We're aware that some users are experiencing technical issues which the team are working to resolve. See the Community Noticeboard for more info. Thank you for your patience.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!

Another "hint" from Pensions Minister that State Pension Age eligibility will change

Options
123457

Comments

  • zagfles
    zagfles Posts: 21,435 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Chutzpah Haggler
    zagfles said:
    The state pension age is currently 66 and two further increases are already set out in legislation, including a gradual rise to 67 for those born on or after April 1960; and a gradual rise to 68 between 2044 and 2046 for those born on or after April 1977.

    The briefings to the press suggest that the timescales will be changed in May 2023 when the review is published so that people will have to wait longer for their state pension.

    Yet longevity is now falling?  Not helped by the state of the NHS.  Apparently excess mortality in October was 900 deaths due to ambulance wait times.

    My own state pension eligibility falls in February 2026 so I narrowly missed having to wait until age 67.  Could this change?
    I planned for retirement at age 60 but mine has been moved to 67. Honestly, I don't think I'm going to get a pension - I don't believe it will be available when the time comes. I'm now planning for no state pension or healthcare/social care. The numbers just don't add up - it's not affordable.  

    This notion that life expectancy has increased isn't really true. My grandparents all lived to late seventies with two living to 80's. None of their (10 in total) children matched those ages. The oldest lived to 78 and three died before 60. There were no young deaths in my grandparents generation (other than deaths of babies / during childbirth).

    In reality, what happened is they dealt with some of the high numbers of early deaths - so pre-5 deaths used to be high and a lot of working class men did jobs that killed them off early. The eliminated those EARLY deaths an that raised average life expectancy. But healthy people aren't living longer - and in pretty much every family I know they're dying younger now. 
    Sorry but this is rubbish, life expectancy has been increasing over the longer term even when you ignore those who died young. A sample of a handful of people in your immediate family doesn't mean the stats are a "slight of hand".
    Between 2001 and 2019 life expectancy at 65, ie the number of years someone who has already survived till 65 can expect to live, has gone up from 16.1 to 19.1 years for men and 19.2 to 21.5 for women.
    So about a 19% increase for men and 12% increase for women, over less than a couple of decades.


    To use your charming turn of phrase - sorry, but this is rubbish!!!

    I am not basing my assertion on anecdotal evidence - I'm merely stating that anecdotal evidence from my family backs up the data. I thought actual examples might help to explain what the data really tells us.

    Early deaths are being reduced, but that doesn't mean that healthy people are living longer. 

    In the past, infant mortality, child birth and deaths among working classes (heavy drinking, smoking and jobs that took a toll on health) dragged down life expectancy. By eliminating those specific problems you make people that fit that profile live longer. But it isn't increasing life expectancy of the type of people that have never had their lives cut short by these things.

    What is rubbish? If you think you know better than the ONS, please provide credible evidence with links to a reputable statistical body. I'm not sure why you're still going on about infant mortality etc when two of us have given you referenced stats proving life expectancy at 65 (and higher ages) has increased significantly over recent decades. Infant/childhood/working age mortality doesn't affect that, only those who live till 65 are counted.

  • zagfles
    zagfles Posts: 21,435 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Chutzpah Haggler
    Pat38493 said:
    The state pension age is currently 66 and two further increases are already set out in legislation, including a gradual rise to 67 for those born on or after April 1960; and a gradual rise to 68 between 2044 and 2046 for those born on or after April 1977.

    The briefings to the press suggest that the timescales will be changed in May 2023 when the review is published so that people will have to wait longer for their state pension.

    Yet longevity is now falling?  Not helped by the state of the NHS.  Apparently excess mortality in October was 900 deaths due to ambulance wait times.

    My own state pension eligibility falls in February 2026 so I narrowly missed having to wait until age 67.  Could this change?
    I planned for retirement at age 60 but mine has been moved to 67. Honestly, I don't think I'm going to get a pension - I don't believe it will be available when the time comes. I'm now planning for no state pension or healthcare/social care. The numbers just don't add up - it's not affordable.  

    This notion that life expectancy has increased isn't really true. My grandparents all lived to late seventies with two living to 80's. None of their (10 in total) children matched those ages. The oldest lived to 78 and three died before 60. There were no young deaths in my grandparents generation (other than deaths of babies / during childbirth).

    In reality, what happened is they dealt with some of the high numbers of early deaths - so pre-5 deaths used to be high and a lot of working class men did jobs that killed them off early. The eliminated those EARLY deaths an that raised average life expectancy. But healthy people aren't living longer - and in pretty much every family I know they're dying younger now. 
    Here is the cohort life expectancy for those aged 65 (values from ONS data downloadable from https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/lifeexpectancies/datasets/lifetablesprincipalprojectionunitedkingdom). I've rounded values to the nearest integer year.

                                          Males        Females
    1980 (birth year 1915) 13 years        18 years
    1990 (birth year 1925) 15 years        20 years
    2000 (birth year 1935) 18 years        22 years
    2010 (birth year 1945) 20 years        22 years
    2020 (birth year 1955) 20 years        23 years

    Of course, the later values rely on projections more than the earlier ones. But for the whole UK population, the life expectancy at 65 has increased over the last 40 years or so. I have no idea whether it will continue to do so, since the last decade has seen a slowing down in the increase. Also interesting to note that the gap in life expectancy between males and females has closed from 5 to 3 years over that 40 year period.

    Do they publish stats like this based on the age the person retired - someone once claimed to me that people who retire at 65 tend to die much younger than people who retire at 60 or 55 - I am not sure where he got this info from or even whether there is any truth in it.
    Interesting question - there's a 10 year old BBC article (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-18952037) that suggests the news is mixed and some more recent US research summarised at https://hbr.org/2016/10/youre-likely-to-live-longer-if-you-retire-after-65 with a quote "The literature on the relationship between retirement age and longevity is still developing. The findings are mixed." from the latter source.

    I think the problem here is that even if you can prove correlation between retirement age and longevity that's very unlikely to prove causation. Many of the factors that influence the decision to retire early will likely also affect life expectancy. For instance some of the reasons to retire early or late could be health, wealth, enjoyment of the job, stress of the job, having a partner and their financial/health status, having hobbies/social life etc, all of which could affect life expectancy too. So it's probably not the decision to retire early/late that affects longevity, it's other factors that affect both longevity and retirement age.
    It's like when pressure groups constantly highlight the correlation between poverty and stuff like health outcomes, smoking, drug addiction, alcoholism etc. There's definitely a correlation, but doesn't prove causation, eg if you're a drug addict or alcoholic you're less likely to be able to hold down a good job and so more likely to be poor.
    So even if two things are correlated (say retirement age and longevity) that doesn't prove that one causes the other, they could both be caused by other factors.
  • daz378
    daz378 Posts: 1,051 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 500 Posts Name Dropper Combo Breaker
    Yes I'm an ex council carer...moved to a new care organisation...to be fare kept terms and conditions  since 2015....I don't reach SPA  till 2032...would need to survive on council pension for 5 to 7 years and any work I could get till then
  • sevenhills
    sevenhills Posts: 5,938 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 1,000 Posts Name Dropper
    There will be exceptions to that. My hubby was raised in Batley, Yorkshire. All the men drunk like fish, smoked and worked in jobs that took their toll. Hubby always says that the lucky ones got to draw their pension and even they would be dead within a year.

    I live within five miles of Batley, it's a poor area, just like any other poor area. If you have family with poor lifestyles, that is bound to colour your judgement.
  • sammyjammy
    sammyjammy Posts: 7,950 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 1,000 Posts Name Dropper Photogenic
    marlot said:
    I think length of life is too crude, its quality of life that counts. If you live longer but spend the last 5 years doing not a lot as you can't what is the point of living longer. Quality of live needs to be taken into account 
    I completely agree.  It is the number of good-health-years I want to optimise in retirement.

    My 75-year old neighbour paid privately for a replacement hip for similar reasons.  In the time he'd have waited for an NHS operation, he'd have 2-3 years of gradually declining activity (and muscle strength).  Far better to pay, and get back to living life.
    Exactly.  My optician says I'm starting to brew cataracts.  Not a problem at the moment, but will need sorting at some point.  A relative recently had hers done, but couldn't even get onto the NHS waiting list (1 year) until her eyes were so bad she couldn't drive and she was even struggling to read.

    She was horrified when I said that I would be going private, and accused me of 'leap-frogging' over NHS patients.  Don't see how - by going private I'm leaving what would have been my 'slot' for someone else to be seen earlier.


    You can't win with some people!  If you have the funds to do so its a no brainer, as has been said if things deteriorate due to excessive waiting then quality of life deteriorates too, if thats coupled with less mobility etc due to hip issues some will never get that physical ability back which means even more NHS help and treatment.
    "You've been reading SOS when it's just your clock reading 5:05 "
  • Grumpy_chap
    Grumpy_chap Posts: 18,273 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Combo Breaker
    If you are from a middle class background - the same as your parents - there's every chance you won't live as long as them as a) they would have been less likely to suffer early death than certain categories of working classes, and b) their lifestyle was probably healthier than yours (less junk food, more exercise). 

    I am not sure that I agree that lifestyles are less healthy.

    That is influenced by my experience and yours may well be different, so your assessment is equally valid.

    It may well depend on age / time era for the parents.  My Dad passed aged 86 and Mum is still going strong at 84.  I see no reason why I should not live to at least the same ages.

    My parents lived in an era of improving standard of living and that improvement was really marked by the introduction of labour-saving devices.  My parents were the first generation to own a washing machine and when my parents got that, my Grandmother still had a mangle that took up most of a room and was regularly used. 

    Diet could well be a case of "swings and roundabouts" - there was no fast food when we were growing up, other than the chippy (which was a weekly Friday feature) and far more home cooked food which the popular media tells us was / is the healthiest way.  When I think about that home cooked food, though (and it was lovely tasting), some of the things we ate really fills me with dread in hindsight.  There was a lot of fried food (the deep fat fryer was a must-have kitchen accessory) and the weekly roast was always followed for the following breakfasts with dripping on toast until the fat had all run out.  Frightful really and I'd never eat anything like that now.

    Much of the view point of my parents and their contemporaries was that they'd worked hard to earn money to buy labour saving devices and weren't then about to defeat all that with exercise - the time they'd now bought was for relaxing leisure and a whole market of consumer goods grew to support that view.  The media then also peddled a future that we'd be so well catered by labour saving devices, no-one would have anything other than leisure time.

    When the first private gym was built near us, my father scoffed at the idea.

    Compared to my parents, I do eat more pre-prepared meals but would never have the levels of fat in my diet that they took as normal.  Nor salt.  And I am a member of that very gym (different owners but the same building) that my father scoffed at.  That gym is now one of many in the locality.

    So, I can't see that my parents overall life-style was healthier than mine in either diet or exercise.  I can see that, potentially, someone 20 years younger than I would have parents that frequent the gym anyway, so their baseline from which to improve is higher.
  • zagfles
    zagfles Posts: 21,435 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Chutzpah Haggler
    If you are from a middle class background - the same as your parents - there's every chance you won't live as long as them as a) they would have been less likely to suffer early death than certain categories of working classes, and b) their lifestyle was probably healthier than yours (less junk food, more exercise). 

    I am not sure that I agree that lifestyles are less healthy.

    That is influenced by my experience and yours may well be different, so your assessment is equally valid.

    It may well depend on age / time era for the parents.  My Dad passed aged 86 and Mum is still going strong at 84.  I see no reason why I should not live to at least the same ages.

    My parents lived in an era of improving standard of living and that improvement was really marked by the introduction of labour-saving devices.  My parents were the first generation to own a washing machine and when my parents got that, my Grandmother still had a mangle that took up most of a room and was regularly used. 

    Diet could well be a case of "swings and roundabouts" - there was no fast food when we were growing up, other than the chippy (which was a weekly Friday feature) and far more home cooked food which the popular media tells us was / is the healthiest way.  When I think about that home cooked food, though (and it was lovely tasting), some of the things we ate really fills me with dread in hindsight.  There was a lot of fried food (the deep fat fryer was a must-have kitchen accessory) and the weekly roast was always followed for the following breakfasts with dripping on toast until the fat had all run out.  Frightful really and I'd never eat anything like that now.

    Much of the view point of my parents and their contemporaries was that they'd worked hard to earn money to buy labour saving devices and weren't then about to defeat all that with exercise - the time they'd now bought was for relaxing leisure and a whole market of consumer goods grew to support that view.  The media then also peddled a future that we'd be so well catered by labour saving devices, no-one would have anything other than leisure time.

    When the first private gym was built near us, my father scoffed at the idea.

    Compared to my parents, I do eat more pre-prepared meals but would never have the levels of fat in my diet that they took as normal.  Nor salt.  And I am a member of that very gym (different owners but the same building) that my father scoffed at.  That gym is now one of many in the locality.

    So, I can't see that my parents overall life-style was healthier than mine in either diet or exercise.  I can see that, potentially, someone 20 years younger than I would have parents that frequent the gym anyway, so their baseline from which to improve is higher.
    Plus the massive decline in smoking - in the 1970's nearly half adults smoked, and those who didn't couldn't avoid second hand smoke whether in the house, workplace, pub etc. Now it's about 15% and avoiding second hand smoking is far easier with it being banned in most indoor public places. 

  • sevenhills
    sevenhills Posts: 5,938 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 1,000 Posts Name Dropper
    If you are from a middle class background - the same as your parents - there's every chance you won't live as long as them as a) they would have been less likely to suffer early death than certain categories of working classes, and b) their lifestyle was probably healthier than yours (less junk food, more exercise). 

    I am not sure that I agree that lifestyles are less healthy.

    That is influenced by my experience and yours may well be different, so your assessment is equally valid.

    It may well depend on age / time era for the parents.  My Dad passed aged 86 and Mum is still going strong at 84.  I see no reason why I should not live to at least the same ages.

    My parents lived in an era of improving standard of living and that improvement was really marked by the introduction of labour-saving devices.  My parents were the first generation to own a washing machine and when my parents got that, my Grandmother still had a mangle that took up most of a room and was regularly used. 

    Diet could well be a case of "swings and roundabouts" - there was no fast food when we were growing up, other than the chippy (which was a weekly Friday feature) and far more home cooked food which the popular media tells us was / is the healthiest way.  When I think about that home cooked food, though (and it was lovely tasting), some of the things we ate really fills me with dread in hindsight.  There was a lot of fried food (the deep fat fryer was a must-have kitchen accessory) and the weekly roast was always followed for the following breakfasts with dripping on toast until the fat had all run out.  Frightful really and I'd never eat anything like that now.

    Much of the view point of my parents and their contemporaries was that they'd worked hard to earn money to buy labour saving devices and weren't then about to defeat all that with exercise - the time they'd now bought was for relaxing leisure and a whole market of consumer goods grew to support that view.  The media then also peddled a future that we'd be so well catered by labour saving devices, no-one would have anything other than leisure time.

    When the first private gym was built near us, my father scoffed at the idea.

    Compared to my parents, I do eat more pre-prepared meals but would never have the levels of fat in my diet that they took as normal.  Nor salt.  And I am a member of that very gym (different owners but the same building) that my father scoffed at.  That gym is now one of many in the locality.

    So, I can't see that my parents overall life-style was healthier than mine in either diet or exercise.  I can see that, potentially, someone 20 years younger than I would have parents that frequent the gym anyway, so their baseline from which to improve is higher.
    Obesity levels are through the roof and obesity is the biggest killer. But that's a generalization which is as meaningful to the individual as the generalization that 'people are living longer'. 

    But really what matters is individual circumstances. If your mum and dad lived to early eighties and you're as fit and lean as them (or in better shape) then it's reasonable to expect to live as long or longer than them. Genetics is a big factor. But if they were lean, fit and healthy and you're obese and on drugs by mid life for umpteen health problems then chances are your lifespan will be shorter than theirs. 

    Take my example - I'm lean and fit, but I've always eaten crap. Mum and dad ate a healthy diet all their lives. Not a huge difference in lifestyle - swings and roundabouts. So it's reasonable for me to have the same lifespan as them - why would I live longer? Late 70's early 80's is as far as any of my relatives get to - none had jobs, habits or lifestyles that shortened their lifespan. That seems to be the genetic limit in my family. 

    Yet I draw my state pension 7 years later than them - because some other people are likely to live longer than their parents. 
    The NHS can do just about anything to keep people alive, apart from give them a brain transplant.
    We have always had the same genes, the thing that has brought most of the extra years, is advances in medical science.
  • Apparently Europeans keep their houses 3 degrees warmer than in the 90s (at least until recent price hikes). In the 70s it was colder still than in the 90s.  Have not appreciated that.  I am not saying its a major contributor to life expectancy but wealth is. And people are, on average, better off. 

    Fear not: the trend is reversible, we could all get poorer, die earlier and then earlier state pensions might become affordable once more.  
  • zagfles
    zagfles Posts: 21,435 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Chutzpah Haggler
    edited 9 December 2022 at 10:23AM
    There will be exceptions to that. My hubby was raised in Batley, Yorkshire. All the men drunk like fish, smoked and worked in jobs that took their toll. Hubby always says that the lucky ones got to draw their pension and even they would be dead within a year.

    I live within five miles of Batley, it's a poor area, just like any other poor area. If you have family with poor lifestyles, that is bound to colour your judgement.
    And it's in poor areas that lifespans are increasing in big jumps - that's what's really skewing the data. Yes, there are other areas where early deaths are being eliminated - but that doesn't mean that everyone can expect to longer than their parents. It all depends if your parents died earlier than they should for some reason - something that no longer applies. As I said, men in my husbands family didn't reach their 70's. Due to poor conditions in workplace and lifestyle. My husband is a professional that's always had a very healthy lifestyle so he can expect to live longer than his male ancestors.

    But that doesn't mean that I have a higher life expectancy than my mother. Yet I qualify for state pension 7 years later than she did. There is absolutely no reason why I should expect to live longer than my mum. 
    There are lots of reasons (better treatments for various life threatening conditions for a start). But maybe not 7 years longer. But probably likely to live 2 years longer than your dad, definitely based on averages
Meet your Ambassadors

🚀 Getting Started

Hi new member!

Our Getting Started Guide will help you get the most out of the Forum

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 351K Banking & Borrowing
  • 253.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 453.6K Spending & Discounts
  • 244K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 598.9K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 176.9K Life & Family
  • 257.3K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
  • 37.6K Read-Only Boards

Is this how you want to be seen?

We see you are using a default avatar. It takes only a few seconds to pick a picture.