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

Grumpy_chap

Deleted_User said:

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. 

The variance in state pension age is staged so I do not know the details for every scenario.

For my personal case, my state pension age has moved by 2 years from what it was at the start of my career.  
I can quite believe that the 2 years is a fair reflection of changed life expectancy, particularly since the 65 age point was originally set.

If I was female, my state pension age would have moved by 7 years from what it was at the start of my career.  Five of those 7 years are linked to equality rather than life expectancy improving.  Sometimes, it is a case of be careful what you wish for.

zagfles

Deleted_User said:

zagfles said:

Deleted_User said:

zagfles said:

Deleted_User said:

thriftytracey 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.

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/datasets/lifeexpectancyatbirthandselectedolderages

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.

My source is the ONS, but I'm looking a bit deeper than the the very crude headline.

I have listed some of the major changes that have led to an APPEARANCE of increase in life expectancy - one is infant morality and that's why ONS data gives the impression that lifespans have doubled over 100 years. They haven't - it was common to live to eighty back then, but the huge numbers of infant deaths dragged down life expectancy. When they largely eliminated infant deaths it didn't change the lifespan of the large numbers that were already living to 80 years old.

I mention that because it helps to illustrate how misleading life expectancy data can be.

The stats we posted were life expectancy at 65. You don't seem to be getting that. Infant mortality DOES NOT affect that.

By all means post some stats to support your point. Otherwise it's just speculation which is fair enough, but doesn't prove yoyur point.

zagfles

Deleted_User said:

Grumpy_chap said:

Deleted_User said:

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.

Yet I draw my state pension 7 years later than them - because some other people are likely to live longer than their parents. 

Them? What age did your dad get his state pension?

jimi_man

Deleted_User said:

sevenhills said:

Deleted_User said:

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. 

Well actually there are a few, but one of the main ones is improved healthcare. The advances in medicine over the last few decades, have been enormous and have had a huge effect on overall average lifespan. 

Also you’re talking about individual cases, rather than an overall perspective. The plural of anecdote is not data.