Graham_Devon wrote: »

So after ignoring everything I said, you come out with that snide little line.

I actually thought I would do different, and do the worst I possibly could for my family.

Idiot.

Graham,
You are being impossible today.
I didn't ignore what you said, I said I was in the same generation as you.
Doesn't mean I agree that all our generation are in the situation you are and think everyone else is.

If you truly believe you are doing your best then fine.

What you are doing is moaning on an internet forum instead of doing something to change the situation you are in.

Goodnight, I will debate no more with you today.
My head is getting sore (see sig)