State Pension age under threat again

MK62

The review has been under way for months, as detailed here

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/second-state-pension-age-review-launches

I'm really not sure why the PM replied that "no decision has been taken on this yet".......she could have easily just replied, that "the statutory review process, into that issue, has been underway since late 2021, and we'll announce a decision after the review has been published".......and that would have been that really......instead she seems to have heaped more pressure on herself by giving the same reply she gave about inflation linking benefits........(assuming that she is actually planning to wait for the review that is)

p00hsticks

sevenhills said:

barnstar2077 said:

Darn it, I'm never going to qualify! :  )

Perhaps the state pension would be better if it was independent of Government? Then you get out, what you have paid in.

I suspect that the problem with that approach is that when you crunched the numbers you'd find that at the current contribution rates most ordinary people simply wouldn't have put enough away over their lifetimes to be able to retire comfortably at the same sort of age as the State Pension Age is now.

You must then either be prepared to just leave them to starve / freeze to death or you have to have a vastly increased number of people on government implemented Pension Credit benefits or similar

drummersdale

LV_426 

I'm sure everyone on here is an example of a fine upstanding citizen, well deserving of any state pension.
I suppose we should count ourselves lucky we get any kind of retirement benefits. Historically the peasants would work until the day they dropped dead.

I thought this was the policy of the existing Government ;-)

Merlin139

Annoyed I have to wait till 68 to get my State pension when I've been getting a government pension since I was 41! Followed by a big uplift when I reached 55

Why can't all pensions be paid at 55?

sevenhills

p00hsticks said

I suspect that the problem with that approach is that when you crunched the numbers you'd find that at the current contribution rates most ordinary people simply wouldn't have put enough away over their lifetimes to be able to retire comfortably at the same sort of age as the State Pension Age is now.

I believe in personal responsibility, but it's great if we can get rich people to make the poor richer.
But instead of giving people money that they have not earned, the rich should pay for infrastructure and things like the NHS and free public transport.

LV_426

sevenhills said:

p00hsticks said

I suspect that the problem with that approach is that when you crunched the numbers you'd find that at the current contribution rates most ordinary people simply wouldn't have put enough away over their lifetimes to be able to retire comfortably at the same sort of age as the State Pension Age is now.

I believe in personal responsibility, but it's great if we can get rich people to make the poor richer.
But instead of giving people money that they have not earned, the rich should pay for infrastructure and things like the NHS and free public transport.

I do agree with you, but don't you think it would make the rich find a more attractive place in the world to live, and take the wealth out of this country. Net result would be the economy here being worse off for everyone.
I'm just guessing really as I'm no economist. It's a fine line between allowing people to accumulate and keep wealth, but also taxing in order to spend money on public services etc. After all, those with immense wealth are not going to pay for infrastructure out of the kindness of their heart, are they?
To me there's a direct conflict of interests here, and I'm not sure how you best resolve that. Which is why governing a country is so hard. I suppose if a party had worked out a way of keeping everyone happy, they'd be in power.

xylophone

Not only was the original State pension age 70, it was also means tested and only paid to 'those of good character'. 

And all those lucky beggars who are already benefiting from this government largesse should look out because the "good behaviour force" will  be requiring a monthly report on how they are spending these vast sums - anybody smoking/drinking/gambling will be penalised at the rate of 50p in the pound - and beware those foreign holidays!

But an annual week in Bognor will be permitted. 

xylophone

And boarding house/hotel proprietors in Bognor should expect a "windfall tax" on their excess profits....

Workerdrone

Silvertabby said:

Really old news.

Not only was the original State pension age 70, it was also means tested and only paid to 'those of good character'. 

Didn't realise that. Just had a quick read of the wiki

..also had to pass a 'character test'; only those with a 'good character' could receive the pensions. Claimants also had to have been resident in Great Britain and Ireland for at least twenty years to be eligible, and those who had not worked habitually were also not eligible.

Others excluded from receiving the new pension were those in receipt of poor relief, those being held in what were then called 'lunatic asylums', those who had served a prison sentence and been released less than ten years before, those convicted of drunkenness (at the discretion of the court), and any person who was guilty of ‘habitual failure to work’, according to ability.

Workerdrone

LV_426 said:

sevenhills said:

p00hsticks said

I suspect that the problem with that approach is that when you crunched the numbers you'd find that at the current contribution rates most ordinary people simply wouldn't have put enough away over their lifetimes to be able to retire comfortably at the same sort of age as the State Pension Age is now.

I believe in personal responsibility, but it's great if we can get rich people to make the poor richer.
But instead of giving people money that they have not earned, the rich should pay for infrastructure and things like the NHS and free public transport.

I do agree with you, but don't you think it would make the rich find a more attractive place in the world to live, and take the wealth out of this country. Net result would be the economy here being worse off for everyone.
I'm just guessing really as I'm no economist. It's a fine line between allowing people to accumulate and keep wealth, but also taxing in order to spend money on public services etc. After all, those with immense wealth are not going to pay for infrastructure out of the kindness of their heart, are they?
To me there's a direct conflict of interests here, and I'm not sure how you best resolve that. Which is why governing a country is so hard. I suppose if a party had worked out a way of keeping everyone happy, they'd be in power.

I'd be less irked by taxation in general if there were significant efficiency drives in government. The NHS alone has far to many managers.