Raising the pension age in order to pay for pensions

lazer

chucknorris wrote: »

People are living longer and most likely are generally healthier to an older age too, so it isn't aimed or expected of your dad's generation. Surely you must agree that it is better to live longer and get the pension later in life, than die earlier but also receive the pension earlier. I am no expert on the exact calculations and maybe there is a bit of non pro-rata claw back on the increased life span versus later pension receipt, but if the money isn't there for pensions then something has to be done. It isn't as if people are not being given plenty of notice. I see these changes as very necessary responsible financial management.

Actually to be honest I would prefer to die earlier and get the pension earlier.
For most people once they get older, their health detoriates, we might be living longer but what about the quality of life? I would rather have my pension when I am healthy enough to enjoy it.

My Grand Aunt is 90 and has been in residential care since she about 75 - if the state pension age had been around 75 in her case, she would never have had a chance to enjoy retirement.

Loughton_Monkey

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

The older I get, the more I wonder the value of pensions.
Sure, one must provide for ones self in retirement.

That said some other countries models are for families to be more communal, meaning that three or four generations live in the same household.

This aids childcare as the older generations can support that, whilst the younger generations support their elders in retirement.

I'm not saying this is an ideal model, but it is one that works for others and may support the issue you describe above

Which came first. The Chicken or the Egg?

As I see it, the most natural and 'default' system is exactly as you outline. It was always the same here pre-1909. You work and either carry on working until you die, or you save for your 'retirement' or you retire and let chidren care for you. Both financially and physically. This was consistent with very low geographical mobility.

The problem with this model is that of inequality. You have 4 children, and they all die. I have 5 and they survive and thrive. I would get looked after very well. You are in the doo-doo.

So the principle of defining a 'basic and humane' social system in which everyone pays - and from which everyone can draw when in need is arguably quite equitable and fair.

But as we have found out, there are dangers in making this system too 'generous'. It promulgates the idea that we no longer need any self provision, and it's 'OK' to move 500 miles away from parents and let 'The State' look after them physically and financially. As I have said, subsidise poverty and you'll find you get tons more of it......

The Asian model remains pretty much one of 'look after yourself and your own' and they thrive as a result. Although 'coming from behind' economically, and are now overtaking, I would hazard a strong guess that they have studied our 'system' in great detail but rejected it emphatically. You would simply not build a system anywhere near like that of the UK if you were starting from scratch.

Road_Hog

michaels wrote: »

They did come up with a solution in the 70s - anyone else remember the movie 'Logan's Run'?

It was rereleased recently, renamed Liverpool Care Pathway and Mid Staffs NHS, with Andy Burnham in the lead role.


Soylent Green anyone?

chucknorris

lazer wrote: »

Actually to be honest I would prefer to die earlier and get the pension earlier.
For most people once they get older, their health detoriates, we might be living longer but what about the quality of life? I would rather have my pension when I am healthy enough to enjoy it.

My Grand Aunt is 90 and has been in residential care since she about 75 - if the state pension age had been around 75 in her case, she would never have had a chance to enjoy retirement.

Despite what I said though it isn't about what you prefer, it is about balancing the countries finances.

That said though I keep myself really fit and was very inspired after a guy in his 80's finished in front of me in the Dorking 10 mile road race a few years ago. I am 56 in a few weeks and I hope that all the regular exercise that I do (cycling, running and walking) gives me a chance of being that fit when I get to my 80's. Of course nothing is guaranteed but if you help yourself it gives you a better chance.

EDIT: That of course also applies to looking after yourself financially too.

Scrootum

No only are people living longer, but most now start work 4 or 5 years later than before. The number of years worked will not actually change much.

lostinrates

Scrootum wrote: »

No only are people living longer, but most now start work 4 or 5 years later than before. The number of years worked will not actually change much.

And I wonder if prioritise saving differently.

I only know about this from closest friends but I know there those of us who bought In the main have prioritised house saving over pension saving, this is not universal, but a majority. There are particular careers in our peers where there is a notable difference in saving trend.

angrypirate

lazer wrote: »

Actually to be honest I would prefer to die earlier and get the pension earlier.
For most people once they get older, their health detoriates, we might be living longer but what about the quality of life? I would rather have my pension when I am healthy enough to enjoy it.

My Grand Aunt is 90 and has been in residential care since she about 75 - if the state pension age had been around 75 in her case, she would never have had a chance to enjoy retirement.

When the state pension was introduced in 1909 the qualifying age was 70 and the average life expectancy was 66. The idea of the state pension is to look after the people no longer able to work and look after themselves. If people are wanting to stop working early, before they are physically limited and go swanning round the world, it should be completely funded by yourself.

CLAPTON

basically we have two problems

firstly is the size of the economic cake i.e. GDP

and secondly is it's distribution amoungst the people

if we have a large GDP then people will be more tolerant to how it is distributed
however if GDP shrinks then people will be more critical of who gets what.

The current projections are that the number of people economical active will fall in relation to total population.


delaying the age of retirement should increase those economically active: the fact that some older people won't be able to work due to 'age ' related illness is no different from the situation of the disabled today.

IveSeenTheLight

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

So the principle of defining a 'basic and humane' social system in which everyone pays - and from which everyone can draw when in need is arguably quite equitable and fair.

The government has introduced that companies must contribute 3% towards an employees pension.
That should be used toward providing a "basic" pension.

For any private / personal pension contributions that I may be contributing for 50 - 60 years, I'd like to be able to do whatever I want with the investment upon retirement.
I don't believe I should be constrained as to how much I can take out and how much as a percentage minimum I must re-invest into an annuity.

What I mean is, I might retire at 67 / 68 by current calculations, so if I decide to spend my private contributions travelling the world, living the high life for 5 or 10 years before settling down to elderly retirement then that should be my choice.

The restriction in choice means that I need to consider if I invest elsewhere to have that control.
The only real benefit I see from pension contributions is that they are from my gross salary as opposed to my nett.

IveSeenTheLight

Scrootum wrote: »

No only are people living longer, but most now start work 4 or 5 years later than before. The number of years worked will not actually change much.

Should most be going to University though?
There is a need and shortage of trades people who serve apprenticeships.
Arguably, some jobs are more taxing on the body than others.

As it's been said before, there needs to be a balance and there also needs to be a basic provision.