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

Triumph13

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.

Perhaps they might consider a non-manual part time job? Whilst I fully agree that many people won't be fit enough to continue in their existing, full-time, manual work by their late 60s, I would expect the great majority of those people would be perfectly capable of manning a till at Tesco,working in a call centre or dozens of other jobs. It takes 21.5 hours a week at minimum wage to earn the same amount as a full state pension.

Acquinas

Plenty of public sector DC schemes e.g. LGPS or Civil Service Alpha, have linked the date at which you can take full benefits (i.e. without actuarial reduction) to state pension age, which is set out as a moveable feast. I'm guessing that many other DB schemes will follow this pattern. So there are further savings for the tax-payer feeding through on top of the £8k a head from the SP itself.

michaels

zagfles wrote: »

It was mentioned in a recent budget, though unlikely to have been legislated for yet. IIRC they were talking about changing it to 57 in 2028 or so.

It will change to 10 years before in April 2025 when they will also remove the 25% tax free.

Sun-Is-Fun

paulharding150 wrote: »

Surely if you were planning on retiring early you wouldn't be relaying on your state pension but on cash, investments and your private/workplace pension?

Whilst your state pension will start a year later - will that drastically alter your actual retirement date?

Perhaps not, but it's still £8K that you will have not got for another year - a decent sum of money - that you have paid into the system for and you're not getting it.

Sun-Is-Fun

molerat wrote: »

If a one off shortfall of £8K, with 20 years notice, is enough to derail your retirement plans then your plans are nowhere near robust enough.

Maybe £8k is not a lot for you, but for most people, me included, it's a decent pot of money to not get.

Snakey

There was nothing in this afternoon's bumf about the private pension age moving. Not that I would have expected there to be anything in the report, but if it was an imminent plan you'd think they'd do a bit of foreshadowing in the accompanying speeches etc. I mean it's going to affect a lot fewer people than the State pension changes so it's less politically sensitive (in fact you could easily spin it as only affecting "the rich").

Clutching at straws I note that they are saying they will try to give ten years' notice of changes (OK, OK, so the full sentence is "changes to the State pension age") so maybe we'll get no changes before July 2027 and counting (I'm turning 55 in March of that year), but...

Yeah today's changes will impact me, but I was kind-of assuming a) that this would happen, and b) it'll be heavily means-tested by then anyway so it's a moot point for anybody with funds to retire early.

molerat

mjfp509 wrote: »

Maybe £8k is not a lot for you, but for most people, me included, it's a decent pot of money to not get.

It is a lot to me but in the big picture of funds required to retire early it is quite a small amount.

I retired early in 2009, before the 2011 changes, and have had my SP pushed back by 6 mths and MrsM's by 13 mths. Between us a loss of £12.5K with 8 & 9 years notice and after we had already retired. Not a lot we can do about making it up now but our original plans were robust enough to absorb it. You need to expect the unexpected and plan for it.

p00hsticks

mjfp509 wrote: »

Perhaps not, but it's still £8K that you will have not got for another year - a decent sum of money - that you have paid into the system for and you're not getting it.

I've not read the report in detail, but isn't the principal behind it that the state pension age should rise in line with the increase in longevity ?

So you will get the same amount as others - but instead of getting that £8k at age 67, you'll get it in the final year of your life (which statistically will be a year later than those getting their state pensions earlier are likely to live)

quotememiserable

michaels wrote: »

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

The state pension was introduced in 1909. It was means tested, so not everyone received it. The qualifying age was 70 and average life expectancy at the time was 55. Most people never collected at all.

Now we have a retirement date of 68 and an average life expectancy of 85.

LHW99

a decent sum of money - that you have paid into the system for and you're not getting it.

Those that earn above a fairly minimal level pay NI contributions, which are not labelled with their own name as in a private pension.
People working now pay the state pensions of those already retired. When you retire, your pension (likely to be at a higher level than now, even if the triple lock eventually goes) will be paid by those who are not at SPA going forward. If you "got" what you paid in, it would probably not be as much as the Government would pay.
Also SPA is no longer a "retirement age" - you can go earlier if you can support yourself - or later if you're fit enough and have something you enjoy doing.