To cry over state pension age speculation rise to 75-81

[feellikeahugefailure]

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/georgeosborne/12179375/Work-till-youre-75-or-even-81-under-Government-review-of-state-pension-age.html

Where has it all gone wrong? My parents could buy a home one one income for 3 times annual wage. Dad retired at 55, mum never needed to work and has been claiming a state pension for over a decade since 60. I do a similar job to my dad.

Where I live the average house price is 13 times my wage. My pension I've been paying into for over 10 years will if I keep paying into it for almost 40 more years give me 2'000 a year if it does averagely and 1'000 if it does poorly, and it probably will do poorly. Then no state pension until I'm about to drop dead. Can't afford a house or to put money away for retirement.

There is no easy answer though. Dying younger, increasing the tax rates, working longer are all unattractive but one or more needs to be part of the answer.

A lot of people don't seem to realise that for those of about 45 and over your retirement age WILL NOT CHANGE.

It will stay at 67 as announced years ago.

This would seem to be the direction of travel:

In the Autumn Statement on 5 December 2013, the Chancellor announced that this Government believes that future generations should spend up to a third of their adult life in retirement. This principle implies that SPa should rise to 68 by the mid-2030s, and 69 by the late 2040s.

I haven't read the whole thread, but it is clear that the government cant support a retired aging population with state pension and benefits. The solution is - in their eyes - later state retirement age and an underfunded NHS. You don't need to be a genius to realise that this is going to increase death rates.

I hope one day soon they they get together and fight what is being done
whats to stop pensioners organizing together, forming co operatives and support networks, trading among themselves etc.
They don't have to be helpless victims

older means, wiser, more canny, not so easily duped
doesn't it?
shouldn't it?

as several have mentioned it is unlikely that there will be many 71-85 who will work ft. again as mentioned the young people are starting ft work later in life, many at low income and can not put into private pensions.
although one government dept may opt to delay access to "government pensions" there will need to be another pot of money for income supplement (welfare) for those that will be below a certain threshold.

Honeybadger "those who can afford to retire without it should not get a state pension"

I totally disagree! If state pensions were to become means tested, it would remove a lot of the incentive to save for a more comfortable retirement.
Picture the scenario; person A and person B have the same income. Person A chooses to save into a pension fund all his working life, person B chooses not to save, preferring to spend his money on holidays.

Under the current setup, person A would be better off in retirement than person B, because of his personal pension in addition to the state pension.

If means testing was applied to state pension then person A would not receive a state pension and person B would get a full state pension. Person A would be no better off, and could even end up worse off than person B and could even end up worse off.

cleaty, not all of your local government pension will be payable at state pension age; on the assumption that you're currently 51, and you've been paying in for 30 years (which I think is what you've said), then when you're 60 you'll qualify for the "rule of 85". That means that even under the current rules you should still be able to take any pension you earned before 1 April 2008 on your 60th birthday (or any time between that and state pension age, or later if you think you can last out until then). And the pension you've earned between April 2008 and April 2014 is payable when you get to 65, not at state pension age.

If you're just exaggerating for effect, then feel free to carry on, but if you really are worried about how you'll survive, it's probably not going to be quite as bad as you think.

Still asking where the tax custs are going to come if people have to save more and retire later? You cannot continue to tax at the same level and propose less!

There may in the future be riots between generations if so..

Agent cooper...interesting point about age of grandparents. One of mine was 53 when he died another 73, both grandmas were ill in their late 60s and early 70s . One had a stroke and another dementia. Both lived till their late 80s

Of my parents. My dad had a heart attack at 70 and died. My mum is 87 with dementia which started in her mid 70s. Taking my ex h as an example, my in laws died at 76 with cancer and both were in chronic I'll health long before that.
Taking my current DH . His father died at 53 and mother at 76. If we are typical examples , the government doesn't have much to fear from families like mine.

in many ways government pensions are means tested and clawed back by taxes on your total income.

When 60 was chosen the average working person wasn't expected to survive much after, there is no way i can save enough in 45 years of working to keep me for another 45 years.
A raise in pension age has been on the cards ever since people started living to 70+ loads.

Whilst life expectancy is rising (in some areas, there is a high degree of variability) many people are living longer with chronic or life-limiting illnesses. They are living longer, but not necessarily healthier, lives. This would impair their ability to work to the capacity they did in the fifties or even sixties. Many will not be safe or physically fit enough to continue working in their current role.

They could leave and retrain- but given how difficult it is to get a job as an older person, let alone an older person without experience in whatever it is you have chosen to "retrain" for it is very likely that this will not work well for the majority unless social attitudes change massively and reasonably quickly.

Add to that- where will the turnover come from? If there becomes a block because older people are not retiring at the same rate, and thus freeing up jobs for those coming up after them, we will have to create a lot more jobs than we do now or it will become a case of " dead man's shoes".

Whilst I agree that things can't stand still and problem with changing demographics mean these things have to be addressed, it is far from straightforward and the effects should be carefully considered.

Regarding future employment....supposedly around 75% of careers/ jobs have not been 'created' yet for our children's generation. Technology is changing rapidly and will continue to evolve so certain jobs may no longer exist in the next 20+ years. My dd (12) was told this by her teacher last year.

I've not read all of the comments, but IMO the pension should not be changed from what I (rightly or wrongly) expected to receive. I had no choice but to pay in to a pension, on the understanding that when I reached 60 I would receive. Then they moved the goalposts!

I am worried, sickened and depressed about the state of this country and frankly hope to just go to bed and not wake up tomorrow.

An interesting take on jobs that don't exist yet.

teachingbattleground.wordpress.com/2015/05/27/a-myth-for-teachers-jobs-that-dont-exist-yet/

Sorry, just saw this comment When it was first introduced it was work until you die. Pensions were just a safety net for the few who were so old they literally couldn't earn anything at all and as I remember growing up in the sixties how many people were encouraged to take a job at the age of 16, thinking about the pension plan, I certainly do not believe that pensions were just put in place to cover the odd person who survived past pensionable age.

I don't live in the UK and will never have a pension, but I find it disgusting that so many people swallow the government line on there not being enough money for decent pensions.

Thanks Echt for the link - interesting read.
When dd spoke about the class discussion I was unsure how to respond as teacher is professionally well regarded and leading the drive for STEM focus in the school. .

I am fairly sure I heard that there was a massive surplus in the state pension pot , unclaimed pensions that people have paid into via their national insurance for years but were unable to take . Curious to know if this is the case and where that money may be ?

"so many people swallow the government line on there not being enough money for decent pensions."

Where would you take the money from, then?

It was on Radio 4 moneybox last year I think .

Frumpet, it doesn't work like that. State pensions, and many occupational pensions for state employees, are unfunded, meaning they are paid from the general tax take and not from investments made by individuals from individual contributions. The NI paid 20 years ago by a 50 year old wasn't set aside - it funded pensions of those who were 60 back then.

www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/pensions/article-2787888/how-state-pension-funded-cash-runs.html

I know this is massively simplistic , but could they not just raise the NI contribution to maintain the surplus ?