Gov launching pension age review

BrilliantButScary

BlackKnightMonty said:

BrilliantButScary said:

BlackKnightMonty said:

BrilliantButScary said:

Just happened to watch this last night, it may show why some people do not have an occupational pension:

https://youtu.be/kkEGcpxD-go?si=cCNyJM8h_cb-pafz

56 years ago.

Yes, it was 56 years ago, but some of those adults in the film could be in receipt of a state pension now, and the children will not have reached state pension age yet.

Poverty was around back then, and it is around today. But 40% of pensioners failing to gain wealth during the golden years of EU membership, north sea oil, and the selling off of our national infrastructure, gold, and other assets. Come on!

It may have been the 'golden years' for some, for others that is open for debate. As George Orwell said, 'some are more equal than others'. Nothing changes.

BlackKnightMonty

BrilliantButScary said:

BlackKnightMonty said:

BrilliantButScary said:

BlackKnightMonty said:

BrilliantButScary said:

Just happened to watch this last night, it may show why some people do not have an occupational pension:

https://youtu.be/kkEGcpxD-go?si=cCNyJM8h_cb-pafz

56 years ago.

Yes, it was 56 years ago, but some of those adults in the film could be in receipt of a state pension now, and the children will not have reached state pension age yet.

Poverty was around back then, and it is around today. But 40% of pensioners failing to gain wealth during the golden years of EU membership, north sea oil, and the selling off of our national infrastructure, gold, and other assets. Come on!

It may have been the 'golden years' for some, for others that is open for debate. As George Orwell said, 'some are more equal than others'. Nothing changes.

Buy a 3 bed house detached house for half a crown and two farthings. The difficult years!

BrilliantButScary

It's a shame this thread has devolved into content best left to the Daily Telegraph.

BlackKnightMonty

BrilliantButScary said:

It's a shame this thread has devolved into content best left to the Daily Telegraph.

There are two entrenched views.

Those who are collecting or soon to collect a state pension who want it to be plumped up as much as possible.

Those who are some way off collecting it who see the utter un sustainability of it, and who would like some changes made to keep it as a possible future option for them even though the likelyhood of them receiving it AT ALL/AT ANY AGE is rapidly diminishing.

I don’t know how you reconcile those two positions.

westv

BlackKnightMonty said:

BrilliantButScary said:

It's a shame this thread has devolved into content best left to the Daily Telegraph.

... even though the likelyhood of them receiving it AT ALL/AT ANY AGE is rapidly diminishing.

That is clearly nonsense

MeteredOut

BlackKnightMonty said:

BrilliantButScary said:

It's a shame this thread has devolved into content best left to the Daily Telegraph.

There are two entrenched views.

Those who are collecting or soon to collect a state pension who want it to be plumped up as much as possible.

Those who are some way off collecting it who see the utter un sustainability of it, and who would like some changes made to keep it as a possible future option for them even though the likelyhood of them receiving it AT ALL/AT ANY AGE is rapidly diminishing.

I don’t know how you reconcile those two positions.

You really can't accept that there are people in the middle? You think its either boomer - handed millions, or Millenial/GenZ - no chance nomatter what they do?

As referred to above, its a shame this is another thread that has turned into a whinge rather than a grown-up discussion about the actual topic.

I've stated before - the pension will be around for as long as people who have paid NI are able to collect it, but it'd be naive to think the attainment age won't go up. Linking it to life expectancy seems a good starting point.

BlackKnightMonty

MeteredOut said:

BlackKnightMonty said:

BrilliantButScary said:

It's a shame this thread has devolved into content best left to the Daily Telegraph.

There are two entrenched views.

Those who are collecting or soon to collect a state pension who want it to be plumped up as much as possible.

Those who are some way off collecting it who see the utter un sustainability of it, and who would like some changes made to keep it as a possible future option for them even though the likelyhood of them receiving it AT ALL/AT ANY AGE is rapidly diminishing.

I don’t know how you reconcile those two positions.

You really can't accept that there are people in the middle? You think its either boomer - handed millions, or Millenial/GenZ - no chance nomatter what they do?

As referred to above, its a shame this is another thread that has turned into a whinge rather than a grown-up discussion about the actual topic.

I've stated before - the pension will be around for as long as people who have paid NI are able to collect it, but it'd be naive to think the attainment age won't go up. Linking it to life expectancy seems a good starting point.

No, I think the State Pension faces extinction.

tonydathome19

BlackKnightMonty said:

MeteredOut said:

BlackKnightMonty said:

BrilliantButScary said:

It's a shame this thread has devolved into content best left to the Daily Telegraph.

There are two entrenched views.

Those who are collecting or soon to collect a state pension who want it to be plumped up as much as possible.

Those who are some way off collecting it who see the utter un sustainability of it, and who would like some changes made to keep it as a possible future option for them even though the likelyhood of them receiving it AT ALL/AT ANY AGE is rapidly diminishing.

I don’t know how you reconcile those two positions.

You really can't accept that there are people in the middle? You think its either boomer - handed millions, or Millenial/GenZ - no chance nomatter what they do?

As referred to above, its a shame this is another thread that has turned into a whinge rather than a grown-up discussion about the actual topic.

I've stated before - the pension will be around for as long as people who have paid NI are able to collect it, but it'd be naive to think the attainment age won't go up. Linking it to life expectancy seems a good starting point.

No, I think the State Pension faces extinction.

As do us all Monty to you want to take that view

jimi_man

BlackKnightMonty said:

MeteredOut said:

BlackKnightMonty said:

BrilliantButScary said:

It's a shame this thread has devolved into content best left to the Daily Telegraph.

There are two entrenched views.

Those who are collecting or soon to collect a state pension who want it to be plumped up as much as possible.

Those who are some way off collecting it who see the utter un sustainability of it, and who would like some changes made to keep it as a possible future option for them even though the likelyhood of them receiving it AT ALL/AT ANY AGE is rapidly diminishing.

I don’t know how you reconcile those two positions.

You really can't accept that there are people in the middle? You think its either boomer - handed millions, or Millenial/GenZ - no chance nomatter what they do?

As referred to above, its a shame this is another thread that has turned into a whinge rather than a grown-up discussion about the actual topic.

I've stated before - the pension will be around for as long as people who have paid NI are able to collect it, but it'd be naive to think the attainment age won't go up. Linking it to life expectancy seems a good starting point.

No, I think the State Pension faces extinction.

No, I don't think so and in fact almost certainly not - it's here to stay. There isn't really any precedent around the world for getting rid of the State Pension or even means testing it. As stated earlier it is means tested to a certain extent by virtue of it being taxed.

Basically we (the UK) either need to put more money in or take less out. Adjusting the ages is taking less out but then so is abandoning the triple lock. 

Personally I favour getting rid of the triple lock. It was introduced to bring it back up to a more realistic amount as it had fallen behind over the years, but it's arguable now that it has achieved that to some extent and whilst it's not top of the list in European Standards it's not bottom either and is above halfway. 

The life expectancy argument is an interesting one since it's not actually increasing markedly. It levelled off around 2014 or so and then dipped over Covid. We'd need a few years more data to see what is happening. 

Raising the SP age tends to be more unfair towards the poorer section of society who tend to have lower life expectancy and thus don't claim it for as long - a year of lost pension is a lot. Conversely the richer section tend to live longer, claim it for longer and benefit more from the triple lock as time goes on. Abandoning the triple lock will affect the poor far less. 

Another idea floated is to tie it to a percentage of average earnings and then maintain that link. But getting rid of the triple lock will apparently produce more savings than the raising of SP age - and be fairer. 

Whatever happens is that things will change. But it won't go or be means tested, and to be fair no-one is really suggesting that. 

af1963

Exodi said:

The triple lock is not just for the current recipients, it is for future recipients as well.

This is such a common response I see and frankly it boils my blood - mainly because I think a lot of the people that parrot it either do so naively or disingenuously. 

s this. At some point in the future, the mechanics of the state pension/triple lock have to be adjusted -  ...

The question is what and when - not if, and that's why this view particularly frustrates me, because you either know this (and want to deceive younger working people to maintain the status quo that they are unlikely to receive themselves) or you live in Utopia where you believe above inflation/earnings increases can continue ad infinitum.

I'm possibly one of the ones you've seen saying this.  And I'm not naïve enough to believe the triple lock can or should go on forever, even though the politics of scrapping it will make it difficult to change.

But even if or when triple lock is eventually scrapped, the increases that it has delivered *up to that point* will remain as the baseline for future pensions.  The biggest beneficiaries of these increases will be the people who receive these higher payments for the longest period, and that's younger people who still have their entire retirement in front of them.

An 80 year old can expect to receive their triple-lock-increased pension for a further 10 years because their life expectancy is 90.   A 90 year old can expect it for 5 years. 

A 30 year old can currently expect it for 20 years because their pension age is 68 and their life expectancy is 88.

Double and triple lock was *intended* to gradually increase the value of state pension, relative to wages, to catch up on the years when it fell behind generally rising wages.