Raising the female state pension age to 66.... fair or foul?(57 Posts)
The proposal on the table is 65 by 2018 and 66 by 2020.
I presume that is the same as the male pension age?
It doesn't seem that unreasonable to me - its quite a long lead in time, and presumably anyone unable to find work who is younger than that will still be eligible for in work benefits.
Do you think it is a bad thing?
I think it's fair. Probably should have said that at the start Amazed it's taken so long to get to this stage, to be honest. Life expectancies are higher than ever, active old age is far more normal and the 'pension time-bomb' has been known about for quite some time. I think there is an issue surrounding women currently in their mid fifties who are looking at extra working years they weren't expecting .... but it sounds as though there's some kind of transitional arrangement being worked out. Possibly compensation.
Fair, as long as I am in good health I would like to work beyond 66. Working keeps your mind active.
It's slightly unfair in the medium term, because of the transitional arrangements, but obviously fair in the long-term.
Unfortunately, in his pensions reform as in so much else, Cameron has been timid beyond belief. He should have used the opportunity to tie state pension age to life expectancy.
I think it's fair to bring male and female pension age into line. I'm just not sure if it's workable to extend the ages much further. On the other "pensions" thread (yes, they are multiplying), Lesley33 linked some stats which showed that the problem is that many people won't be up to working that long, as although life expectancy is higher, people don't die as quickly now- often death is preceded by 10yrs of poor health sponsored by a cocktail of pharma products, so whereas they would have been dead, now they're alive but largely incapacitated. The idea of "active retirement" is somewhat mythical and largely confined to more affluent people who are unlikely to be relying solely on the state pension anyway.
I also think that for some jobs, 60 is probably the limit- for example, my mum is 63 and in great health, very active etc. She was a teacher. Could she teach FT now? Absolutely no way, and she'd be the first to admit it.
So, what would her choices be? She could either live off her savings until she could draw her pension, or get a "joe job". The latter is do-able. Employers are coming round to the idea of more mature employees as they're more reliable and have better interpersonal skills than the 18-24yr olds who typically do these jobs. BUT, that implies higher youth unemployment because there are only so many jobs
Arguably we all just have to die earlier. Life Crystals anyone?
Extending working lives is going to mean some adjustments in working practice. We already have provisions for people who have to retire early due to ill-health. Employers will also need to look at flexible working hours & role reassignment for older workers. There may be a new task for the NHS in preventative medical practices that enable more to reach old age in better health
hope all the men out there are prepared to be doing a lot more work around the house! As most women marry men older than themselves the men will be enjoying their retirement while their wives are still out to work full time. As a lady half way through 50's I was looking forward to spending time with my dh..now I will not receive anything until he is 76!
thinking about it thats probably why the age was always lower fro women, so that we would also be retired to look after them in their retirement!
When the state pension age was originally set, it was above the age of average life expectancy so it was not anticipated that the majority would draw it.
In addition, actuarial tables consistently show average femal life expectancy above that of males (although the gap is closing).
There is no justification for different male and female retirement ages and legislation is already in place to move to a state pension age of 68. The current government is just accelerating what was introdiced (seeminly without much notice) several years ago. The changes are a necessity to ensure that state pension provision remains affordable.
Fair. I'm 50; 60 is ridiculously young nowadays to retire.
Employers should be encouraged to allow more flexible working for older workers - downshifting some years before retirement is probably ideal - for quite a lot they will have their kids off their hands and may have repaid mortgage and therefore not need full salary.
There may be a new task for the NHS in preventative medical practices that enable more to reach old age in better health
Sorry- hit post too soon. What I mean is, any initiative is likely just to extend life further and delay that 10 yrs of poor health further down the line. People survive things they wouldn't have survived 20 yrs ago, mainly due to advances in medications for heart and blood pressure problems.
We're all outstaying our welcome- that's the bottom line.
I've always thought the NHS should operate some kind of MOT check-up system for people over a particular age rather than waiting for them to fall through the door needing treatment. Spotting danger signs earlier offers a chance to correct problems with meds or lifestyle changes.
It's absolutely fair to bring men and women into line re state retirement age. It is NOT fair to do this so quickly. Women currently aged 54 are seeing their state pension age rise by up to two years overnight, and have precious little time to prepare for it.
Would be better to stick to the original age 65 by 2020 and then go 65.25 the next year, 65.5 the year after etc. That would give these women (many of whom have v little state pension anyway because of the travesty that was the married woman's stamp, plus unequal pay in workforce, plus time out to raise children etc) a bit more time to plan
Message withdrawn at poster's request.
Thing is Cognito, it's the healthy ones in their fifties who are the problem. The unhealthy ones who you could lecture on quitting drinking, smoking, losng weight etc are probably going to clock off before they're 70 having ignored you completely (you can lead a horse to water and all that)
Many age related diseases are just signs of the body wearing out. We can counter the wear with medication, and prolong life, but we can't stop the body getting tired, cell replication slowing, etc. A generation ago, most people didn't live long enough to get things like dementia. Now they do, and apart from being very tragic for those involved, it also takes a long time to kill you.
God I'm depressed.......
Yes... we're just about to consign 92 year old MIL to a nursing home (she lived independently till this January). She has high blood pressure - or would have, without the meds. The same thing killed her older brother at 50. She also has diabetes - that would have done for her long ago if untreated, and if she hadn't been good at eating properly.
Looking round nursing homes at some of the poor souls, it occurs to me that some people lose the will to die ... that may sound paradoxical, but when my dad's body started failing in his mid 80s but with mental faculties intact, I'm pretty sure he more or less thought, sod this, I'm going to die in my sleep. I've seen the same sort of thing in other cases. For people who lose mind before body, they can't escape like this.
Sorry, wandering way OT!
I don't have a problem with it. The pension age was set at a time when most people made it to 50 or 60 - it's only recently that it's become the watershed after which you have 20 or even 30 years of leisure time to do what you like with. I think it's completely reasonable to raise the pension age. I'm 32 now and fully expect to be working for as long as my mind keeps working.
Join the discussion
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, watch threads, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.Register now »
Already registered? Log in with:
Please login first.