Gov launching pension age review

Cobbler_tone

Definition of wealthy? There are several but here is one:
"implies having more than enough to gratify normal needs or desires". So if you save every month purely because you have everything you need or want, you could be deemed to be 'wealthy'. On the flip side, one (US) definition is that you need to have a net worth of over $2.5m, so I don't think you're going to find a definitive answer to that old chestnut. 

BlackKnightMonty

Exodi said:

I would remind that over 2/3rds of forum-goers are 50+ and nearly half are retired.

I think having an unbiased discussion on potential state pension reform, or scrapping of the triple lock is optimistic (but to give credit where it's due, most of the views are relatively grounded).

SouthCoastBoy 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 it boils my blood - mainly because I think a lot of the people that parrot it either do so naively or disingenuously. 

There was an article the IFS published a couple of years ago that stated that 38% of people believe the SP will increase by less than inflation in the next decade, and one third of respondents do not believe the state pension will exist in 30 years time. Some could say these are extreme views, but clearly it's not that uncommon of a view.

You can imagine the annoyance it will cause to someone anticipating that they might not receive a state pension to be told that should gleefully continue subsidising the current bonanza triple lock increases.

The triple lock is inherently unsustainable in the long term, everyone knows this. At some point in the future, the mechanics of the state pension/triple lock have to be adjusted - whether that's changing to a double lock or linking to inflation, means testing the state pension, increasing SP age, etc. Every politic party would love to do it,  but they know it is political suicide (pensions turn out to vote and are very vocal - see recent pandemonium on WFP). 

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.

Personally, as someone in my thirties, my retirement planning does not include the State Pension. Not because I think it will be scrapped in it's entirety (I doubt that), but because I think it's best to plan for the worst and hope for the best. 

I'm just glad this thread hasn't devolved (yet) into vague notions of 'worked hard' and having 'paid in my whole life'.

FWIW this issue is playing out all across the world (it's particularly bad in countries like South Korea or Japan where birth rates are particularly low, the ratio of workers to pensioners is now incredibly bleak and set to continue worsening).

There is a third option.

That they simply don’t care/it’s not my problem.

BrilliantButScary

I found this interesting:

https://ageing-better.org.uk/financial-security-state-ageing-2025

We need to be looking at both current pensioners and future pensioners having financial security, not setting generations against each other. Most people would want both their parents and their children to be financially secure.

BrilliantButScary

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

Hoenir

Lowtrawler said:

Brenster said:

I am 45, and think it will be at least 70 before my age can access state pension.

Its definately a political grenade, especially with all the government F-ups which we all have to foot the bill for, and the ever increasing population increase. 

You would think with higher population, this would lead to higher tax income, and therefore help to pay for the state pension, unless of course the population increase isnt contributing to the system.

It's a Ponzi scheme ever since they decided not to actually create a pension fund from the National Insurance contributions.

Given the pension fund started day one with a negative balance. Always been chasing it's own tail. As life expectancy increased and people's working lives shortened. 

BlackKnightMonty

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.

BrilliantButScary

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.

BlackKnightMonty

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!

MeteredOut

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!

Obviously because they spent too much on Starbucks and Avocado on Toast (or whatever was the equivalent back then).

BlackKnightMonty

MeteredOut 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!

Obviously because they spent too much on Starbucks and Avocado on Toast (or whatever was the equivalent back then).

Cigarettes and alcohol?