Call to raise retirement age to at least 70

lisyloo

I'd be surprised. I think the improved health outcomes are being dramatically underestimated. It's almost taken for granted that we expect to live well into our '90's but we don't have the imagination to envisage a 70 year old being capable of productive work by 2050?

Purely anecdotal, but what I see around me are some relatives living into their 90s, but quite few people in their 50's needing knee/shoulder/hip operations and very few in their 60s with no Heath conditions.
So people living longer but not able to physically demanding jobs past say 55.
Desk jobs are perfectly feasible providing you can persuade an employer that you won't be taking loads of time off and can get the job in the first place. I guess demand for the skills come is a big factor.

I'm planning to retire between 53 and 59 which will depends on how well my investments do, health and how much I like my job (I can see myself wanting to work).

ruperts

chucknorris wrote: »

His original post wasn't out of context with stating what wealth he had, so he wasn't bragging. He is (if I remember correctly) financially independent and doesn't have to work, so he can (within reason) do what he wants when we wants, it possibly means there isn't particularly anything special about Saturday evenings to him. My wife is retired and I am now down to working one day a week, so there isn't anything special about Saturdays to us, and we don't tend to go out on Saturday evenings, restaurants are usually much more crowded, just our opinion, but we think that it is better to go out midweek. I/we usually only go out on Saturdays when a friend is celebrating something, or we are having friends over or visiting friends.

It was a light hearted joke not a serious critique of his lifestyle. I too was posting here on a Saturday night and here I am again on the following Sunday afternoon, so clearly I'm in no position to judge. He has obviously done very well both for himself and out of his family. I do however disagree with his stating his wealth being in context. His concern is that the government might find ways to take away his retirement pot, which may well be a valid concern, but the validity of that concern is not affected by the precise sum of money in question, so there was no need for it to be stated. Hence bragging.

chucknorris

ruperts wrote: »

It was a light hearted joke not a serious critique of his lifestyle. I too was posting here on a Saturday night and here I am again on the following Sunday afternoon, so clearly I'm in no position to judge. He has obviously done very well both for himself and out of his family. I do however disagree with his stating his wealth being in context. His concern is that the government might find ways to take away his retirement pot, which may well be a valid concern, but the validity of that concern is not affected by the precise sum of money in question, so there was no need for it to be stated. Hence bragging.

Just because you were also posting on a Saturday evening doesn't particularly mean anything, the situation could have been that you were skint and couldn't afford to go out on a Saturday night (which some posters seem to value over over nights out). We'll have to agree to disagree on the other, because my opinion differs from yours, but is just as valid as your opinion.

mystic_trev

AFF8879 wrote: »

My personal plan is to maintain a modest lifestyle and continue in my banking career with the aim of retiring in my mid-late 40s, living mortgage free in a small house with sufficient investment (most likely a combo of annuity / BTL flat / dividends) income to enjoy a comfortable (not extravagant) lifestyle.

Without boring those on this Forum who've heard all this before, I did very much what you've described, albeit nearly 21 years ago.

I retired in 1996 at the age of 42, mainly due to hard work and a little bit of luck.I pretty much loathed my job, although I was good at it! Long hours working in the City doing a job I didn't like, I needed to get out or lose my sanity!

At the time a number of people were concerned that I may have Retired to early, thinking that I might have a good chance of running out of money before my scheduled retirement at 60. 21 years on and my assets in real terms are far greater than when I stopped working.My Investment strategy since retiring has been pretty well 'bang on'

Although I don't live an extravagant life, I can afford virtually anything I want. I still like to travel and do allow myself the indulgence of Business class travel on long haul flights.

Funily enough one of my greatest pleasures now, is pottering around the greenhouse I inherited in the house I moved into last year.

If you can get the figures right, early Retirement is a great thing!:money:

kinger101

wotsthat wrote: »

I'd be surprised. I think the improved health outcomes are being dramatically underestimated. It's almost taken for granted that we expect to live well into our '90's but we don't have the imagination to envisage a 70 year old being capable of productive work by 2050?

Taken for granted by whom? Although historical increases in life expectancy are somewhat linear, I don't think there are grounds to believe this will continue indefinitely. Particular given we'll have less scope to reduce pre-retirement deaths in the future compared with the past. I think there's actually a risk life expectancy may begin to decline in the West due to the growing problems of obesity.

It's in the government's interest to tell us we'll live well into our 90s, to make the increase in retirement age more palatable.

I met people in Japan who work well into their 70s (and long days too), but their diet is far superior to ours. I know people are in control of their own diets, but unless the population in general radically changes habits, I can't see us heading toward an era where it will be common for 70 year olds to work full time, or have the ability or desire to do so.

I'd like to see the ONS take control of retirement age based rather than leaving it to the government.

wotsthat

kinger101 wrote: »

Taken for granted by whom? Although historical increases in life expectancy are somewhat linear, I don't think there are grounds to believe this will continue indefinitely. Particular given we'll have less scope to reduce pre-retirement deaths in the future compared with the past. I think there's actually a risk life expectancy may begin to decline in the West due to the growing problems of obesity.

It's in the government's interest to tell us we'll live well into our 90s, to make the increase in retirement age more palatable.

I met people in Japan who work well into their 70s (and long days too), but their diet is far superior to ours. I know people are in control of their own diets, but unless the population in general radically changes habits, I can't see us heading toward an era where it will be common for 70 year olds to work full time, or have the ability or desire to do so.

I'd like to see the ONS take control of retirement age based rather than leaving it to the government.

I think most people make an assumption that lifetimes will be longer than in the past but still assume they'll be too tired/ ill to work at the same age as in the past. It's wrong - people are 'younger' for longer.

The world of work won't be static either. I don't see a world where it's common for people in their sixties to work full time either but more people will phase retirement over a decade (as already expressed by a number of posters). I also think holiday entitlements will increase and entitlement to take unpaid leave will become commonplace.

I agree governments will use any excuse to raise taxes and reduce benefit payments but there's no denying we really can realistically expect to spend many more years in retirement so this might be an exaggerated problem but it's not a non-problem.

Ray_Singh-Blue

mystic_trev wrote: »

Without boring those on this Forum who've heard all this before...

...My Investment strategy since retiring has been pretty well 'bang on'

mystic_trev, I for one have not heard it before - can you point to a post where you describe your strategy? I would be very interested as have similar ambitions

kinger101

wotsthat wrote: »

I think most people make an assumption that lifetimes will be longer than in the past but still assume they'll be too tired/ ill to work at the same age as in the past. It's wrong - people are 'younger' for longer.

The world of work won't be static either. I don't see a world where it's common for people in their sixties to work full time either but more people will phase retirement over a decade (as already expressed by a number of posters). I also think holiday entitlements will increase and entitlement to take unpaid leave will become commonplace.

I agree governments will use any excuse to raise taxes and reduce benefit payments but there's no denying we really can realistically expect to spend many more years in retirement so this might be an exaggerated problem but it's not a non-problem.

I never said it was not a long term problem. I'm suggesting the length and quality of life will be worse for those reaching a state pension age of 70 in say 2050 compared to 65 today. We don't have date for life expectancy at 70, but even if we extrapolate the data for age 65. we don't get an increase of 5 years in this period (it's increased by about 5 years in 6 decades, so we might reasonably expect 2-3 years if we make the possibly invalid assumption it will continue to increase at the same rate).

If the retirement age needs to be increased to 70, you might as well do it now for the sake of fairness. But it doesn't win votes. Which is why the ONS and not the government should set the age. Take the politics out of it, and eliminate the cliff-edges.

kinger101

Ray_Singh-Blue wrote: »

mystic_trev, I for one have not heard it before - can you point to a post where you describe your strategy? I would be very interested as have similar ambitions

Past performance is no indicator of future performance.

chucknorris

wotsthat wrote: »

I think most people make an assumption that lifetimes will be longer than in the past but still assume they'll be too tired/ ill to work at the same age as in the past. It's wrong - people are 'younger' for longer.

I was inspired when I ran the Dorking 10 mile road race in 2010 (aged 52), by the guy who finished immediately in front of me, he was 83! That is the sort of 80's person I want to be, but it doesn't just happen by accident, it needs to be planned/managed. I won't be as fast as him, but I'll try and be be the best that I can, that is what is important. I may not be running (or even jogging) by then, but hopefully I will still be cycling and hiking, or at least walking long distances.

EDIT: Obviously ill health could intervene, we all know that.