State pension age increase to 68 brought forward 7 years to 2037

Slinky

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-40658774

DominicH

Doesn't surprise me, since we're apparently stuck with the daft triple lock now. Just shows that if a government gives something away, even something that no one was particularly asking for like the triple lock, it is politically very difficult to ever take it back. And if the triple lock stays, something else has got to give.

As was seen with the last round of state pension age rises which passed with barely a murmur, raising the state pension age by a year is, in contrast, a politically almost painless way of clawing back ~£8,000 each from millions of people. Most of them don't realise it, because they aren't even thinking about state pensions yet.

Not that I'm against the pension age rising, when that is in line with life expectancy. Using it instead of fairer and more logical savings elsewhere is the problem.

vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

Get WASPI involved

michaels

Problem is the original plan was that people should spend one third of their adult life in retirement (on average).

Using the rate of increase in life expectancy taking place up to 2012 this gave a retirement age of 68 starting in 2037.

However 2014 and even more 2016 life expectancy predictions show that 2037 is now premature and that those retiring at 68 will now actually have fewer years in retirement on average than those retiring now. But the govt are failing to follow the advise in the report they claim to be implementing and are instead pushing ahead in a way that means that those currently retiring get a 'bigger slice of the pie' than those who will retire after 2037. for a govt who were badly hurt in the GE because they ignored inter generational fairness it seems an odd decision to reduce it.

Sad thing is that the media, MPs and most of the population can't understand the maths so this will go through unchallenged.

vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

Was'nt there a report yesterday saying that we have stopped "living longer"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-40608256

westv

Fortunately, I'll be 74 by then so won't be affected and my wife was born in February 1970 so she won't be affected either.

greenglide

stuck with the daft triple lock now

The CPI is currently 2.6% having fallen, unexpectedly from 2.9% last month.

So, currently, the triple lock is academic.

It is only relevant if we see low inflation levels again - I personally find that unlikely.

In reality the triple lock only costs the difference between the higher of wages or CPI and 2.5% if higher. It only becomes really significant if both wages and price increase are low, I think we are exiting that now.

Personally I think that the triple lock is no longer necessary for most pensioners but there are still a significant number of pensioners who struggle and people should remember that before using their pensions as a political football.

zagfles

greenglide wrote: »

The CPI is currently 2.6% having fallen, unexpectedly from 2.9% last month.

So, currently, the triple lock is academic.

It is only relevant if we see low inflation levels again - I personally find that unlikely.

In reality the triple lock only costs the difference between the higher of wages or CPI and 2.5% if higher. It only becomes really significant if both wages and price increase are low, I think we are exiting that now.

Personally I think that the triple lock is no longer necessary for most pensioners but there are still a significant number of pensioners who struggle and people should remember that before using their pensions as a political football.

Why do you some pensioners need a real terms increase in their pension only when inflation is low?

The only reason for the 2.5% underpin is because pensions are used as a political football. Labour introduced it after a headline in the Sun claiming the rise was "peanuts", when inflation was very low.

BLB53

This was recommended by the recent Cridland report. However much it may be needed to make the state pension more sustainable, it will be unfair to the many thousands of manual workers for whom it is simply not an option to just work longer and longer. There needs to be a better thought out solution.

michaels

BLB53 wrote: »

This was recommended by the recent Cridland report. However much it may be needed to make the state pension more sustainable, it will be unfair to the many thousands of manual workers for whom it is simply not an option to just work longer and longer. There needs to be a better thought out solution.

But the Cridland report defines what is fair and then goes on to use 2012 longevity projections because 2014 projections show life expectancy rising less quickly and 2016 data now available shows that thing shave continued to deteriorate since the report was published. Thus the proposed date no longer fits with the data on life expectancy. Problem is no one in the media or MPs understand the maths so they will be duped into the 'we are living longer so it is fair' even though on Cridland's own definition of fairness the 2037 date is wrong given the current projections.

michaels

Funnily enough the WASPI campaign does feed in. In theory there is no need to decide about the increase until 2024 as this gives at least 10 years for people to adjust (based on the earliest likely rise being in 2034) which means in theory we could wait to see for the longevity data is saying. However the WASPI campaign has added political pressure to giving people as much warning as possible at the expense it seems to taking a wrong decision. (Plus of course the cynic would say that now 20 years before anyone is impacted the political fallout is zero whereas wait to 10 years before and it actually seems relevant to those impacted and thus carries a political cost)