to think most people will work till they're dead and won't see retirement age?

[tugging]

Ok massive generalisation but I see a lot of people talking about how they're 40 or so and have 20 + years before they retire.

As a society, we're more sicker, more stressed and more busier than ever. These things would shorten your life expectancy. I can't imagine working till I'm nearly 70- I'm not even 40 and I'm already knackered! I think I'll be dead before I reach retirement age. I know so many people who have died before 60. They never got to retire and enjoy a work free life.

I know people can retire earlier but not many people have a decent pension that i know of and are forced to work till they're nearly 70 or till ill health.

@Iamthewombat no wouldn't rather work longer thanks!! when you sign up to the pension you don't expect them to change it without consultation as they did on this ,we pay a higher % now into it & most worn get their full pension as will take it early as unable to work at 67 /68. why is unfair on lowered paid people?i don't think working without payrises & paid lower than other jobs is a reason i should work longer .

I will never understand people who say retirement looks boring. Just never. Hours and hours to read, walk, watch, cook, potter around doing whatever you like??? How could that ever be boring?

I always secretly wonder whether these people are the grown ups children who are never taught to amuse themselves turn into

@Draineddraineddrained I agree, I love my job but love my time off as well and will definitely my be happy to retire in c.30 years time.

So many books to read, places to visit, it sounds incredible.

[quote pinkflamingo112]@Iamthewombat no wouldn't rather work longer thanks!! when you sign up to the pension you don't expect them to change it without consultation as they did on this ,we pay a higher % now into it & most worn get their full pension as will take it early as unable to work at 67 /68. why is unfair on lowered paid people?i don't think working without payrises & paid lower than other jobs is a reason i should work longer .[/quote]
No, of course you wouldn’t, but that is the choice that had to be made.

Either the (very expensive, for the taxpayer) NHS pension became more affordable - by increasing both the retirement age and the contribution rates - or it became a defined contribution pension, which is far less generous.

Your union leaders and representatives chose the former. Of course they did. There was no alternative.

What COULDN’T happen was for members of the NHS scheme to continue to enjoy the best of all worlds. Pension schemes, especially those backed by the taxpayer, can vary terms whenever they want. They aren’t sacrosanct.

The NHS pension, along with other public sector schemes, was becoming unaffordable and, as I noted upthread, it would not be fair for low paid people who were not a member of this extremely generous scheme to fund very expensive benefits for people who were members.

Example: imagine somebody works in a care home. She might earn £16k a year. She will pay tax on that. She won’t be able to retire on state pension until she is 67 (let’s say that she is 49, like me). Why should that low paid worker’s tax revenues pay for NHS workers of the same age to retire at 60 on a generous taxpayer-supported pension rather than at 67, the same age that she will retire? It is manifestly unfair.

You must see that, surely?

Even with your later retirement date and increased contribution rates, you are getting an absolute bargain with the NHS pension scheme. Look up annuity rates and calculate how much you would need to set aside to buy the same index-linked pension payments from age 67 until the day you die. You will be very surprised. The contributions you have made throughout your working life won’t even touch the sides.

@Lweji CURRENTLY the average age is 87. Once we all stop retiring at 67 and retirement age pushes to 75, see that start dropping!

Some state level government pension plans in the US have been reformed because they were so generous they were literally going to run out of money. Rhode Island is a good example:

Rhode Island Gov. Raimondo, Biden’s Pick for Commerce Secretary, Is a Pioneer of Public Pension Reform

They wound up with a hybrid DB/DC plan. There was a lot of moaning about it at the time but the alternative was no pensions at all after the plan went bust. The fact that President Biden has selected Raimondo as Commerce Secretary means that there will be more of this to come.

Thanks for that link, really informative. This bit made me sit up and pay attention:

A report commissioned by Raimondo showed that, in 2011, the $14.8 billion pension system had more than $6.8 billion in unfunded liabilities. In addition, taxpayer contributions to the funds had more than doubled from $139 million in 2003 to $303 million by 2010.

Christ on a cracker! That is a great example illustrating why we can’t all give up work on generous government funded schemes at age 60.

You're welcome. There's a lot more detail about the RI pension reforms online if you google it.

One thing that was unusual was that the changes affected current plan members. Often these reforms only impact new hires, creating pension "tiers". Limiting the changes to new employees does very little to make the plans more solvent, especially when they are billions in the hole.

They also did some interesting reforms, like capping pension payments at 150% of the average household income in the state. This kept people from gaming the system by working massive amounts of overtime in their last few years on the job. It also seems fair to most people.

@Tessabelle74 also we arent yet seeing the impact of all people having a state retirement age of 67. A PP commented that we will end up with more people retiring for health reasons between 60 and state retirement age.

One of my concerns is the risk for people being left with a pension pot to manage but not necessarily the skills to manage it with. Individuals being put under pressure (family or partner) to release the maximum in cash to be squandered. It's one thing to use that money to clear debts but a very different thing to blow it on a 'once in a lifetime' holiday for all the family.

@HalcyonSea

If they try that, then they also need to change the rules/laws allowing "early" retirement and tax free lump sums from aged 55. Otherwise there's a very real risk of a two tier retirement society and a lot of unrest. You really can't have one section of workers taking a whopping tax free lump sum at 55 when others are having to work till they're 70 or over for the basic state pension.

I don't understand this. One thing is about people using their own savings, personal money. The other is about money provided by the state. They are not the same thing. Will you also say young people who've saved can't spend their own money because some people are claiming benefits/ aren't yet entitled to them? That reasoning is bonkers.

The point I was trying to make is that a Govt could change the tax laws so that the "tax free lump sum" becomes taxable (or at a lower tax rate), or that NIC is deducted from pension payments. Tax law changes doesn't change the rules of the pension scheme, it doesn't affect the amount of savings a person has - it merely reduces some of the tax benefits which can be done via the annual Budget speech very simply.

@HerRoyalNotness

I’m not even employed and have no pension. I’m 48 with a 4yo, fuck knows what I’m going to do about it. All doors seem to be closed at the moment

At least if you are claiming child benefit then you will get NI credits towards your state pension, until you are able to start working again (or even if you don't). If you've always worked until now your state pension should be OK.

Plus I assume people get housing benefit in old age if you need support for rent. And other benefits. I had DC at 44 too - they will at least be grown up when we reach 'retirement' age - whatever that looks like.

Aha! It all becomes clear. I suspect that you are in the ‘Back to 60’ WASPI camp. In which case, I won’t expect a reasoned argument.

You’re confusing two groups. WASPI, asking for some form of bridging payment for the women most affected by the sharp rise in pension age, and Back to 60, who want just that.

I gave up work at 60, six years ago, so that I could help care for my grandchildren, as I always planned to. I’ve just made my state pension age this year, so it’s been challenging financially for DH and me, and our savings are shot - sadly this will probably impact more on our adult children than on us.

I’ve never for one moment regretted the decision to stop working though and help them when they needed it. I’d never have got back those six years with the grandchildren if I’d carried on working. And we’ve had time to take life at our own pace, and enjoy our interests and family and friends. Too many of whom are developing health issues that impact on their quality of life. Life’s short - or at least, healthy, enjoyable life is for most of us.

@Daisymaybe60

Aha! It all becomes clear. I suspect that you are in the ‘Back to 60’ WASPI camp. In which case, I won’t expect a reasoned argument.

You’re confusing two groups. WASPI, asking for some form of bridging payment for the women most affected by the sharp rise in pension age, and Back to 60, who want just that.

I’m not. Look closely and you will see that the WASPI women were backed by the ‘Back to 60’ campaign, and you will also note that what they actually wanted was to have their pension backdated to the age of 60, not just compensation for the period over which they claimed their state pension had been ‘stolen’ from them.

Let’s not disappear down a WASPI rabbit hole. I will be forced to link to the thread last summer where I conclusively won the argument.

I'm with you all the way, @Iamthewombat

But expect the"race to the bottom" (yawn) gang to arrive any time now.

Of course, it's never a race to the bottom the other way, when private sector employees can only dream of a pension scheme that comes anywhere close to the ones they're helping to fund through taxes.

My normal retirement age is 68 for state pension and most of my work pension. I really can't see me teaching until then, whose going to want teachers who are nearly 70?

Looked at my pension a few days ago, apparently I could have arranged additional contributions to bring my retirement age down to 65, but needed to have arranged that in 2015 and I had no idea.

@wonderstuff

My normal retirement age is 68 for state pension and most of my work pension. I really can't see me teaching until then, whose going to want teachers who are nearly 70?

Looked at my pension a few days ago, apparently I could have arranged additional contributions to bring my retirement age down to 65, but needed to have arranged that in 2015 and I had no idea.

With all due respect, it's the same in many, many professions/careers/jobs, isn't it?

Who wants to be operated on by an ophthalmic surgeon who's 70?

Could a 70yo be a hairdresser, on their feet 8hrs per day? Or work in a factory on a production line lifting/bending, etc., including shift work?

What about a roof builder? It's not going to be safe for the elderly to be climbing around on tall buildings.

My dad didn't see retirement. Mum is now 80 having been a widow 20 years.
It affected me. My retirement savings represent 10 good years of holidays and travel. State pension at 67 will cover basic Bill's. My plan was to travel extensively in my 50s. Not happened yet.

Everyone should work to provide for themselves. If you save while you’re working when you’re younger, you can live off that when you’re older. That’s called a “pension”.

If you don’t save at all, you’ll need to fall back on the state’s safety net, the amount of which and age at which it can be drawn depends on what the state can afford. That’s called the “State Pension”.

If you want to retire earlier than State Pension age and/or receive a higher income than the State Pension provides it’s up to you to save for it. No one else. If your occupational pension won’t be enough, save more.

In the US, what we are taught is that the state pension (aka Social Security Retirement Benefits) is one leg of a three-legged stool, the other two being employer pensions and personal savings. And the elderly are the most affluent age group in the US.

The Graying Of Wealth

[quote Kazzyhoward]**@80sEyeShadow* My advice to any and all young people, women in particular, is to 'front load' your pension - pay in as much as you can reasonably afford when you are as young as possible.*

Easier said that done when they have student loan repayments, historically high housing costs, and the prospect of tax rises on the horizon to pay for covid. The "squeezed middle" are rapidly extending to the "squeezed young" too![/quote]
True, yes. Though 'front loading' doesn't have to be huge, even a small amount makes a big difference later on.

My post, in part, was based on the gender pension gap. Unless there is a huge societal shift in the way that we treat expectant mothers and those with children financially, it is women who will bear the brunt of pension poverty.

It was only a generation ago that parents often saved for their daughter's wedding. If parents could be persuaded to save money in their daughter's pension while those daughters are still children that would be of much greater value.

If parents could be persuaded to save money in their daughter's pension while those daughters are still children that would be of much greater value.

Very good point. When our daughter got her first paying job at 18 she became eligible to contribute her wages into a tax advantaged retirement account called a Roth IRA. You can only pay into a Roth with earned income. So she deposited most her pay and we replaced it dollar for dollar so that she could keep access to the cash. She's already investing for retirement at age 19.

@MissConductUS

If parents could be persuaded to save money in their daughter's pension while those daughters are still children that would be of much greater value.

Very good point. When our daughter got her first paying job at 18 she became eligible to contribute her wages into a tax advantaged retirement account called a Roth IRA. You can only pay into a Roth with earned income. So she deposited most her pay and we replaced it dollar for dollar so that she could keep access to the cash. She's already investing for retirement at age 19.

What a sensible girl (and parents!).

There will always be other calls on your money - university, student loans, first career steps, mortgage, wedding, babies, kids through university. That's the reality of life unfortunately.

To get a pension you have to recognise that and sacrifice more immediately interesting things, when a pension seems so boring and retirement an eternity away. It's hard when you don't know what the far future will bring and there are things you want now.

I'm just so grateful I was automatically enrolled in my first job and carried on. I would/could never have done it myself in my 20s or early 30s. Before you know, half your working life is over and options are fewer.

True, yes. Though 'front loading' doesn't have to be huge, even a small amount makes a big difference later on.

My post, in part, was based on the gender pension gap. Unless there is a huge societal shift in the way that we treat expectant mothers and those with children financially, it is women who will bear the brunt of pension poverty.

I've just upped my pension contribution from to 11%, based on this and advice from lido.

I know ignorance is no excuse, but I really wish I had had someone had explained this this stuff to me years ago, I've been working since I was 15 (part-time).

I’ve taken a part time, low paid job that I hope to carry on working in for a few more years. I also get a small nhs and a private hospital pension.
Wherever I’ve worked, I’ve always joined the pension scheme, and I have 2 private pensions that I don’t need to start drawing from yet.
I couldn’t do 12.5 hour shifts any more, and that seems to exclude most nhs work these days. 20 hours a week is fine.