to not understand why all governments...

[BeyondTheLimitsOfAcceptability]

...are so keen to put up the age of retirement when there are so many young people unemployed...?
Its not just this one, the previous labour government increased it too, didnt they?
Surely this doesnt make sense? Or am I missing some major important fact?

Apologies if I'm being stupid and there is a real reason for this that I've missed

Pensions make up the majority of the welfare burden. It's about saving money.

Is a state pension more than JSA/CTC/WTC etc then?
I thought it was less?

Cause they assume that most (I know this isnt the case btw!) pensioners have paid into their mortgage all their life so dont have to worry about that cost?

Because pensions are a bloody great big ponzi scheme and there simply isn't enough money in the pot to pay people to be retired for 30 years.

Surely it's cheaper to pay a state pension than to pay housing benefit etc to a young family or single person tho ?

The problem with pensions is this:

When the state pension was conceived, most people left school at 16, worked to 65 (approx 50 yrs) and then lived 10 years and died. Pay in: Payout ratio =5:1

Now, people start work closer to 25, work to 65 (40 yrs) and live 20 years. Pay in:payout ratio = 2:1= totally unfundable.

Thats what I thought Cheese! If nothing else, its cheaper because they arent going to be feeding and clothing their dependants?

Pension credit guarnatees a minimum weekly income of £137 for a single pensioner, £209 for a couple.
JSA is £67 (for over 25's), £106 for a couple.

Reducing pensions makes for bad press, reducing benefits doesn't go down so badly because of the 'scrounger' mentality you see a lot of.

Pushing the pension age up by a year saves loads of money by taking a little bit off everyone, effectively, and it doesn't seem like robbing grannies.

Youth unemployment... well, young people don't vote as much as the elderly, disaffected youth particularly, so what has a politician got to lose? As long as you've got your water cannon and rubber bullets on standby.

What about CTC and WTC?
(btw, I'm assuming that the job the young person went into instead of the older person staying in, earns enough that they'd get minimum other benefits, if anything...?)

YABU... it's the 'demographic time-bomb'. In 2008 we passed the point where there were more people over 65 than there were people under 16. That trend is continuing... falling birth-rate meeting increased life-expectancy... with the upshot that there are fewer working-age people paying in and more retirement-age people taking out. Historically, unemployment fluctuates up and down on about a 10 year cycle. Increasing life-expectancy and a top-heavy population of old people is far more permanent.

Increasing retirement age isn't the only measure. Goverments of all colours, knowing about the demographic time-bomb, have been trying since the eighties to get more of us to take out private pensions and be more self-sufficient in old age. We've been offered tax-relief on pension contribs, more portable pensions and other subtle 'nudge' tactics, but nowhere near enough people are taking them up. There's also a problem that those with private pensions aren't putting enough into them. Then there's the spectre of mass residential care. The NHS is not geared up for millions of old people, not sick enough to be in hospital but not well enough to live independently... hence why the government is having to look at the provision of long-term care and think of ways it can be paid for.

Hmm...so the direct cost to the system if a 65-yo retires onto Pension Credit, or if an 18yo leaves college and goes straight onto JSA? the pensioner is more expensive as far as I can see, especially if they're on Housing Benefit too.

But if you compare the 65yo retiring to a family of two 30-ish parents, three kids say, that would otherwise be supported by that job? Not sure!

Other factors - 65yo probably on higher salary? So higher tax receipts for gov't.
Childcare subsidy through CTC means the family are still costing money even when working.
CB paid whether in work or out...

I'm thinking it's probably still cheaper for the gov't if the 65yo keeps working?

And of course, in the current climate I bet a lot of companies aren't replacing retiring workers, so not as simple as a straight either/or swap.

Because pensioners are having the audacity to live longer! So they are getting more money from pensions and free healthcare.

None of which justifies the direct breach of contract which the proposals for public-sector pension "reform" would be.

As there is not a static number of jobs, having people work for longer does not inevitably mean that there will be greater youth unemployment.

At the moment, the contracting economy means higher unemployment and this has translated into high youth unemployment. But there was also high youth unemployment in the 1980s.

The ideal I suppose would be to work on improving the general health of the economy, so there are more jobs. Then the length of a working life will have less impact, and the costs of retirement become manageable.

Surely it's cheaper to pay a state pension than to pay housing benefit etc to a young family or single person tho?

In 2009-2010, the government spent £148 billion on all benefits. Out of that £67 billion was pensions. Another £8 billion on pension credits. So nearly half of all benefits paid was pensions. And the trend is that people will live longer so there will be more old people so the bill will only go up.

That's why the only logical thing to do is for people to work longer and expect less back.