Government to conduct review into state pension age

[lookingforwardtoautumn2]

https://news.sky.com/story/government-to-conduct-early-review-into-state-pension-age-13399571

Some news sites are saying the rise to 68 may be brought forward.

It doesn’t really make sense when they’re also saying pensioners will be poorer in the future compared to those today. Why is the answer to raise the age further?..

The SPA is 68 for me at the moment but I wouldn’t be surprised if it rises into the 70s, especially if they keep the triple lock.

Surely they just need to get rid of the triple lock?
Oh and means test the Winter fuel allowance would also help 😂

Yes some news articles say if the triple lock continues the age will need to rise to 74 to pay for it which is scary. I doubt someone in their late 60s/early 70s will be much healthier in 20+ years than they are today.

The disability benefits bill will keep rising as so many people in that age bracket will be unable to work. I guess that will be cheaper than paying state pension though as it is mostly means tested

I think pensioners will be poorer as there are far fewer generous final salary pension schemes. I knew a fair amount of people who retired mid fifties with decent pensions and a paid off house.

I’ll be paying the mortgage to my 60s, I do have a civil service pension but pay is rubbish so not massive. Various small pensions from previous employers but they are £30-£60 a year.

@Itisnotdownonanymap PIP is not means tested you could be a billionaire and still claim it. You can’t claim it once pensionable age and it’s then attendance allowance, unsure if that is means tested.

If you're in your 40s and expecting to rely on the state pension then that is on you. The demographic and economic situation means it is unfeasible. There's been enough chat about this, auto enrollment etc to encourage private contributions.

I'm not saying that is fair / equitable but it is reality.

If it doesn't end up that the stat pension is frozen and becomes increasingly worthless, or means tested I'll be amazed. You'll get people moaning "but I've contributed for X years" not appreciating that you don't co tribute to a find or a promise, you are simply paying for today's pensioners.

I just find my mindset at 50 is to not spend on the house extension, not spend on XYZ and put in pensions so all of this pensions this chat just continues to stall the economy.

I’m late 30s and expect my state pension age to be 70, there’s no way it’ll stick at 68. DH and I are both saving hard into our work pension schemes so that we can retire earlier and not be reliant on the state pension.

As other have said, all that will happen is the disability benefits bill will rise. With those who aren’t able to work moving to disability benefits. While those who are able to work left working to food the bill.

Many of those who made good lifestyle choices, looked after their bodies, and aren’t costing the NHS an arm and a leg will be thanked by being forced to work until 70+, sacrificing the good years of retirement, in order to fund those who can’t work. With a high proportion of those who can’t work being partly down to bad lifestyle choices.

Obviously not everyone on disability benefits will be down to lifestyle choices, but it does play a huge part.

Im 55 and I don't expect to get the state pension. They have way too many people to pay for.

Yes, that's why I said mostly means tested. Attendance allowance also not means tested iirc. Can't imagine either of them will stay that way

We won’t be forced to work until 70, just don’t be reliant on the state pension. Make sure you have a good company or private pension and savings/investments and retire earlier then state pension age. There’s more to it then making good health choices, make good financial ones too.

Everything is on table. We have no idea which party will be in Govt in eg 10 years time and what plan(s) they have. if they privatise everything what will be the outcome be for many of us. i guarantee the retirement age will be 70 (Denmark already there).

I’m in receipt of state pension and agree the triple lock needs to be reviewed. It’s served its purpose and my generation mostly took the advice to pay into private pensions where possible and now have a a comfortable income along with the WFA.

Maybe link it to CPI or inflation and look at ways to help younger generations now

The pensions industry and the actuaries have been arguing for 70 (some for 72) since the 1990s. The present age is far too low given current life expectancy.

No government has ever had the political courage to do it until now when there is really no alternative.

BTW when the State pension was originally set up, the retirement age was 70.

Don't forget another impact raising the state pension age would have: it'll raise the age people can take the 25% lump sum.

That tends to affect higher earners because they gain more from avoiding tax visa salary sacrifice, and also generally have more in the pension pots.

Messing around with policies around finances is very damaging to long term planning. Many people plan to use the 25% lump sum to pay off mortgage, or help with school and university fees, or to help children into the property ladder. Moving the dates could impact me badly. I'll adjust my plan now in anticipation, but money already in my DC pot is locked away.

When/if that happens there will no doubt be questions as to why women with DC are only working part time (err because the GP's can't help out with childcare due to not being able to retire) and why the younger folks can't find jobs (due to the older ones not retiring).

Why doesn’t it make sense?

You always get people on here complaining that 60s isn’t considered elderly anymore, yet they still think that they should claim their old age pension!

The original state pension age was 70, and life expectancy was much lower back then.

Of course you'll get it, it's 12 years away that's not long.

So far from this government we have:- raising the state pension age, pulling pension into IHT whilst doing pretty much nothing about those who can’t/won’t work. This week all we’ve heard is how they’re worried that people aren’t saving enough for their retirement with these warnings about them raising the age. Anyone who has done a very manual job won’t be able to work that long. I’m wondering how much more they think the hard working middle income earners will take perhaps they’ll only be happy when those people end up with pretty much the same as someone who has claimed benefits all their life and contributed very little.

In case they haven’t noticed those working and paying rent are barely keeping up. I’ve said it before, the gap between those working and those getting benefits is too small. Strikes me that for those on lower/middling incomes the best bet might be to live your life to the full whilst you can and then claim benefits/get state help when you get older and frankly aren’t bothered about travelling etc. why not? In some cases those on pension credit are getting more than those getting state pension especially when you factor in all the extra benefits.

I'm in my 20s and fully expect by the time I'm in that stage of life retirement age may well be mid 70s tbh, I can't save anymore for my pension than what I already am

Because they’ve also just said pensioners will be much poorer in future as they’re not saving enough in pensions now. If that’s true, how will raising the SPA make pensioners less poor?

It’s a social contract that the government have with the taxpayer, we all pay for the generation above us on the understanding that when the time comes we also receive a pension, hence having to check on the government website you have made enough contributions to claim the full state pension or you can buy missing years if not.

The system is unfair. Today's pensioners are relatively well funded by the government, whether they need it or have earned it or not. There are plenty of people still claiming state pension who retired at 60. The rest of us can only dream.

My late great aunt barely worked outside the home a day in her life. She lived to 90 so received 30 years of state pension, but thought it was reasonable to castigate me as a scrounger for claiming benefits as a single parent after two decades full employment.

Today's pensioners were well supported in their younger lives, eg. free Uni tuition, free student grants, decent working conditions, reasonable wage to house price ratio.

Today's young people don't enjoy the same benefits and they won't enjoy the same retirements either. They are literally paying for a perk they won't get.

I know it isn't the fault of the Boomers, I know they don't make economic policy, but - given the outcry about the withdrawal of Winter Fuel Allowance - they do appear to be a massively entitled generation.

Part of the issue is that people in their 50s now will be making decisions about their current jobs based on getting a state pension.

I know someone early 50s who is about to pack her fairly well paid job in - she has calculated when it comes to company pension time her company pension PLUS state pension will be enough for a comfortable bit not crazy lifestyle.

She has lined up a less stressed, less well paid job for the next few years. She will get her company pension at 60, maybe drop to p/t and then her state pension and can finish work, or maybe even finish work at 65.

But if the state pension is suddenly removed and she only has 18k a year company pension and no savings things will be quite a bit tougher.