Revised retirement age

gingerkat

We had pensions in place, but redundancy due to company closures (twice) stopped them in their tracks and the subsequent growth has been pathetic. What should have been final salary schemes died with the companies and the totals are risible.

Between changes to the SPA and the fiasco over private pensions, so many people have suffered a double whammy. 15 years may sound like a long time, but if you pay into a pension fund for only 15 to 20 years, the payments have to be huge if they are to make any difference. It takes much longer than that to build up a worthwhile pension. It's simply not a practical option to put every penny into a late-start pension scheme.

Torry_Quine

grey_gym_sock wrote: »

though will you be paying NI for that long? is the age at which ppl cease paying NI going to rise?

Yes, you will if working continue to pay NI contributions until your state pension age whatever that may be.

mumps

Pollycat wrote: »

But some people will benefit from the change even if you don't.

And I am sure they will be grateful, personally I would rather get my pension when I thought I was going to get it, roughtly 62 and a quarter I think.

bigfreddiel

gingerkat wrote: »

15 years may sound like a long time, but if you pay into a pension fund for only 15 to 20 years

you're getting well confused here, you've had 15+years to make provision funding yourself for the few years between your original SPA and the revised one, not for providing a pension, you were doing that anyway.

look at it this way, you've been given a few years longer to work and enhance your pension.

cheers

fj

dunstonh

15 years may sound like a long time, but if you pay into a pension fund for only 15 to 20 years, the payments have to be huge

You had at least 15 years to fund a 5 year gap. That would cost very little. You didnt have 15 years to fund your whole retirement. You had about 35-45 years to do that.

seven-day-weekend

Caroline_a wrote: »

Actually this is wrong. The women's pension age began to rise in April 2010. So any women who had not seen the original decision about it would have been fairly shocked to see 2 rises in what appeared to be very quick succession.

I was one of the last women to get my SP at 60, being born in January 1950, and I received the first payment on 1st February 2010, but the legislation about the rising age for women's retirement had been in place for about fifteen years before that.

I too am always amazed that people don't seem to know about it.

jamesd

gingerkat wrote: »

I wondered if the EU would have a view on this.

Yes. It's illegal gender discrimination to have men and women getting state pensions at different ages and the government has to equalise the ages.

So far women have had 18 years of notice of the change in state pension age to 65, less for the increase after that. No change in retirement age, of course, you can do that whenever your retirement income provisions let you.

It's not a question of it being preferred to keep older or younger people working. It's illegal age discrimination to retire older people just because of their age, whether they have reached state pension age or not. An employer who practices such discrimination, including the government with its employees, is breaking the law.

gingerkat wrote: »

If anyone is youngish and in work, that's great - and I know a lot of young people who are working. The question is, what will the retirement age be for them? They may have to work till they drop!

State pension age is likely to be linked to life expectancy changes. The number of years in payment should no longer increase as much as it has due to the great delay in increasing the state pension age as life expectancies increased dramatically in the past.

Those in manual jobs or ill health might work until they drop. But overall today, half of woman retiring at age 65 can expect to live another 23 years or more. A couple of years less for men. Those life expectancies are likely to continue to increase.

kidmugsy

jamesd wrote: »

Those life expectancies are likely to continue to increase.

That's unknowable. For example, nobody knows why heart disease increased dramatically from 1920, peaked in the sixties and then declined. If you don't know why it's declined how can you be confident that it'll continue to decline?


Similarly, nobody knows the effect of long term exposure to modern medicines. Maybe statins will begin to decimate the male population. Nobody knows. That's the nature of the future.

mumps

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

I was one of the last women to get my SP at 60, being born in January 1950, and I received the first payment on 1st February 2010, but the legislation about the rising age for women's retirement had been in place for about fifteen years before that.

I too am always amazed that people don't seem to know about it.

It has changed again since then, I was due to retire at 62 and a bit and now won't be able to get my SRP until I am 64 years and 9 months exactly. I had no where near 15 years warning of the second change. I am amazed that people don't seem to know that some of us had our SRP age increased by 2.5 years when the retirement age increase from 65 to 66 was accelerated.

Linton

kidmugsy wrote: »

That's unknowable. For example, nobody knows why heart disease increased dramatically from 1920, peaked in the sixties and then declined. If you don't know why it's declined how can you be confident that it'll continue to decline?


Similarly, nobody knows the effect of long term exposure to modern medicines. Maybe statins will begin to decimate the male population. Nobody knows. That's the nature of the future.

But a lot is known - those people who will define life expectancy statistics for the next 50 years are alive now. Many people are dying early at the moment because they had a lifetime of smoking and work in unhealthy environments. People 10 years younger will have had less exposure to these high risk factors and so from current statistics can be confidently expected to live longer without any assumptions on future changes. The average life expectancy will continue to increase at least until those people alive during the years of heavy manual labour, heavily polluting industry and a high percentage of smokers only form a small % of the elderly population.