Video entitled 'The state pension is being phased out' ...

westv

TadleyBaggie said:

Pollycat said:

As far back as I can remember, the state pension age for men has been 65.
So a large number of 'current pensioners' i.e. men never had to "only work until they were 60'. 

The state pension age for men has never been lower than 65, when introduced in 1948 it was 60 for women and 65 for men.

That was the point being made.

Pollycat

TadleyBaggie said:

Pollycat said:

As far back as I can remember, the state pension age for men has been 65.
So a large number of 'current pensioners' i.e. men never had to "only work until they were 60'. 

The state pension age for men has never been lower than 65, when introduced in 1948 it was 60 for women and 65 for men.

Thank you.
I was pretty sure that the state pension age for men had never been lower than 65.

So it's not true that lots of pensioners didn't have to only work until age 60.

hugheskevi

Pollycat said:

TadleyBaggie said:

Pollycat said:

As far back as I can remember, the state pension age for men has been 65.
So a large number of 'current pensioners' i.e. men never had to "only work until they were 60'. 

The state pension age for men has never been lower than 65, when introduced in 1948 it was 60 for women and 65 for men.

Thank you.
I was pretty sure that the state pension age for men had never been lower than 65.

So it's not true that lots of pensioners didn't have to only work until age 60.

In addition to that, before about the year 2000 State Pensions had 20 years of price uprating, significantly eroding their value and the Basic State Pension fell to about 16% of average earnings (the new State Pension is about 30%).

At that time it was very common for women not to have a full pension in their own right (requiring 39 qualifying years) and instead receive about 60% of the Basic State Pension based on their husband's entitlement. Importantly, they could not get that 60% until their husband reached male State Pension age of 65, so many women aged 60-64 would receive a small pension based on whatever they had accrued in their own right (many would have worked in their early adult years, and perhaps again toward the end of their working age life, and also benefitted from Home Responsibilities Protected due to receiving Child Benefit which reduced the number of years required for a full pension).

Many women did not have large amounts of SERPS as that was employment-related with a much less generous credit system than today.

Men typically did have a full Basic State pension, but for lower earners SERPS was much less generous than the State Second Pension system which replaced SERPS in 2002.

Income Support, the predecessor to Pension Credit, was tiered by age, with younger pensioners receiving much less than older pensioners. Pension Credit changed this, aligning to the higher age tier of Income Support.

So it is hard to compare systems over time, as so many details change. Women did get their State Pension from age 60, but it was a very different system to today, where most women now will receive a full new State Pension in their own right.

eastcorkram

LightFlare said:

Under the current system, it is totally unaffordable 

The problem we have today is an unprecedented amount of “old” people who are receiving far in excess of their contributions.

It is true when they say that current pensioners have never had it so good - they only had to work untill they were 60 and yet the are using massive amount of resources health wise and socially

Its the first time we have experienced anything like this since the 2 wars killed a vast amount of young men who never made it to old age

There's also a huge amount of young people, who are already in receipt of more than they'll ever contribute.

Bostonerimus1

Why would I listen to a Youtube amateur when I have access to The Economist, FT, and other well sourced government and independent research papers? Well she actually expresses some genuine worries that I'm sure many people feel, but she gets some things incorrect ie like how you can get NI credits, so while it ends up being an interesting listen it isn't a credible analysis of SP's future. Actuarial fundamentals point to needed changes in the SP which is why I continue to pay Class 2 voluntary NI even thought I now have over 35 years of contributions as I see it as cheap insurance for the chance that the number of contribution years necessary for full SP goes up.