Retirement for those born after 1970 is likely to rise to 71 in the future

[Tiddlywinkly]

This Guardian article was a tad depressing to read:https://amp.theguardian.com/money/2024/feb/05/uk-state-pension-age-will-soon-need-to-rise-to-71-say-experts

I fully acknowledge that we are living longer, are having less children etc, but for many, our health might not be up to working for that long. There'll also be a knock on effect as to how much we'll be available for helping with grandkids/ very elderly parents.

I just wondered what other people thought?

I can’t see them forcing people into it, they can’t force fit and healthy (ish) into work now. If you’re physically unfit (as a lot will be) or you develop mental health issues or develop an addiction I’m sure there will be govt support of some sort. I’m not bloody working until I’m 70 when a number of my family seem to have been on a state sponsored retirement since they were in their 30s!

Sorry I just can't see how this is going to work. Working people are paying more tax than ever, housing is out of the reach of many and the cost of childcare ridiculous.
How are people going to find the extra money to put into a private pension? Why should they forgo the state pension they have paid into?

The working population are working and being expected to pay for more and more. This is not about getting back 'what I've paid in' btw but it is not acceptable to expect people to pay in and get nothing and see others paying nothing and not working and getting things paid for.

I agree. But this is exactly how this sorry mess will play out. Those who have never lifted a finger and relied on benefits for dubious reasons will get the lot for free ‘because they’ll starve if you don’t pay for it’. I’m on the verge of stopping caring what happens to people who realistically could support themselves but choose not to. And there seem to be an awful lot of them.

Why should they forgo the state pension they have paid into

They haven’t exactly though. NICs have always paid for the current amount of social and health spending, it’s not set aside for you in the future, unlike a personal pension.

True

71 that's hellish!!!

We are all going to need to take better care of ourselves - as we get older we cost more to keep fit and healthy. I'm already starting to realise I really do need to improve my diet and take more exercise to make my retirement (when it happens) higher quality.

NI doesn't just pay for pensions. It's not even ring-fenced! It's also used for other benefits (maternity, unemployment, sick pay, bereavement) and some used for the NHS.

71 is far too old. Well off people will retire earlier anyway. It is only poorer people who will work until this age.

There are very few people with a 30 year pension. State pension used to be 65 for men (66 now) and only one percent of people live to over 90 with very few living to 95.
My DF was born just after WWI and lived for 15 years in retirement. Most people of his generation had fewer years in retirement. People retiring now at 66 have a life expectancy of around 87 so 20 years in retirement.
I think the issue is retirement at 71 would be a bit shorter, but how many people are fit enough to work at that age.

We already have a lot of people of working age in their sixties off long term sick.

State pension will disappear with a Tory government

Loads of people die in their seventies.

And who will do all the underappreciated essential work if they do that and what exactly do you mean by 'smart with their career choices' are there infinite high paid jobs for people? What about when AI takes a lot of jobs - how will people get work and pay then?

State pensions came in in 1909. You had to be 70 (and of “good character”). The average lifespan was about 52 at the time.

In 1948 the 65 (for men) and 60 (for women) pension ages came in. Average lifespan was around 66yrs at that time.

Our ideas about retirement have been totally swayed by the last 40 years because even though the government knew in the 80s that the set up was totally unsustainable. That people were living too long past the retirement ages for the amount of money being invested (basically none) and the number of young people who would be around to support them. But they still failed, repeatedly, to close that gap by increasing the pension age or the amount of money that needed to be set aside in some way.

It was this failure in the 80s which is the problem. Then, and from then on, is when pension ages should have been going up. This is down to Thatcher and Blair’s governments.

Expecting people with a retirement age of late 60s to fight for older people to have lower retirement age than them is expecting rather a lot. I'd have more sympathy if you'd cared about the retirement age generally, rather than only your own age group.

Maybe some of the reduction in workers is all the EU citizens who used to pay tax here?

I wonder if they'll still expect 35 years of NI contributions?

Because 35 years of contributions would be an amount of money I doubt I could spend in the 10ish years I had left to live as an elderly person.

The tax burden already falls disproportionately heavily on working people. I would tax polluting industries to the maximum possible - Oli and gas in particular, tax housing in order to cool the market, add land value taxes for higher value holdings (with reliefs for farmers who are doing something useful with the land such as producing our food).

It will be hard for people working in manual jobs.

Government better get rid of defined benefits backed by the state before they means test state pension

@Validus

It’s shifting pensions back to what they were first designed to be - for the incredibly old and infirm.

100% this, it was never intended to be the norm that people could retire at 65 or even earlier and have a long and comfortable 20+ years on state pensions. The luxury of the boomer days is not something my generation will know. A pension is supposed to be for very elderly, frail people in the last few years of their lives.

This means that working age adults will need to plan very carefully for an earlier retirement if this is what they want and take some serious ownership over their ability to save, their expenditure and their health. It will force people to prioritise savings over purchases and to live a more frugal life in the hope they can build up enough to take an earlier retirement and live a very modest life on the accrued savings. There ain’t no getting away from this one!

My mum suffered from COPD, macular degeneration and hearing loss. From about age 65 she couldn't have worked due to these health issues. She died at 73. Just two years older than this proposal.

@RawBloomers Life expectancy of 52 is misleading. If you lived to 5 years old your life expectancy was much higher. Life expectancy was low because so many babies and infants died.
And it was over 100 years ago. Surely we should expect much better now? Children were still working from 12 years old in 1908.

Of course it is good to keep busy, but you can do that at the same time as being fully retired from work. Most of the retired people I know say they don't know how they ever found time to work as they are so busy.

I retired at 64 (65 is the age for collecting national superannuation here), and even though I haven't yet got around to joining groups, volunteering etc. I manage to keep busy and I'm out and about walking all the time. I am so much happier than when I worked even part time.

The people who are currently in their 80s/90s/100s here would have mostly retired at 65, the older group even earlier.