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’m mid 1970’s born and I can remember A level teacher saying there will be no state pension for you lot…

The state pension assumed you’d live 10 years or so after retirement. Now dying in your 70’s is considered “young”
I’m not sure great old age is something I’d wish for myself, I’m quite happy to kick the bucket when the health and wealth runs out! I shall be mightily disappointed if i end up spending thousands a week on a care home…hopefully dignitas is an option on the high street by then!

There already isn’t as pensioners with a small amount of additional pension would be better off on credits.

That’s complete nonsense. For the third time no pensioner who is entirely dependent on the state receives more than the higher level state pension including benefits. It’s capped.

er…..council tax??????

COL payments, housing benefit for your rent

There’s a whole list on you gov

I could go on

Most people haven’t paid their mortgages off at 45 but have at 65, so unless you’re a lifelong renter the different those 20 years make are the end of housing costs. That’s a huge expense to no longer have to think about, often 1/3 of income or more.

Given life expectancy, fair enough as long as people are given adequate notice.

When pensions were introduced, most people (mainly men) lived around 2/3 years after retirement.

Same job, fewer hours - OK then, but how do you manage for money? If you can't afford to work part-time when you're 45, how is it supposed to be magically possible when you're 65?

Our outgoings will be less as kids will have left home and we'll have paid the mortgage off.

However you are right that is build on assumption of homeownership and that expenditure will drop for some reason. As it is food and energy and council taxes have gone up which on fixed incomes is a problem.

In USA fastest growing age group of homeless is over 50s - mostly medical bills or divorces wiping them out and unemployment or low pay- but also rents and property taxes. They have corporations buying up housed for rent - mean rents go up as do property prices and there that means property taxes go up hitting those of fixed incomes.

And there is also this assumption that you can continue to do the same job, which is just not going to be true in lots of cases.

I am afraid ageism is real and more rife than ever.

Notcontent · Today 11:59
**
And there is also this assumption that you can continue to do the same job, which is just not going to be true in lots of cases.
**
I am afraid ageism is real and more rife than ever.”

How is it ageist to suggest that people of 71 are capable of working. Surely the opposite would be the case?

What about it? What you get depends on a number of criteria and varies by location. It’s certainly not worth attempting to live on £200 a week, let alone letting that £200 gradually become worth less and less until those people can’t afford to eat. It’s an unrealistic and heartless suggestion.

I think the one who are now 35 plus depending on job it’s feasible

but looking at the upcoming generations I don’t think so the majority are obese that a health ticking time bomb

Other posters have explained this clearly above, but in summary:

There is no incentive for some individuals to save small amounts of pension, as the additional benefits conferred by pension credit outweigh the additional pension earned.

To counter this, compulsion needs to be introduced to pension saving.

Over time, the element of basic state pension becomes a smaller proportion of an individual’s overall pension income.

For individuals currently receiving pension, or caught in transition. as real buying power reduces, pension credit will step in as eligibility increases and top up to a minimum living standard as its level is not static.

@MrsSkylerWhite sorry - what I meant is that often older people are subtly pushed out of jobs or struggle to get a new job.

I am 50 and last time I was job hunting I was in my late 30s - the perfect age in many ways as I had experience while still being “young. In my 50s my prospects are very different.

I wonder if it would be better for the government to reduce the cost of living and encourage working people to have more children? I don't know how much control governments can have over prices, but it seems a major factor in demographics.

Notcontent

Ah, understood.

We don't want "more" children, we need the right kind of children for the future workforce. I know that sounds snobbish, but it's the reality. We have major skills shortages in the workplace. The last thing is Wayne and Waynetta Slob producing even more slobettes who'll be a drain on society!

If you're meaning we need "workers" to have more children, by virtue of them being workers and having a more responsible attitude, work ethic, etc., then I absolutely agree, as hopefully their children would eventually become workers themselves, and maybe aspire to better jobs than their parents, if instilled with the right study/work attitude etc.

I was watching a you video about our economy - and they were saying our highly skilled young people often left for other countries seeking a better life - a slow brain brain but it was almost hidden because we import so many other people seeking better life here.

https://www.theneweuropean.co.uk/the-gen-z-brexit-brain-drain/#:~:text=Later%2C%20in%20October%2C%20a%20study,next%20two%20to%20three%20years.#

https://www.businessleader.co.uk/wrong-side-of-the-brain-drain/

You see occasional article about it but not in main stream media.

So even a baby boom may not help us.

@user1497207191 I believe people on benefits who have children are provided with support, and rightly so. I don't think working families receive enough support, at least in the current cost of living crisis. Other posters have commented on people not having children because they can't afford it, due to cost of living increase and the property market. Offering them more support, capping prices and other measures could raise the birth rate, and make having children and family life more achievable. Of course, everyone would benefit from the government addressing col, but I'm not sure where they can do this and how. Rent caps, perhaps?

In simple terms, long term, the government whoever that will be, will need to decide that if they want to keep state pensions as they are, triple lock and all, one or more of these things need to happen:

1. Increase tax rates
2. Increase the number of net contributors
3. Decrease spending on other services
4. Cut benefits elsewhere
5. Borrow an unsustainable amount indefinitely until our credit rating is through the floor
6. Limit the lifespan of people (or an upper age limit if they're too squeamish to start culling the elderly)

None of those are popular, especially 6! But we can moan and whine about this politician, that politician until we're blue in the face, but we can't have our cake and eat it indefinitely.

I'd feel pretty upset if I was close to state pension age and my entitlement was pushed back a year or more, but that doesn't change the equation.

My suggestion would be to make as much provision as you can yourself bearing in mind the tax efficiency of pension contributions. And maybe separate "retirement" and "state pension payable" in your head with phased, gradual retirement, maybe going part time etc.

Easier said than done for many people who live hand to mouth. But then again, the amount of builders and roofers who have worked cash in hand, driven nice cars and gone on nice holidays, but are still on the tools at age 70 and still lecture those who have prudently saved all their lives about how individual private pensions are a con.

Remember also that life expectancy from birth maybe somewhere around the 80 mark, but that includes infant mortality and deaths along the way. If you live to 65, statistically you'll reach c. 87 or more.

Even though people are living longer, I don't think they are living healthy lives. My dad is 88 and everyone thinks he is in his 60's. He is fit and strong but he stopped travelling and doing exciting things a decade ago. If you retire at 70, you will have 5 years to travel at best. My in-laws are mid 70's and they can no longer travel. I think they'll all live till 90+ but they definitely won't be doing much. They all retired at 60/65 and had a good 10 years in them, but that is it.

I don't mean that to sound ageist. I am trying to point out that we live longer, but we aren't all kicking up our heels as 70 is the new 50. It's not.

Also, I'm in my 50's and most of my friends are not in good health, and thats at 50. This generation is not going to be as fit and healthy in retirement as our parents who ate lard and ran 7 miles a day to school.

People are living longer, but not better. It could be said their health is worse.

There is NO WAY I am working till I am 71. At the moment it is until 67. I'm saving every penny I can into my pension and Isa at the moment because I plan on retiring at 62 latest. I can't take it for granted that I will have the health to travel in my 70's.

This is utter nonsense. I took my parents on their last foreign holiday when they were 95 and 93. They travelled abroad unaccompanied until about five years prior to that and on a coach holiday when they were 96 and 94.

We intend to travel well past our mid 70s - especially me. With my genes I’m likely to have another 15/20 years past 75 and I don’t intend to spend it staying at home and not doing anything. I’m off to India by myself soon.

And the common problem in all this is 'growth' which is unachievable on a finite planet. Bringing more humans onto the planet when, in this country everything is broken, won't help. No services for the existing population.
Changing from a capitalist model makes the only long term sense but alas, we're owned by capitalists. There is money, plenty of it but it's stolen. Just look at the 'freeport' wheeze.
No desire in the political classes to scrap the gravy train at all.

With more and more people gaining access to benefits due to mental health issues and children with mental health issues it seems that those who are able to work are going to have to work for even longer to pay for it. Though more of us will end up on benefits due to being elderly and not being physically or mentally able to work. Or maybe we won't be able to get benefits and we will end up on the streets! The world has gone crazy, it is all very depressing.

Maybe we should think again about so many people continuing full time education beyond 16 or 18, who could be working, earning money, paying tax and making pension contributions. Instead of increasing retirement age.

Yep, nail on the head. Far too many teens who are being trapped in education that they're not remotely interested with, often causing disruption and extra work for their teachers/lecturers.

We need "technical schools" at the very least. Blair tried to introduce them, but they were generally unpopular and many closed due to lack of pupils - apparently too many parents think that "manual" work is too good for their little sprog!

I didn't benefit from a grammar education myself, but I'm starting to think the old grammar versus secondary modern/technical school options for teens was a better system. Yes, the selection process (11+) was severely flawed but perhaps the politicians and educational experts should have put their efforts into finding a better way of selection and more options to transfer, rather than dismantling the whole thing!

We're pushing far too many "non academic" teenagers down the academic pathway and that's now proving to be a mistake with the ever increasing poor behaviour issues, massive shortage of skilled manual workers, etc.

Getting non academic teenagers into workplaces at aged 16 would help solve these problems and may also help such teenagers to "grow up" in an adult environment rather than more years in a "childish" school/college environment.