MSE News: State pension age rise delayed

Butti

Paulgonnabedebtfree wrote: »

Moved to five year terms?
It's been five years for as long as I can remember - though it's often the case that PMs choose to call an election sooner if things seem favourable.

Pgbdf It is now fixed five year terms. There was some flexibility before.

WallyBird

This is so arbitrary!

We have paid our NI for years to support the previous generations and now our pensions are being repeatedly delayed.
And the next generation will be worse off still - I don't blame them for being angry.

jamesd

The next generation should be angry. It's them who are being made to pick up the bill for this.

The next generation is worse off because there are fewer of them to pay for more retired people than there were when you were doing it. So less of a burden on you than it will be on them for you. That's because of both the baby boom and increased life expectancies. The baby boom can't really be reversed but we could cut health care to try to undo the increased life expectancy for older people if you like. We already have some obligation to do something about the way women live longer on average than men.

Absent cutting life expectancies back to past levels, we get to pay for the longer life expectancy in some way. This is one of those ways - a need to put more money aside if there's still a desire to retire before the new state pension age.

The changes as a whole are still happening later than would be ideal, after a lot of the early and mid baby boomers have retired. Should really have been done sooner, so that those early baby boomers could be retiring later as part of trying to smooth the costs instead of having another transfer of wealth to the boomer generation from their children and grandchildren.

harz99

jamesd wrote: »

The changes as a whole are still happening later than would be ideal, after a lot of the early and mid baby boomers have retired. Should really have been done sooner, so that those early baby boomers could be retiring later as part of trying to smooth the costs instead of having another transfer of wealth to the boomer generation from their children and grandchildren.

So, something to blame Mrs Thatcher's governments for then as they were the ones in power benefiting from the additional voters from the baby booming era..........................

jamesd

Yes, but to be a little more fair to the Thatcher era, much of the increase in life expectancy happened after that era. Those and subsequent ones before the last Labour government who didn't do anything. Even the last Labour government for doing it too slowly. And this one for still doing it too slowly to cover much of the baby boomer generation.

Raising ages for men faster, while rates for women are still rising, is one way to do it, accepting that it'll take longer for the two to get in sync. Doing it later than that will miss too much of the baby boomer generation, which reaches age 65 between 2011 and 2029 (for 1946-64) but with a peak near the start. Later just says that it's a tax on the post-boomers to pay for the boomers, in part by being made to retire later, one of the cross-generation subsidies.

Then adjust to equal expected life in receipt of state pensions (meaning later state pension age for women until male life expectancies match female).

None of these is retirement age, of course. That's whenever someone can afford to retire and is already usually before state pension age.

And it doesn't have to be done with just retirement age. A higher NI rate for the boomer generation to cover some of the later costs would be another possible approach, perhaps more palatable than later state pension ages, with the advantage of not covering those who've already stopped working and have more limited ability to adjust their finances. It'd have the big advantage that it can start now, to cover many of the early boomers for at least a little while.

Encouraging immigration, to reduce the size difference between different generations, is another possible approach.

Another one is not increasing state pensions with earnings. That increase removes the chance for the following generations to see paying for the boomers gradually become less expensive as wages rise. RPI increases don't have as much of an effect because RPI is typically about % less than pay increases.

One I personally find less desirable is limiting NHS spending, which in effect is a die faster tax on older people, because a high proportion of medical costs are in the last few years of life.

Ratstjohn

Stargazer57 wrote: »

Life expectancy for a 64 year old female in 2017 is expected to be just under 26 years which is better (at State Pension Age) than any man has ever had or any woman up to 1994. Still looks pretty good to me.

And you are going to have the link with earnings restored, so all in all its a pretty valuable package.

However if you are a glass-half-empty type of person you will always be able to find someone else doing better, and convince yourself that you are "losing out"

All statistics/averages should be taken with a big pinch of salt. None of the females in my immediate family and husband's family have survived beyond 67, and some never made it beyond 62. On the other hand, my father is still alive in his late 80's! Many of my friends also lost mother's of a young age; 40's and 50's, yet thioer father's are still alive. I doubt, my experience is singular and if you doubt it take a look at your local obits column over a period of time and you will see the situation is, sadly, not as favourable for women as we are expected to believe..............

The_Angry_Jock

Ratstjohn wrote: »

All statistics/averages should be taken with a big pinch of salt. None of the females in my immediate family and husband's family have survived beyond 67, and some never made it beyond 62. On the other hand, my father is still alive in his late 80's! Many of my friends also lost mother's of a young age; 40's and 50's, yet thioer father's are still alive. I doubt, my experience is singular and if you doubt it take a look at your local obits column over a period of time and you will see the situation is, sadly, not as favourable for women as we are expected to believe..............

Surely when it comes to statistics about what age people die they pretty concrete since all deaths are registered?

annak53

As you will be aware this Tory led government broke its agreement not to increase the State Pension age for men until 2016 and 2020 for women. This has had devastating effects upon those of us who have worked long and hard believing that we were to retire at 60 and 65 respectively.
This government then rubbed salt into the wounds by giving just over a year's notice to hundreds of thousands of people stating that they will have to wait an extra 4 years to retire. Thereby, denying them the opportunity to make any contingency plans for their retirement. (due to "human error" i was only notified at the end of May!).
Governments make changes to existing laws and regulations when it is necessary, sometimes to the short-term detriment of the economy but with long-term objectives in mind. This change, however, is one which will have both a short and long-term detrimental effect.

Due to the short notice these changes are being implemented, it is immediately vanquishing the retirement plans made by literally hundreds of thousands of British citizens who have worked hard for decades. They must wait longer not only to retire, but longer to receive their state pension which they have contributed to all of their working life and are now out of reach.

How much longer are we going to let this Tory led government take liberties with our lives and live by the "one rule for us and another for them" ?

People power is a formidable force; the law can be changed if enough of us "stand up and be counted".

Consequently, I have started a petition on the direct gov uk website and I urge you to sign it. All you have to do is go to the site and type in epetition 35190 and ask your family and friends to do the same. We have nothing to lose!
thanks
Anna

jem16

annak53 wrote: »

This government then rubbed salt into the wounds by giving just over a year's notice to hundreds of thousands of people stating that they will have to wait an extra 4 years to retire.

No one has had to wait an extra 4 years. The maximum extra wait is 18 months and the notice has been around 7 years.

The change for women from age 60 to age 65 has been known since 1995.

Thereby, denying them the opportunity to make any contingency plans for their retirement. (due to "human error" i was only notified at the end of May!).

Where have you been since around June 2010 when it was first announced? At that point the changes saw a 2 year rise for women born between December 1953 and October 1954 from age 64 to age 66. In September 2011 this was later repealed to see a maximum wait of 18 months.

Consequently, I have started a petition

Probably a good idea to get all the facts correct first. People might be inclined to take you a little more seriously then.

jamesd

The increase in state pension age is desirable, to affect as many of the baby boomer generation as possible, so the only reason to sign that petition is self-interest. We have plenty to lose, higher taxes to pay for higher state pensions for longer.

As a woman you've had 17 years of notice available that you would not have a state pension age of 60. You also have 8 years of notice of the change that is happening in 2020.