To not have realised that my pension age has gone up?

[IIdentifyAsInnocent]

I'm 45, 46 this year. Checked online 2 years ago and my state pension age was 67, which I thought was bad enough, for some reason checked again today and it's gone up to 68!!

I knew that the govt were thinking of doing this but I have no recollection of being told it had actually happened. This affects my work pension which I now can't take until 68 too as it aligns to state pension age.

Annoyingly, my brother who is 2 years older can still retire at 67!
Have I missed some huge public announcement?

Exactly. And a lot of young people now don’t properly get onto the career ladder until their mid 20s. So they spend a minority of their lives economically inactive and it’s all supposed to balance out? At least my stepdad who retired at 57 started full time work at 15 when he left school. You could have someone with a gap year before uni, 4 year degree course, masters degree, professional qualification and only gets their first job at 26. To only expect them to work for 30 odd years makes no sense. Where will the money come from?

Actually, since 'austerity measures' - which we never actually came out of - life expectancy has actually fallen.

That statistic is from just after the end of covid lockdowns. I dread to think what has happened since with inflation and fuel prices on top of everything else.

So many posts saying it is unreasonable to expect women to work until they are in their mid 60's, completely ignoring the fact that men have had to do that forever, and women are generally fitter and healthier than men, and live longer.

Women have a longer life expectancy than men if you look at the stats

I never understood why the state pension age was originally set for 60 for women

It should have always been the same for men & women

My dad has osteoarthritis of the spine, he's 75 now and had it since he was 39, few operations for fusions. He had a physical job until he was 65 when he retired from full time work and now still works part time in a physical job. He also walks 10 miles a week and goes to the gym 4 days a week as he thinks stopping will make it worse... He hated retiring from full time. he has a massive final salary pension but still wont stop.

I'm 39, i've known it was 68 for a number of years now. i'm fully aware i'll probably have to work full time in to my 70's

Women wanted equality and they got it.

They really didn't.

Would it make sense to opt out of the workplace pension and invest into SIPP or ISA?

My dad has osteoarthritis of the spine, he's 75 now and had it since he was 39, few operations for fusions. He had a physical job until he was 65 when he retired from full time work and now still works part time in a physical job. He also walks 10 miles a week and goes to the gym 4 days a week as he thinks stopping will make it worse... He hated retiring from full time. he has a massive final salary pension but still wont stop.

So that's a very different presentation of spinal osteoarthritis to the one PP has, then? So why tell her all about your dad? Do you want a rosette for him?

This is why we decided to start being frugal and stop spending money on things we don't need (or really, really want). Reduce the number of holidays each year, eat at home more, shop second hand, no fancy car and live in a house that is well within what we can afford.

Then take all that money and invest, which will hopefully mean we retire or at least semi-retire in our 50s.

I'm certain that by the time we reach state pension, it will have risen to 70- something and probably be eroded by inflation (pretty sure the triple lock won't survive).

Thanks @LiterallyOnFire 😊

@RedPony1 this sounds very different to mine, I'd love to be able to walk 10 miles, unfortunately walking very much aggravates my condition. I'm glad your Dad is so unaffected. Unfortunately I'm not so fortunate.

Honestly, people say the weirdest things. 🤷🏼‍♀️

You don't get pension credit until you receive state pension. Then it's means tested

This ^ Both my FIL and MIL retired aged 50! They’re 80 now so haven’t had to work for nearly half their lives.
Gold plated corporate pensions so the state pension has just been their ‘pocket money’ (in their own words).

They may well be living that long, but is there anything to suggest they are healthier at that age than previously. Or that people will actually be well enough to work at 65+. I know I can’t do a full week anymore. I took early retirement and make up the shortfall with supply teaching. I already know, at 59, that I won’t be able to continue doing that even one or two days a week until 67, so I’ll have to cut back or use some savings once I give up completely (soon).

Andrew Marr said it was because women were expected to have caring responsibilities.

As someone said upthread. Life expectancy actually has gone down for the first time in years. I remember feeling optimistic growing up(despite not knowing my grandparents my paternal grandmother died in her early 60s 'riddled with cancer' sorry for the terminology that's all I know and how it was described) I have always been reassured by science, and when it came to charity I've donated with her in mind but now I'm her age the NHS has seemingly collapsed. Im witnessing the demise of the NHS and care system it's no wonder life expectancy is falling for those who can't pay for timely tests and treatments.. I'm sure the science I had faith in and willingly contributed to has progressed but it relies on getting an appointment without barriers initially (and a holistic approach) and then a timely diagnosis and treatment before it gets too late. If you can afford private treatment (like the royal family) you have a better chance of survival, the stats prove it

Listening to my kids, either side of 50, they and their partners and friends have been aware for a long time that their retirement plans won’t be dependent on the state pension. They’ll go once a) they’ve built up their own pensions, and b) when the grandkids have finished uni, or got a job.

I think the difference in age is also because of the history of married women's pensions.

For a long time, married women did not accrue pension, then did so at the married woman's (lower) rate, and only quite recently could contribute (and therefore receive) as an independent individual. So back then, the pension would be paid to the man on his retirement, at married man's rate, and married women simply did not receive their own pension. I've got a feeling there were other rules as well.

But financial independence, for married women, was a fought-for right, and independent taxation only came in during the Thatcher years

I agre with @RoseAndRose . Although I built a small state pension, there were no NI credits for SAHMs when I was one. There was no wrap round care, so in my low paid part time years, I paid a reduced rate NI, which didn’t go towards building a state pension. Mine is around £100 a week. Fortunately in later years I built a modest occupational pension. I also worked part time after I was 60, in several different jobs.

But to a certain extent most people's are, because a lot of pensions can normally be drawn only without penalty at state pension age

@Seymour5 therefore, their own pensions are absolutely reliant on state pension age.

For people who think women got their 'equality' - this is not the case.

Women are paid less then men and often have no private pension. This means men have more savings and investments in older age and often a generous pension to boot. As a result many women live out their pension years in extreme poverty.

That’s not the case if you’re in a defined contribution pension, which most are these days.

It was set as 60 because women generally married men who were older that them, and so that they could retire together.

If the woman wasn't working (very common up to at least the 70s) they'd be retiring on the "married couple rate. I can't remember how that was triggered, but if women's retirement age matched men's and if a) it was paid in full as soon as the man reached retirement age, you'd have younger wives on their husband's pension from 60, and single women having to continue working to 65 , which wouldn't have gone down well or b) if the "couple" element wasn't paid till both reached retirement age, then they'd be in poverty trying to live on a single person's pension waiting for an unemployable younger wife to reach retirement age.

But women don't have a longer healthy life expectancy - they spend a greater proportion of their life in ill-health, so their expected health y life expectancy is less than a year greater than men's.