Retirement age in Denmark set to raise to 70

[MikeRafone]

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cvg71v533q6o

I hadn’t realised Denmark was presently in line with uk on retirement age and now raising it to 70

and that’s for people born 1970 onwards! I wonder if this will be used for uk to fallow suit?

They’re not. We have to accept that when and where we’re born impacts our lives.

Of course young people have been shafted. We never recovered from 08 and qe inflated assets causing greater inequality.

Young men were shafted in the first and second world wars, women not being able to vote, not being able to work once married or pregnant, no wage equality. I’d rather work until 70 than experience any of these things.

Why are you talking about the war? what relevance is that? Most young people just want similar security to what their parents have.

Just to correct a few assumptions about boomers, my 70 year old sister got her state pension at 66. It's not been available at 60 years old for quite a few years. I'm 60 and mine is due at 67. I can take local government pension earlier than 67 at a reduced amount but realistically, will have to work until state pension age.

I suppose the assumption a person doesn’t work in a minimum wage job all their life. Those who do aren’t always working in manual jobs.

The vast majority of baby boomers will have got their state pension earlier than you and many women will have been able to retire 7 years earlier!

Other pensions schemes are a completely different kettle of fish. Lots of company pensions and public sector pensions have become notably less generous compared to the Defined Benefit and Final Salary schemes that lots of Baby Boomers enjoy. Private pensions have always been available for anyone to contribute to. Now auto enrollment has undoubtedly helped but it is still important to note that young people are being asked to pay in 5% of their gross salary into this pension scheme. That is money that you would have taken home in your pay packet and used to fund day to day living.

Most young people just want similar security to what their parents have.

But the security their parents have is a historical anomaly, it’s not the norm and never has been.

Baby Boomers are currently 61-79 years old. The vast majority are retired

Only women aged 75ish and above received their state pension at 60.

Women around 71/72 and under retired at 65 at the earliest.

So if you're going to slate Boomer women for being able to retire at 60, you actually mean a four year group of women in their late seventies.

But the security their parents have is a historical anomaly, it’s not the norm and never has been.

It doesn't change the fact people want to own their own property etc.

We were all impacted by 2008 not just young people. I used historical references to demonstrate that life is challenging and young people today are not unique in being ‘shafted’. I have four young people aged between 18 and 24 so understand the issue however given the choice of a 2025 shafting and a historical ones I know what I’d pick for them.

Employers best be prepared for lots of 65+ yr olds managing long term medical issues or on long term sick. Rules made by politicians with golden pensions available at 55.

Me too. Some people seem to imagine its some sort of competition to prove who has it the hardest based on generation.

IMO who has it the hardest was, is and will continue to be the same - the poor, the disabled and the sick no matter what age/generation/sex they are.

I think we have to get away from idea that we're "due" a long retirement, especially one funded by the state. If you want to have a long period of leisure time, you need plan and save for it.

In countries where people live the longest, people don't retire. They continue work into old age, in a different capacity, but still contributing.

Obviously "the system" can't fund retirements that are nearly as long as a working life. If you start work after college at 21, work to 65 and live to 90 you'll have 44 years working and 25 years retired. How can that possibly be funded by a small % of your salary?

I’m early 40s and fully expect my ‘pensionable’ age to be around 72. Not that I’m really expecting the state pension to exist by then.

We were all impacted by 2008 not just young people.

I haven't said it didn't but it disproportionately impacted the young as they will have had more years of wage stagnation etc.

I used historical references to demonstrate that life is challenging and young people today are not unique in being ‘shafted’.

No you did the usual disingenuous thing of bringing up the war when people talk about intergenerational inequality between boomers and younger generations. Boomers were not fighting in the war..,I'm also not sure how helpful it is to say "life is tough but at least you didn't die in the war". And why is that platitude only ever said to young people?

I have four young people aged between 18 and 24 so understand the issue however given the choice of a 2025 shafting and a historical ones I know what I’d pick for them.

It would be interesting to hear their thoughts.

The pensions crisis has been foreseeable for many decades. Allowing people to retire at 60.or even 65 without paying more into the system is a scandal. Even now, the government is encouraging the working population to fund state pensions and other benefits for baby boomers knowing full well that the same benefits won't be available to them when they reach the same age. It has become a terrible pyramid scheme which is now top heavy and beginning to fall down. I think people below 50 will be lucky to get any real state pension at all.

But again, home ownership for the majority is an anomaly - it’s never been the “norm” for everyone to own their own homes.

Obviously "the system" can't fund retirements that are nearly as long as a working life. If you start work after college at 21, work to 65 and live to 90 you'll have 44 years working and 25 years retired. How can that possibly be funded by a small % of your salary?

Plenty of older people seem to think they have earned it and paid their contributions...

Obviously very few have particularly when you add in the costs of NHS etc

Not such an issue when we had the demographics to support pensioners but we don't know as people aren't having dc.

But don't worry everyone wants to vote Reform because it's the fault of the boat people 🙄

@treetopsgreen

Women in your parent's generation didn't have much security. You're just seeing how things have been over the years you remember.

Women were regularly fired for getting pregnant or were entitled to little maternity leave. No pensions, no redundancy money, no benefits. Before 1975 women couldn't get mortgages on their own, they had to have a husband or father act as a guarantor. In the late 60s, mortgages weren't available, even if a man had a deposit and an income.

The world has changed. We are legally entitled to far more security now.

Exactly. The expectations people have around retirement are totally unrealistic. And I say that as someone with a tiny private pension who can never work full time due to health issues!

Agree 100%. I don’t have a lot but I do have my physical and mental fitness intact, bar the odd ache and pain. I don’t have and won’t have much financially to me my health is priceless for the reasons you give.

But again, home ownership for the majority is an anomaly - it’s never been the “norm” for everyone to own their own homes.

I said etc as people would also be happy with secure housing eg council properties or controlled rents.

I'm sure it will be a good political party message though to tell the public "you have to pay more for less and can expect to be poorer and more of your taxes will be spent supporting older people for things that you won't be able to have because it was an anomaly, vote for us!"

Even now, the government is encouraging the working population to fund state pensions and other benefits for baby boomers knowing full well that the same benefits won't be available to them when they reach the same age.

How are the govt doing this please @Bumpitybumper ?

@Meadowfinch I'm not arguing that certain things were not tougher & it was easy for everyone. But the fact remains it's harder to build wealth and obtain security for young people now. I'm not sure maternity pay helps swallow that pill, particularly when birth rates are so low.

The unpalatable truth is that we are keeping people alive much longer than we should be.

If you want your parents to be receiving treatment for cancer, heart issues and dementia into their 80's giving them another 10/15 years of life then you need to accept that supporting them for those extra years needs to be paid for.

Years ago, without the medication and interventions we have now, most people would have been elderly at 65 and passing away after 75 would have been "a good innnings". Not now. 90 year olds have been retired for longer than they worked if they took time out to raise a family.

My 89 year old neighbour is just about to have her 3rd knee replacement since she was 65. She's already got a pacemaker and been treated for skin cancer several times in the last 5 years.

I think it's understandable that employers will prefer people who are younger. However with falling birth rates there will be a shortage of younger people and more generally a shortage of people to fill the roles that need to be filled.

An employer may not want to employ people of 60 plus but if no one younger steps up and applies for the role what are they going to do 🤷🏻‍♀️

I think the Gov is intending to introduce a 10 year gap between state retirement age and the age that you can draw on a private pension, so you may have to grind on until 57 or 58 or 59 or perhaps 60! ☹️