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

michaels

p00hsticks wrote: »

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)

But that is the whole problem, 2037-9 is based on the life expectancy forecasts from 2012, when the report was published in 2015 there was already a 2014 update on longevity showing it was rising less quickly than forecast in 2012 and since then the forecast has fallen even more, so 2037-9 is no longer the correct date.

AndyAdams

michaels wrote: »

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

This is the first I have heard of the 25% tax free amount being abolished, when was that announced?

amateur_house

JoeCrystal wrote: »

Well, this news is expected. I am going have to assume that there won't be any state pension by the time. Or rather save/invest even more to supply my own income until the pension kick in. I got 37 long years until my SPA or 29 long years until my dream retirement age of 60.

I've been expecting it, it's hard not to when almost every week there's a new article in the papers about how we're all going to have to work till 80. I've just avoided the increase this time, so it's still 67 for me, for now. I very much doubt it will stay at that, I think it will be changed again in a few years.

michaels

AndyAdams wrote: »

This is the first I have heard of the 25% tax free amount being abolished, when was that announced?

Apologies, that was just me being tongue in cheek, I would be able to take advanage of 55 and 25% later that year so I am expecting any change to screw me just like this one will.

dsw_123

The change does not just result in a one year shortfall of 8K. It also impacts on many pension schemes such as LGPS which switched to a retirement date tied to State pension age in 2014 . So now if retiring at the 67 a women would see a permanent reduction of 5.2% and a man 5.6% in their pension of benefits accrued since April 2014.

hyubh

quotememiserable wrote: »

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.

I'm a bit confused about the implication that this says anything about what the state pension should be like today. Lots of things were different (and in flux) in 1909. Presumably no one would apply the same logic to the voting franchise, another hot topic for that era...?

Zola.

At the rate they are putting it up, who knows what it will be if and when I get to that age bracket! It seems scandalous.

I work at a desk, but I really sympathise for guys like brick layers who's backs simply wont be fit for it past mid 50s. What are they supposed to do ?

PS does this mean our private pensions with work will also be put up in age bracket? e.g. 58 ?

bugslet

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.

When I left school at 18, it was 60 for my state pension, it's currently 67, so that was 7 years difference - and I've not whinged because quite simply it's unaffordable.

Triumph13

Zola. wrote: »

I work at a desk, but I really sympathise for guys like brick layers who's backs simply wont be fit for it past mid 50s. What are they supposed to do ?

Get a different job of course. If we followed your logic we'd be saying that professional sportspeople should get their state pension from their mid thirties.
Yes these people are unlikely to earn as much in their second career as in their first, but, as per my earlier post, they can easily earn more than the state pension.
With people living so much longer we have to get away from the idea that everyone simply continues in one trade for their full working life getting more and more senior and better and better paid. Most people should expect to have an earnings curve where their earnings initially rise as they gain experience, remain at a peak for a couple of decades and then tail off as their capacity to work diminishes and they have to reduce hours / change to a less demanding job. State pension needs to be correctly positioned to cut in before the tail of this earnings curve drops below SP level. It does not need to come into payment as soon as earning potential drops from its peak.

Malthusian

hyubh wrote: »

I'm a bit confused about the implication that this says anything about what the state pension should be like today. Lots of things were different (and in flux) in 1909.

The point is that there was no "original plan" that the State Pension should be payable for a third of one's adult life.

You are correct that what the State Pension was in 1909 has nothing to do with what it should be today. Nor does what it was in 1959, or 1989, or 2009.