Third State Pension age review: independent report call for evidence - published today

Phossy

I expect COVID has skewed the average life expectancy down recently as it affected the older generation disproportionately. 

eskbanker

NickPoole said:

dunstonh said:

I think they should abandon it, freeze retirement age and start to work on a proper fair taxation regime and redistribution of wealth.

fair in whose eyes?

Why should wealth be distributed to those who have not earned it?

Well, let's not politicise this. My point is that country is getting wealthier but the services and benefits we get as citizens aren't. That's because the money is concentrated in too few hands and not fairly taxed.

So we need to find a system that is fairer in the eyes of enough people that they'd vote for it! I doubt the Duke of Westminster or whoever thinks there is anything wrong with the system and is happy to see state pension age head off into the 80s.

Interesting way of not politicising something....

ClashCityRocker1

eskbanker said:

NickPoole said:

dunstonh said:

I think they should abandon it, freeze retirement age and start to work on a proper fair taxation regime and redistribution of wealth.

fair in whose eyes?

Why should wealth be distributed to those who have not earned it?

Well, let's not politicise this. My point is that country is getting wealthier but the services and benefits we get as citizens aren't. That's because the money is concentrated in too few hands and not fairly taxed.

So we need to find a system that is fairer in the eyes of enough people that they'd vote for it! I doubt the Duke of Westminster or whoever thinks there is anything wrong with the system and is happy to see state pension age head off into the 80s.

Interesting way of not politicising something....

ha! yes. I suppose I meant let's not get too deep into defining fairness. Except of course by suggesting that we don't keep increasing state pension age because people are living longer.

The obvious truth is that overall people in UK ARE living to be older than they were in 1946, but not everybody and the confounding factors including geography and of course wealth means the solution itself is especially unfair.

eskbanker

NickPoole said:

The obvious truth is that overall people in UK ARE living to be older than they were in 1946, but not everybody

1946 isn't relevant - the benchmark for any analysis will be the last time the age was changed in legislation.  And of course it's not everybody, that's how averages work!

ClashCityRocker1

eskbanker said:

NickPoole said:

The obvious truth is that overall people in UK ARE living to be older than they were in 1946, but not everybody

1946 isn't relevant - the benchmark for any analysis will be the last time the age was changed in legislation.  And of course it's not everybody, that's how averages work!

Supposed to be a five year review. 

eskbanker

NickPoole said:

eskbanker said:

NickPoole said:

The obvious truth is that overall people in UK ARE living to be older than they were in 1946, but not everybody

1946 isn't relevant - the benchmark for any analysis will be the last time the age was changed in legislation.  And of course it's not everybody, that's how averages work!

Supposed to be a five year review. 

The scheduling of the reviews is likewise not particularly significant - the last change was legislated in the Pensions Act 2014, so that remains the last relevant benchmark.

ClashCityRocker1

eskbanker said:

NickPoole said:

eskbanker said:

NickPoole said:

The obvious truth is that overall people in UK ARE living to be older than they were in 1946, but not everybody

1946 isn't relevant - the benchmark for any analysis will be the last time the age was changed in legislation.  And of course it's not everybody, that's how averages work!

Supposed to be a five year review. 

The scheduling of the reviews is likewise not particularly significant - the last change was legislated in the Pensions Act 2014, so that remains the last relevant benchmark.

I think they are supposed to give ten years notice of any change to pension age so a bit of delay helps a few people I suppose

ali_bear

Is the 10-year gap between being able to withdraw from a personal pension and the state pension age going to be kept at that ten years? I mean is that the intention. 

eskbanker

NickPoole said:

eskbanker said:

NickPoole said:

eskbanker said:

NickPoole said:

The obvious truth is that overall people in UK ARE living to be older than they were in 1946, but not everybody

1946 isn't relevant - the benchmark for any analysis will be the last time the age was changed in legislation.  And of course it's not everybody, that's how averages work!

Supposed to be a five year review. 

The scheduling of the reviews is likewise not particularly significant - the last change was legislated in the Pensions Act 2014, so that remains the last relevant benchmark.

I think they are supposed to give ten years notice of any change to pension age so a bit of delay helps a few people I suppose

Yes, the declared intention has been to give at least ten years notice, but that could be changed via legislation if deemed appropriate, although that would obviously be politically 'courageous', as Sir Humphrey would have said!  But again, it's not directly relevant to what was being discussed above....

artyboy

ali_bear said:

Is the 10-year gap between being able to withdraw from a personal pension and the state pension age going to be kept at that ten years? I mean is that the intention. 

I'll be mightily unimpressed if I get bumped any further on that, given I only missed out on the 55 to 57 shift by a few days...