MSE News: Pension age rise bought forward

Gracchus_Babeuf

JCL wrote: »

The rise in the state pension age makes sense given the remarkable increases in life expectancy. Time for it to be linked automatically.

Obviously people still have the choice of retiring earlier if they make their own provision - I'm certainly not going to be relying on the state.

If you look at it purely from a statistical viewpoint then yes - it makes sense. But from a social and political point of view it does not make sense at all. Many people on modest incomes of say, £25k a year or less, cannot afford to build up sufficiently high private pensions to give them decent standards of living in old age. So what is an insignificant change for high earners makes a lot of difference for the worse off. And what is being ignored is that the UK pays a lower state pension than almost any other European nation - this is a disgrace. I would accept a higher state pension age only if the pension was to be increased substantially.

dunstonh

Maybe £336k is lavish by most standards, but that is nothing to do with the state pension. It is clearly commensurate with the person's earnings and lifestyle when working.

Someone earning £336k a year is paying over £120,000 a year in tax. That is the equivalent of more than 24 basic state pensions being paid for by that person.

gadgetmind

Gracchus_Babeuf wrote: »

£36k is a lavish pension

Not between a couple it isn't.

Your comment about rewarding success is political rhetoric, not logic.

Ah, yes, of course, in your world success needs to be punished rather than rewarded as that's the only way to ensure everyone fails equally as hard.

BTW, whenever I see people use the phrase "the rich", I start to tune them out as they rarely have anything sensible to contribute.

Gracchus_Babeuf

Alter_ego wrote: »

Maybe £36k is lavish by most standards, but that is nothing to do with the state pension. It is clearly commensurate with the person's earnings and lifestyle when working.

Since when is a pension meant to maintain the high lifestyles of the better off? A pension is meant to provide an adequate standard of living, not pay for round the world cruises and such like.

The_Angry_Jock

Gracchus_Babeuf wrote: »

In reality, most wealthy people cannot move due to family commitments etc.

Really? Where's the evidence to support this?

Gracchus_Babeuf

dunstonh wrote: »

Someone earning £336k a year is paying over £120,000 a year in tax. That is the equivalent of more than 24 basic state pensions being paid for by that person.

I believe he meant to type £36k.

dunstonh

Since when is a pension meant to maintain the high lifestyles of the better off? A pension is meant to provide an adequate standard of living, not pay for round the world cruises and such like.

Since when has a pension meant to provide an adequate standard of living?

It is up to the individual what they pay towards their retirement planning. Not the state. The state only has control of the state pension and that is the only pension that is not designed to pay for a world cruise.

gadgetmind

Gracchus_Babeuf wrote: »

Since when is a pension meant to maintain the high lifestyles of the better off?

If that's the case, why does most pension provision (private and public sector) aim to provide people with an income of roughly 2/3rds their final salary?

Your proposals (as vague and unworkable as they are) seem designed to ensure that everyones income falls in retirement and that we all have a thoroughly miserable time.

Gracchus_Babeuf

gadgetmind wrote: »

Not between a couple it isn't..

True, but I was referring to an individual's pension, not a couple.

gadgetmind wrote: »

Ah, yes, of course, in your world success needs to be punished rather than rewarded as that's the only way to ensure everyone fails equally as hard.

BTW, whenever I see people use the phrase "the rich", I start to tune them out as they rarely have anything sensible to contribute.

It's not a question of punishing success, but of ensuring that, in times of financial constraints, those who can afford not to have a state pension do not have one, in order to ensure that the money is targeted more effectively. Also, if the more successful (rich) people are not 'punished' (not the word I would use) then everyone is punished - what is better, to take a little money from a wealthy minority or force the majority to work longer?

atush

Here we go again, the M25 communist raises his head ;-)

I am very surprised that the pension age isn't scheduled to move up to age 7 as leading economists suggest that it should..

So be glad the move to 67 is only being pushed forwards instead of increased. I agree that perhaps more should be done to give people time to prepare and I get that you think that 20 years isn't enough time. To me, 5-10 years is enough time, and 2 years isn't.