To think pensions need huge reform?

[aburrsir]

With all of the recent chat over changing politicians and big ideas that don’t go anywhere, I can’t be the only one who thinks that someone needs to bite the bullet with pensions?

It’s something ridiculous like 50% of the welfare budget annually, and this is never going to go away.

IMO the government need to hike up retirement age and scrap the triple lock. There can be provisions made to go along with this to phase this in for those in genuine need (e.g. for the next 10 years those with no private pensions can get a top up to cover the transition period).

I’d rather know “look you can’t retire until 75” now than this constant “it’s 67…. now wait it’s 68…..” that never ends.

It seems that all governments are scared to do such a big change as it will piss off older people (who are the primary voting demographic) but something needs to change as this is just completely unsustainable long term.

We’re better off making these changes to ensure the state pension can continue sustainably in the long term future rather than having this attitude of “as long as I’m alright I don’t care”

We need a gov with long term planning goals and not just short term firefighting. AIBU?

I think the retirement age should be staggard depending on the job. The more physical the job the earlier the retirement age, likewise any job involving driving should result in a lower retirement age.

seems that all governments are scared to do such a big change as it will piss off older people (who are the primary voting demographic) but something needs to change as this is just completely unsustainable long term.

as older pensioners are most likely to vote out of all the demographic and there are 1 in 4 old people, it’s important a political party keeps them on side

but altering the pension age won’t effect retired people, but workers yet to retire - but they need time to do so.

allready people born sfter 1976 are looking at having changes, but that won’t happen until 2040

you can’t change prior to this, you’ll not get people already nearing retirement that started work with a 60 or 65 retirement age voting to retire later again

someone born in 1960 has already had the age changed, in some. Cases by 7 years

Absolutely right.

I suspect the pension bill will not be such a big issue after the current generation of pensioners have died. The generations underneath them don't appear to be as long lived. Incidents of cancer in young people is rising.

Not to me. She said “Welfare spending as a percentage of GDP has remained more or less unchanged over the last 50 years” so how does that fit with it doubling since the 60s and probably quadrupling since the 40s?

I worked full time in a busy supermarket until 65. Then part time for another ten years. I feel great, happy, now not working, I take no meds. Yes keeping busy has helped me. Compared to many folk who retire much earlier, going earlier didn't help their health or mind.
Given a health issue then they should go, yes.

I haven't read the last 50 posts, but these two things are not the same:

1. Welfare spending in total
2. Welfare spending as a % of GDP

GDP has increased significantly over the time period mentioned, both in nominal (£) and real (adjusted for inflation) terms.

Oh my goodness. Have you not realised that some pensioners still rent? Some are council tenants but many are not. You need to look at a much broader range of pensioners than those near you. Some do live the high life, for sure but others absolutely scrape by. A glance at a FB group called Shoestring retirement might help.

Yes we have. If pension changes need to be made (not convinced) they need to start at age 21 to give people a chance to sort themselves out. Not all are financially literate about private pensions and there'll need to be a substantial safety net for those who didn't set up a pension for all sorts of reasons.

This chart goes back to the financial crisis and shows incapacity (non pensioner) is rising fastest.

I'll see what I can find going further back, although the categories may not be comparable.

Once you are frail you’ll need a lot more than £200 a week! More spent on heating, carers, home assistance, taxis to hospital, doctors, ready meals etc etc

I agree with this. I started a personal pension when I was 24 and that was quite unusual back then. Eventually I got a workplace pension (again voluntary) and started paying into that but I left my little pension running without any input. It's now been going for nearly 40 years and it's about £100k. Well, I didn't put in a tenth of that over the years but the accumulation has been wonderful. I also have the workplace pension but these two pensions will only net me about £10-11k a year as an annuity and I am relying on the state pension as well at 67 to give us enough to enjoy our retirement.

Today workplace pensions are mandatory which is good and either the system you proposed (invested lump sum) or an NI reduction with the extra money being paid into the worker'S private/workplace pension could be a solution going forwards.

Please though, stop bashing the pensioners. We did work and pay for decades for our right to a pension. If there was no right to a state pension we should have been told when we were starting out, we'd have done things differently because we may be old but we're not stupid.

Leave the state pension alone, instead look to bring public service pensions more in line with the private sector

Who the fuck is going to be working full time in their 70s?

Do you know anyone? We have to be realistic. Physically, people are past full time work at 60. Raising the pension age is bollocks. Anybody who thinks that is a solution clearly has no credibility. 🙄

I think we need to end opt out - everyone who's working should be saving for their old age.

I agree, yeah it needs the whole world to cooperate. Or countries to retreat from globalisation. I'll let people in those fields figure it out. The ones who studied and are being paid for it. They got us to this point so they can probably help us back out of it.

While starving and getting into debt when they're young...

It doesn't need to "fit" with figures from earlier decades - it stands alone as solid evidence that the welfare bill is not spiralling or in any way responsible for the declining living standards so many of us are experiencing. The welfare bill has been as "high" as it is now or higher during multiple periods of strong economic growth and rising living standards - and it is still fairly average for countries similar to the UK. Many countries spend vastly more and are not seeing declining living standards to the extent that we are. So it's clearly inaccurate to blame welfare spending.

In the 40s, 50s and 60s there was a lot more well paid work available for people in relatively lower income demographics meaning a higher percentage of the population could earn a living wage with no government top ups needed and there were likely fewer mental health issues as a result. Divorce was also much harder to obtain so the state didn't have so many single parents to support. Pensioners weren't such a large proportion of the population either (with universal state pension not paid at all until 1948). We can't reverse most of these changes so I don't know what you want to see happen?

No one would work for public services though
The pension is why most stick it out

You do realise many people have paid into their pension for well over 40 years. Some people, quite a lot actually, live on £12,000 per year and have no other source of income but no doubt you think £1,000 per month is enough to give the poorest in society after working all their lives. If successive governments had any backbone they would cut benefits for scroungers who cost a lot more than pensioners. After all, if youre on benefits, most of your basics are paid for by the government, so why are they given so much? Pensioners have contributed to society, who is anyone to say how much is 'reasonable'. You want to savemoney cut the benefits of those that choose not to work.

Many people on benefits get a lot less than pensioners.
Not all pensioners have contributed either. Some were "scroungers".

And most people on working age benefits have paid in until they became too disabled to pay in any more (while others continue to pay in despite disability even if they cannot pay in as much as they'd have been able to if disability hadn't struck). We do not need to take any more from those that have the least. Why can't we focus on trying to get more from those who have plenty to spare.

The wealthy are laughing at you all racing to the bottom.

Yes they do, the real dissabled who have to fight for everything whilst the thurd generation scroungers take everything they can get their hands on. Do you realise that an 18 yo single mother gets fuel paid for, a flat or similar which has rent heavily subsidised and a whole load of otherbenefits. The average amount of disposable income that teenager has availabble to spend on her and her child is between £1400 and £1600 per month. After having the majority of bills paid through the benefits system, that's hers to spend how she wants. Bit more than most pensioners are getting wouldn't you say!

Ok, the amounts people can get is on the Gov website. Show us a breakdown on how you arrive at those figures.