State Pension Age to rise further

kidmugsy

70 was the original age at which Old Age Pension was paid: the shades of Lloyd George must be pleased.

kidmugsy

One of the reasons people are living longer is the precipitate decline in heart attack incidence since the 60s. Nobody knows why it's happened. It's been far too large to be attributed to the decline in smoking, or changes in diet; it has little to do with medical advances. It's a complete mystery.

Anyway, antibiotic-resistant bacteria may change all this; that and a nasty flu pandemic.

Yorksport

As a few others have said, there is a danger of getting this change out of proportion. We are talking about 20 years hence and we are living longer. Fact. And it seems likely that average life span will continue to increase. So why should the age you qualify for a state pension remain constant? If you are working you are likely to receive more from a work pension scheme than you do from the state in any event. The problem I think is ensuring that there is work for those in their 60s to do: an increasing number are still physically fit (look at the runners, cyclists, triathletes) and whiling away their time on the golf course does seem a waste of resources.

Freecall

To put a slightly different perspective on things, I remember in the 1960's the debate was all about us living a life of leisure as technology would mean that we did not have to work so much.

There is no doubt that since then we have collectively become wealthier (at about 2% pa) by real changes in technology and human advancement. The question is what have we done with this wealth?

We could probably all have retired at 50 or worked a 4 day week or taken 10 weeks holiday a year.

For some reason however we are addicted to consumption so even with all the benefits of progress we work 60+ hour weeks, bring work home, take our computers on holiday and push our retirement ages backwards.

Part of being human I guess.

atush

kidmugsy wrote: »

One of the reasons people are living longer is the precipitate decline in heart attack incidence since the 60s. Nobody knows why it's happened. It's been far too large to be attributed to the decline in smoking, or changes in diet; it has little to do with medical advances. It's a complete mystery.

Anyway, antibiotic-resistant bacteria may change all this; that and a nasty flu pandemic.

For a start, drug and other treatments are much better.

As for antibiotic resistance, this has been a worry for me (along with a mutation of an animal virus into a pandemic). I read an article the other day they may be able to immunize against these bacteria, removing them from the population by degrees.

itch_for_a_glitch

Freecall wrote: »

I know that this is a pension board so people on here have a distinct interest in pensions but is this being over-hyped?

The 'work til you drop' headlines really do give a false impression.

As I understand things the government is giving some 20 years notice that one year of pension benefit is being removed. This means that those affected have a minimum (those coming later will have longer) of 20 years to save around £6,000 at today's values to cover the loss of benefits.

This really does not seem unreasonable.

I know that over the course of a generation or so there have been cumulative changes which have removed as much as 8 years worth of pension benefits (in the case of women) but the first of these was announced 20 years ago. This really is long term stuff and very easy to cater for with personal financial planning.

Surely over a lifetime our wealth in retirement will be far more impacted by our overall national prosperity then one single state benefit?

I must admit that is exactly how I view the rise to 66 for my SRP date, although at the time I viewed it as a a £5k tax on my savings.

kidmugsy

atush wrote: »

For a start, drug and other treatments are much better.

Not remotely enough to explain the scale and timing of the decline.

zagfles

regprentice wrote: »

Was going to have a bit of a rant about this along the lines of 'if 70 is the cut off for people to spend 1/3 of their life in retirement then the govt is assuming and average lifespan of 105!!'

It's a third of ADULT life, ie from 18.

atush

kidmugsy wrote: »

Not remotely enough to explain the scale and timing of the decline.

As a former Epidemiologist, I disagree.

Statins, TPA, Stents, catheter balloons and other treatments. Just in the last 20 years had been amazing. Has reduced deaths hugely.

We'll have to agree to disagree with this one.

atush

The question is what have we done with this wealth?

Materialism