MSE News: Pension age rise bought forward

Gracchus_Babeuf

gadgetmind wrote: »

So, you intend to charge someone for a pension and then refuse to give it to them? Your morals may allow you to do that, mine don't.

And you believe it is moral for the government to constantly move the pensionable age later and later? Or is it OK for you because the better off won't be affected as much? Hypocrite. :mad:

gadgetmind

Gracchus_Babeuf wrote: »

And you believe it is moral for the government to constantly move the pensionable age later and later?

I'd prefer that they didn't but I can't see any other sensible alternative. And no, yours isn't sensible as, 1) it's politically motivated, 2) it won't work.

Or is it OK for you because the better off won't be affected as much?

It's true that raising the pension age *will* encourage people to save more for retirement whereas your daft suggestion would discourage it.

dunstonh

And you believe it is moral for the government to constantly move the pensionable age later and later?

Absolutely yes. When the "modern" state pension was first introduced, the average life expectancy was just over 2 years. It is now 20 odd years and moving up fast.

Or is it OK for you because the better off won't be affected as much?

Lets be clear on something. It was the previous Government that has put the retirement ages up. Not this one. This one is just bringing forward dates as was originally planned under the review that Labour initiated.


The average retirement age in this country is 63. That is already before state pension age. So, clearly significant numbers are retiring earlier than state pension age and 20 years to find £5000 to fund an extra years state pension off your own back is hardly going to make any difference to anyone (under £8pm on a personal pension)

cosmic-dust

MSE_Helen wrote: »

This is the discussion thread for the following MSE News Story:

"The Government is to bring forward an increase in the state pension age to 67, says the pensions minister ..."

Read the full story:

Pension age rise bought forward

It's brought forward. Not bought.

Gracchus_Babeuf

gadgetmind wrote: »

It's true that raising the pension age *will* encourage people to save more for retirement whereas your daft suggestion would discourage it.

True, but as I said before many people cannot afford to save substantial amounts for retirement. This is why there needs to be another apoproach. The government is watering down the state pension because of political and ideological reasons. The government wants a 'small state' and less payouts from the state. Fine, but the problem with this is that the private pension sector is inadequate because it fails to offer a product that would guarantee a set indexed pension at a particular age. Everything is based on stock market speculation, which can result in big losses as well as gains. This is why we need a good state pension - it's about the guarantee of an income.

Gracchus_Babeuf

dunstonh wrote: »

Absolutely yes. When the "modern" state pension was first introduced, the average life expectancy was just over 2 years. It is now 20 odd years and moving up fast.)

You are shortsighted - it's not just about life expectancy. Employers don't want old cogers in their late 60s - so what are these people supposed to do when they can't yet claim a pension? Chances are that many 65 year olds will be sacked on one pretext or another and then they'll still claim money from the state!

dunstonh wrote: »

Lets be clear on something. It was the previous Government that has put the retirement ages up. Not this one. This one is just bringing forward dates as was originally planned under the review that Labour initiated.

I'm not exonerating the previous government from blame but they are not in power now.

dunstonh wrote: »

The average retirement age in this country is 63. That is already before state pension age. So, clearly significant numbers are retiring earlier than state pension age and 20 years to find £5000 to fund an extra years state pension off your own back is hardly going to make any difference to anyone (under £8pm on a personal pension)

This is not the point. It's a matter of principle - and the constant moving of the pension age creates fear and uncertainty. I would question why does the government feel it so necessary to do this when it's hardly going to save huge amounts. Indeed, given the likelihood of many 65 year olds having to claim JSA or sickness benefits, the savings are probably very low. This is an unnecessary and ideologically motivated decision.

2sides2everystory

gadgetmind thinks £36,000 a year is not lavish especially for a couple.

I think instead of changing the pension age we should just stop the world tomorrow at 12 noon, and let all those whose lives are not sufficiently rooted in reality get naturally flung off.

Western economies have been so mercilessly plundered and are in such dire straights this week that even gadgetmind from outerspace might realise that some of the actions that could imminently be foist upon our countries in order to balance the books might necessarily look far more like communism than anything Gracchus Babeuf has ever posted ...

dunstonh

You are shortsighted - it's not just about life expectancy. Employers don't want old cogers in their late 60s - so what are these people supposed to do when they can't yet claim a pension?

Actually, many employers do want "old codgers" in their 60s as they are much more reliable and harder working than many youngsters. The retail trade in particular. Skilled trades are less flexible but given the shortage of skilled workers, that will change.

so what are these people supposed to do when they can't yet claim a pension?

Save up more in their working life to pay for earlier retirement.

This is not the point. It's a matter of principle - and the constant moving of the pension age creates fear and uncertainty.

So why are you suggesting changes, such as means testing which will make it massively difficult to know what you are getting as well as far more expensive?

gadgetmind thinks £36,000 a year is not lavish especially for a couple.

It certainly is not lavish.

I think instead of changing the pension age we should just stop the world tomorrow at 12 noon, and let all those whose lives are not sufficiently rooted in reality get naturally flung off.

Are you enjoying your last day on Earth then?

nrsql

Long ago I didn't see how the country could support pensions for baby boomers - same as final salary pensions. In fact anything not linked to individual funding payments is just gambling on future contributions (either of the pension fund earning or workforce payments). For the state pension it means you have to increase the contributions or reduce the payouts - standing still isn't an option.

With the number of people coming up to retirement now, longer life expectancy and unemployment rising I don't see how the contributions can be increased in line with outgoings (making people contribute for longer helps). Individual high contributers can easily arrange their affairs to reduce contributions if it is made worthwhile.

I think we have to assume that the latest annoncements are probably just the start. Wouldn't be surprised if there was a reduction in the inflation linked increase as well as and even faster increase in the age. Public sector pensions are unsupportable. Another option is a further raid on pension funds. Wonder if MP pensions will ever be affected much? Maybe a change in number of NI contributions for a full pension - thought that was a bit odd.

bilbo51

nrsql wrote: »

Public sector pensions are unsupportable.

Utter nonsense.