Revised retirement age

grey_gym_sock

mumps wrote: »

Aren't they predicting a reduction in life expectancy due to young people drinking more, being overweight, not being fit etc?

probably, but who are "they"? unless it's actuaries, i wouldn't pay too much attention.

hugheskevi

The change wasn't planned for women born in 1953. I had planned so that I could still retire at 60 after the original changes but in 2011 changes were announced that meant I had less than 3 years to make plans to cover that extra 2.5 years.

The change was announced in October 2010 (at Spending Review 2010) and changed the State Pension age for women reaching State Pension age after April 2016, so there was at least 5 and half years notice for those affected (ref here).

This source also states that the increase is capped at 18 months.

dunstonh

Blackbeard_of_Perranporth wrote: »

On visit to shop floor.

Welcome to ... We have a Sports an Social club, which will cost you 5p a week. A subsidised shop. We also have a Pension Fund, but if I were you lot I would not put a penny into it, because when you retire, there'll be nothing left in the pot.

Apprenticeship October 1978

Workplace myths and colleagues giving out really bad advice is very common. I have seen similar things said where the employers pay in a decent percentage as free money or even defined benefit schemes in the public sector.

jamesd

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?

While it's not provable with certainty, you might consider the study "Mortality in relation to smoking: 50 years' observations on male British doctors", which among other things observes the growth in smoking in the UK and the increasing population of those who had been sufficiently well off enough to smoke for a long time, contrasted with "A substantial progressive decrease in the mortality rates among non-smokers over the past half century (due to prevention and improved treatment of disease) has been wholly outweighed, among cigarette smokers, by a progressive increase in the smoker ν non-smoker death rate ratio due to earlier and more intensive use of cigarettes. Among the men born around 1920, prolonged cigarette smoking from early adult life tripled age specific mortality rates, but cessation at age 50 halved the hazard, and cessation at age 30 avoided almost all of it."

And of course the reducing incidence of smoking in recent years can be expected to decrease that increased mortality due to smoking. Of course, smoking won't be the only cause, just one of many.

Linton mentions a range of other causes, like poorer working conditions and work that inherently had higher health risks.

Certainty of causes and effects is hard to achieve but we do know the general patterns.

kidmugsy wrote: »

But that makes the assumption that nothing else will turn up. Since we don't know why heart disease rates rose and fell, we don't know that they won't rise again. Nor do we know what would happen if antibiotic-resistant bacteria came to dominate our lives. All you're doing is assuming that recent changes must continue. That's irrational.

It's not irrational to do things like assuming improved medical treatment availability. We agree that it might happen but I hope we also agree that it's not the likely outcome.

mumps wrote: »

Aren't they predicting a reduction in life expectancy due to young people drinking more, being overweight, not being fit etc?

Yes. The interesting question for life expectancy is whether those effects will be more or less significant than improvements in care and treatments for those and other things.

mumps

hugheskevi wrote: »

The change was announced in October 2010 (at Spending Review 2010) and changed the State Pension age for women reaching State Pension age after April 2016, so there was at least 5 and half years notice for those affected (ref here).

This source also states that the increase is capped at 18 months.

They announced their intention but not confirmed at that time, in fact the changes were fought and some women benefitted by having the dates changed before the changes were confirmed. So changes were confirmed in 2011, I reach 60 in 2013 and that was when I intended to retire, in fact I won't receive my SRP until 2018 so I did not get 5 and a half years notice. I have checked on the DWP site and it still shows my retirement age as 64 years 9 months, I know increase for women born in 1954 (I think) but it doesn't seem to have changed my retirement age. I have got a recent pension forecast and when I have the energy I will fish it out and see what it says but I am pretty sure it still goes with the 64 years 9 months.

mumps

grey_gym_sock wrote: »

probably, but who are "they"? unless it's actuaries, i wouldn't pay too much attention.

Sorry as I said in original post I really can't remember where I read it. Obviously it would depend on them not changing their habits anyway, just because someone drinks and smokes too much at 20 doesn't mean they won't be clean living and fit at 30.

mumps

jamesd wrote: »

Yes. The interesting question for life expectancy is whether those effects will be more or less significant than improvements in care and treatments for those and other things.

Also of interest is how much the NHS will have to spend on those improvements, particularly for older people.

jamesd

Yes, cost is of interest. There's good news in there among other things: patents expire, so improved medication gradually becomes cheaper over time, even as longer living and drugs to treat new things or existing things better increase costs.

hugheskevi

I reach 60 in 2013 and that was when I intended to retire, in fact I won't receive my SRP until 2018 so I did not get 5 and a half years notice.

Taking the average amount of State Pension for women aged 60-64, which is £104.42 then the total loss over 18 months is £8,172.73.

Those worst affected first became aware in October 2010, and would have expected (based on the initial policy details) a typical loss of £10,897 as some were facing a 2 year delay to their State Pension age at that point.

A year later (3rd November 2011) the legislation was passed, with concessions having been made to the worst affected. This meant the typical loss for those facing the maximum delay fell from £10,897 to £8,173, which would only start to be lost from April 2016 at the earliest - 5 and half years since the policy was first announced and 4 and half years since the legislation was passed.

Taking a salary of £21,258 as typical [median salary for full time female aged 60+ in UK - source: Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings], that is an extra 4 to 5 months of working to make good the financial loss for a typical person affected.

Given the amount of pain other groups are suffering (eg tuition fees, pay freezes/reductions, redundancy, child benefit withdrawal, changes in pension indexation from RPI to CPI, etc) I just don't think 5 years notice notice that one will have to work 4-5 months longer than one intended is that unreasonable (acknowledging that some will be unfortunate to be hit by some of other consequences of the recession of course).

mumps

hugheskevi wrote: »

Taking the average amount of State Pension for women aged 60-64, which is £104.42 then the total loss over 18 months is £8,172.73.

Those worst affected first became aware in October 2010, and would have expected (based on the initial policy details) a typical loss of £10,897 as some were facing a 2 year delay to their State Pension age at that point.

A year later (3rd November 2011) the legislation was passed, with concessions having been made to the worst affected. This meant the typical loss for those facing the maximum delay fell from £10,897 to £8,173, which would only start to be lost from April 2016 at the earliest - 5 and half years since the policy was first announced and 4 and half years since the legislation was passed.

Taking a salary of £21,258 as typical [median salary for full time female aged 60+ in UK - source: Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings], that is an extra 4 to 5 months of working to make good the financial loss for a typical person affected.

Given the amount of pain other groups are suffering (eg tuition fees, pay freezes/reductions, redundancy, child benefit withdrawal, changes in pension indexation from RPI to CPI, etc) I just don't think 5 years notice notice that one will have to work 4-5 months longer than one intended is that unreasonable (acknowledging that some will be unfortunate to be hit by some of other consequences of the recession of course).

My last pension forecast was for slightly under £150 per week, £148 or £149 from memory. I also work part time as I am a fulltime carer for my disabled husband. Statistics are useful but don't give the full picture.

So the changes were confirmed in november 2011, less than 2 years to my intended retirement date. I don't see how the five years comes into it, I had less than two years to make up the difference if I wanted to stick to my original plans.

The other side of the picture for me is when I do stop work I will be able to claim carers allowance, £58.45 per week I think, obviously not everyone can claim that. Our income will also be more than we anticipated as my husband gets higher rate DLA. The downside is the DLA will stop if he dies, obviously, and I will get a reduced widows pension from his ill health pension, normally widows get half but because he had to retire early his pension got increased on medical grounds but I only get half of what he actually earned. This means I have to be quite level headed about what I do as my husband is older than me and in poor health so I could be living as an impoverished widow for many years if I don't make the right decisions.

I am obviously affected by other changes, as an older mom I have two of my children at university. One will finish this year and one next, so I am also helping them. Sorry not this year, 2013 and 2014. My older two have already been helped through university in easier times.

So here I am one of the blessed, a baby boomer, who got paid a pittance for years as I was female, a carer, a mother trying to help her kids and hoping, just hoping, that I can manage to retire before my husband's condition gets any worse so that we can enjoy some quality in retirement.

My plan now is to do at least an extra year at work, this means I will still be working when the youngest graduates so I can continue helping him. I may try to reduce my hours again but my boss isn't keen on this, if I can reduce them I may work for a few months past my 61st birthday. I will then apply for carers allowance.

Just thought I have also had a pay freeze for 2.5 years. Can't see that changing in the near future. My husband is also affected by the change in pension indexation. Fortunately the child benefit changes don't hit me.