Pension at 70? Throw a party.

Loughton_Monkey

There will doubtless be a myriad of press opinions on Georgie-boy's rantings. But the Independent tells us we should be throwing a party - rather than bemoaning Osborne's pension reforms.

Full article here:

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/editorials/a-longer-working-life-is-to-be-celebrated-not-deplored-8983271.html

We are told:

• The logic is impeccable
• We get plenty of notice
• A burst of resentment from the young will follow, but
• The Economic argument is overwhelming
• A third of our life in retirement is luxurious
• Large Gin & Tonics all round......

The news that people born after 1990 will have to work until they are 70 before they can claim their state pension is more likely to be met with an exhausted sigh than a whoop of delight – particularly by those in their twenties, who will be the first to be affected by the change.

The logic is as impeccable as the reforms are unavoidable, however. As life expectancy has increased, so has the length of time an average individual spends in retirement – and with it the burden on the public purse. In 1952, one might have expected to spend around a fifth of one’s life as a pensioner; now, the proportion is nearer to a third, and rising. The already-struggling Treasury simply cannot cope. Hence the Chancellor’s plan – to be included in this morning’s Autumn Statement – for a formula to keep the retirement age in line with lifespans.

On the plus side, we will be given at least a decade’s notice each time the pension age is to be raised. But the hike to 68 currently scheduled for 2046 could come forward by 10 years, with another rise, to 69, the following decade.

Cue another round of lamentations about working until we drop, and another burst of resentment from a younger generation that already feels it is paying the price for the indulgences of – wealthier – predecessors. Yet the economic arguments are overwhelming. Some £100bn has been wiped off the state’s future liabilities by existing plans to delay retirement to 67 by 2028; the new plan will take out another £400bn. Given the sorry state of the public finances, such sums are not to be sniffed at.

But there is another – even more compelling – reason to embrace the changes. Our better food, better medicine and more comfortable living conditions are a triumph of human progress. Retirement at 70, or even later, is hardly working into one’s dotage for someone who may comfortably go on into their nineties and beyond. Indeed, a third of life lived in retirement is positively luxurious. That we now live so long is a blessing and a wonder. The need to work slightly longer before claiming a state pension is hardly a heavy price to pay. We should not be bemoaning George Osborne’s reforms; we should be throwing a party.

I like the prediction of "another burst of resentment from a younger generation". Indie's editor clearly reads this forum.....

My own party has started!

TruckerT

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

There will doubtless be a myriad of press opinions on Georgie-boy's rantings. But the Independent tells us we should be throwing a party - rather than bemoaning Osborne's pension reforms.

Full article here:

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/editorials/a-longer-working-life-is-to-be-celebrated-not-deplored-8983271.html

We are told:

• The logic is impeccable
• We get plenty of notice
• A burst of resentment from the young will follow, but
• The Economic argument is overwhelming
• A third of our life in retirement is luxurious
• Large Gin & Tonics all round......

I like the prediction of "another burst of resentment from a younger generation". Indie's editor clearly reads this forum.....

My own party has started!

Most people in their 20s are far too busy partying to worry about their 60s or 70s.

I have posted on here before that it would be possible to do away altogether with the state pension, and just continue paying benefits to those unable to work.

It would of course continue to be possible for people to organise their own pension scheme, and thereby maintain a degree of choice in their later-life prospects.

TruckerT

Masomnia

I don't particularly resent having to work till I'm 69.* I'll live longer, statistically, so I don't see why I shouldn't.

Plenty of time for me to save and make my own provision if I want to retire earlier.

*Assuming they don't bring it forward again, which doesn't seem unlikely.

vivatifosi

I'm still planning retire at 65, it is when my personal pensions kick in. I will not get my state pension for a few years after that, but I have plenty of time to save the difference as can anyone. I don't see what all the fuss is about.

Most will have 15-20-30 years notice and over such a period it is a miniscule amount to save.

CLAPTON

Why is it so difficult to see the future problem is with the ability to produce enough goods and services so that everyone can have a decent standard of living.

We don't have a problem with book keeping entries : lots of people have shown how to deal with them.

Makes perfect sense for individuals to ensure they will have sufficient share of the available goods and services but in aggregate it wouldn't work by everyone building up book keeping entries.

lostinrates

Hmmm.


Personally I have never banked on receiving a state pension, but its easier to say 'that age bracket following us should be partying' than ' we should be partying' at getting less.

Arguably my own age bracket lose more.....later retirement but less warning...the advantage of saving from such young age gone.

I'd have more ease accepting this argument that the young should party if more of the wealthy bracket of pensioners between now and then deferred state pension on grounds of solidarity and lack of need.

lostinrates

vivatifosi wrote: »

I'm still planning retire at 65, it is when my personal pensions kick in. I will not get my state pension for a few years after that, but I have plenty of time to save the difference as can anyone. I don't see what all the fuss is about.

Most will have 15-20-30 years notice and over such a period it is a miniscule amount to save.

Its a small amount, but its a small amount EXTRA to budget. Obviously, I think people should do this, but I also think to suggest its going to be easy for all is over positive.

roddydogs

Why do people think that the state pension age is the retirement age, state pension is (or Should) be only a small part of your pension.

MFW_ASAP

CLAPTON wrote: »

Why is it so difficult to see the future problem is with the ability to produce enough goods and services so that everyone can have a decent standard of living.

We don't have a problem with book keeping entries : lots of people have shown how to deal with them.

Makes perfect sense for individuals to ensure they will have sufficient share of the available goods and services but in aggregate it wouldn't work by everyone building up book keeping entries.

In a global market place, there isn't a problem with having enough goods and services. If pensioners have an income independent of the state, then they will be able to afford to buy these goods and services, providing jobs and income to younger people.

The issue is having unfunded state and public sector pensions where young people not only have to put money away for their own pension provision, but also for many other people, some of whom will have retired before they were even born.

CLAPTON

MFW_ASAP wrote: »

In a global market place, there isn't a problem with having enough goods and services. If pensioners have an income independent of the state, then they will be able to afford to buy these goods and services, providing jobs and income to younger people.

The issue is having unfunded state and public sector pensions where young people not only have to put money away for their own pension provision, but also for many other people, some of whom will have retired before they were even born.

we do indeed have a global market.

if we have lots of pounds and want to buy things abroad then in general

- we need to produce things to exchange
or
- the pound falls dramatically as we exchange pounds for foreign currency but have few goods or services to sell and restock our foreign currency reserves.

Similarly in the UK; if we have lots of money in pension funds but a shortage of food, plumbers, care workers, transport drivers etc then the price of those services will rise : inflation



If there is a demographic crisis in the future, then is entirely about whether the working age population can produce sufficient goods and services to satisfy the needs of the whole population.


There is of course the possibility of building up sufficient assets abroad which can be sold in the future to fund our under production of goods and services.
However we already are running a balance of payments deficient so I don't really see how we can realistically build up such overseas assets: if fact the exact opposite is happening; we are selling most of the UK to foreign investors

grizzly1911

[QUOTE=CLAPTON;63992113


There is of course the possibility of building up sufficient assets abroad which can be sold in the future to fund our under production of goods and services.
However we already are running a balance of payments deficient so I don't really see how we can realistically build up such overseas assets: if fact the exact opposite is happening; we are selling most of the UK to foreign investors[/QUOTE]

At a country level that is indeed the case but at an individual level investing in overseas assets or in companies that generate income from overseas should provide protection.

Only trouble is they all seem to catch a cold when the sick west sneezes.