Bringing forward SPA change to 68

daz378

In the mini budget posted review of state pension...the good people on  here responded  that was an ongoing process and the rise to 68 was those born after 71, I relaxed slightly. Recently in the news floated the idea of bringing it forward...changing  the goalposts again...it may be macro economically necessary..but me being rather selfish....Will increase the actuarial reduction on my lgps...being a carer was looking forward to reducing my hours post 60

eskbanker

Is your point just the obvious one that bringing the SPA change forward would disadvantage those affected, or is there more to it than that?

Marcon

daz378 said:

In the mini budget posted review of state pension...the good people on  here responded  that was an ongoing process and the rise to 68 was those born after 71, I relaxed slightly. Recently in the news floated the idea of bringing it forward...changing  the goalposts again...it may be macro economically necessary..but me being rather selfish....Will increase the actuarial reduction on my lgps...being a carer was looking forward to reducing my hours post 60

Ideas are always being floated in the news. Many, especially those relating to pensions, never happen.

dunstonh

Both the increase to 66 and 67 were brought forward from the original timetable.  The expectation has nearly always been that 68 will be brought forward as well.    And that there may be further steps to 69 and 70.  Probably initially on longer lead ins which will, in time, also be brought forward.    

However, life expectancy has changed.  From 2011, increases in life expectancy slowed and in 2020 it went down.   

Life expectancy is taken into account in the review.   Previous increases from 65 to 67 were written in whilst life expectancy was significantly increasing year on year.    As that is no longer the case, there may not be a need to bring forward or add on further age increases (or reduce what may have been thought necessary a decade ago).

The 2017 review felt increasing it to 68 over 2037-2039 was felt to be best but that a further review should be carried out before legislating it to allow consideration of more up-to-date life expectancy projections.

There was pollical commitment that future changes would have a minimum of 10 years lead in.   However, that wasn't placed on statute (and even it is was, it can be changed).  It is also extremely difficult to find references to it online now.

Here is the last review if you fancy a read: 
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/630066/print-ready-state-pension-age-review-final-report.pdf

daz378

eskbanker said:

Is your point just the obvious one that bringing the SPA change forward would disadvantage those affected, or is there more to it than that?

It's mainly that  being a carer it may affect my plans to reduce my hours , go on the bank , instead  of having to work Xmas etc...but I'm aware  in the wider context   the axe as to fall somewhere....dunstoh  mentions  the pension convention  ...pensions shouldn't change with in 10 years of retiring....If labour get in..Will they run with it...also aware that an individual can be careful budgeting( though that's harder these days)...il end up voting monster raving loony party at this rate:)