State Pension Age review due before 7th May 2017

woolly_wombat

SnowMan wrote: »

They have announced it now.

John Cridland has been appointed as the independent reviewer of State Pension Age

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/john-cridland-cbe-appointed-to-lead-the-uks-first-state-pension-age-review

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/state-pension-age-review-terms-of-reference

"The review will be forward looking and will not cover the existing arrangements before April 2028 which are already law."

There's also a link to the terms of reference.

zagfles

Interesting that the TOR includes:

Whether the current system of a universal State Pension age rising in line with life expectancy best supports affordability, fairness, and fuller working lives objectives

Does this imply they could really, seriously, consider a non-universal SPA?? After all the hassle and whinging they've been through trying to equalise the SPA?

kidmugsy

cns06 wrote: »

I was sold a policy which I could draw after 35 years service.

Its unfair to change the policy now.

The big change - from 50 to 55, with only modest notice - was Gordon Brown's.

kidmugsy

zagfles wrote: »

After all the hassle and whinging they've been through trying to equalise the SPA?

The equalisation law required equalisation according to sex. Maybe someone can think up some other criterion for de-equalisation.

kidmugsy

atush wrote: »

Which as far as I have read, are not genetic, but lifestyle based such as smoking, drinking, and not eating a healthy diet.

Maybe, maybe not. Like much of medicine, there are great black holes of ignorance. My own bet is that it's partly reverse causation: people of high health and therefore energy disproportionately end up relatively wealthier and living in pleasanter places; people who have drawn the short straw genetically, or have been rotten unlucky with infections or whatnot, end up living in the poorer, less pleasant places.

kidmugsy

kidmugsy wrote: »

The equalisation law required equalisation according to sex. Maybe someone can think up some other criterion for de-equalisation.

Aha: from the Telegraph "The year-long review will consider ending "universal" state pension age entirely and enabling people people who have worked for longer to retire earlier.

This could allow those who leave school at 16 to start work to claim their pension much earlier than those who study for a degree and do not enter the world of work until years later."

GibbsRule_No3

kidmugsy wrote: »

Aha: from the Telegraph

This could allow those who leave school at 16 to start work to claim their pension much earlier than those who study for a degree and do not enter the world of work until years later."

Is this because they are more likely to be doing manual jobs, against someone who stayed at school and went to college or university?
PPOV I'd be happy if they went on how many years you do actually work, especially as I have done 45 with with three more to do before SPA.

westv

GibbsRule_No3 wrote: »

Is this because they are more likely to be doing manual jobs, against someone who stayed at school and went to college or university?
PPOV I'd be happy if they went on how many years you do actually work, especially as I have done 45 with with three more to do before SPA.

If I had to wait until SPA before I am able to retire I would have been working for 51 years! :eek:

colsten

westv wrote: »

If I had to wait until SPA before I am able to retire I would have been working for 51 years! :eek:

You can retire whenever you can afford to - it's just the ages you can draw your occupational and your state pensions at that are regulated.

nicknameless

kidmugsy wrote: »

Maybe, maybe not. Like much of medicine, there are great black holes of ignorance. My own bet is that it's partly reverse causation: people of high health and therefore energy disproportionately end up relatively wealthier and living in pleasanter places; people who have drawn the short straw genetically, or have been rotten unlucky with infections or whatnot, end up living in the poorer, less pleasant places.

We are talking about health inequalities or inequity depending on whether you see this as unfair.

Reverse causation and artefact largely been disproved and abandoned as explanatory.

Geography has nothing to do with it. Remaining candidate theories include;

Lifestyle driven (not simple to attribute to individual behaviour as much lifestyle is norm driven and could be argued to be constrained in many ways and therefore socially derived - probably a difficult one to argue here ).

Absolute material disadvantage driving health inequalities.

Relative disadvantage and psychosocial theories i.e. Position in society and broader socio-economic inequality drives lots of unwanted outcomes, poor health being one. Sadly, it is likely that the uk will become the most unequal developed society by 2030-2040 of current trends continue.

Regardless, there will be no policy accommodating this in pensions. There's been no serious policy response to what has been the subject of academic attention since Maggie buried the black report. Nothing likely to change anytime soon.

Edited to add - also this has absolutely nothing to do with medicine or healthcare.