To think that constantly increasing retirement age will just cause an increase in health related benefit claims?

[PyongyangKipperbang]

I am early 50's and have worked in hospitality for years, a very active job.

I am feeling it now, I really am. Back, general fitness and plantar fasciitis. Longer to recover from physical exhaustion. On it goes.

Surely people in physical occupations like mine, nursing, trade, retail etc are going to need to stop far sooner than people in desk based occupations? When we physically cannot keep going (my retirement age is 67 currently) what do we do?! Our health issues are often caused (or at least, exacerbated) by our careers, and our skills are not those that would transfer into office based jobs. Even if they were, there simply are not enough jobs for us all on top of the people our age already doing them.

So what is the alternative? I cannot see any other way than to claim benefits until state pensions kick in. And dont forget that a lot of people in manual jobs dont have private pensions as these have always been traditionally lower paid jobs. Those of us born in the 60's/70's were sold the state pension dream, we didnt need to worry about private pensions. It only became clear that actually we did when it was too late for those of us on lower salaries to make enough provision for old age.

Actually it's on pension payments, whether you have reached SPA or not.

True but that costs the govt nothing, the tax take is bigger too as a result.

We need to motivate people to save into their private pensions, not add disincentives by making them less attractive.

I think people will end up drawing their private pensions much earlier than state pension age, and that’s why we are automatically opted in now. The government doesn’t seriously think everyone is going to work until 68 and older.

Private pensions will be used to bridge the gap, between not being able to work any longer and being old enough for the state pension. I don’t think pensioners in the future will be as well off as some pensioners are these days for that reason (in general, I know not all are rich) - they’ll have to spend more of their private pensions to survive before an increasing pension age.

That is shockingly low. It's a decade higher here.

Where is here SquirrelGG?

New Zealand.

It's also much higher in Australia In Australia, healthy life expectancy is 71.7 years for males and 73.8 years for females. While overall life expectancy at birth is about 81.1 years for men and 85.1 years for women.
I hadn't realised it was so low in the UK.

I agree that it's harder on the bodies of those who's jobs are very physically demanding. I know it's controversial but there is an argument to be made over a 2 tier retirement system where people who have always done very demanding physical jobs be allowed to retire 1 year before people who have always done desk jobs. I honestly think the retirement age will increase to 68 sooner than planned and maybe 69 by 2040-45. I've told my DS who will be 40 this year to open a SIPP alongside his occupational pension. A SIPP can be taken at from April 57 years of age. This might mean he might be able to go part time after 62 if his body can no longer manage the long hours he works now often 50+ hours a week.

My Father retired at 53 on a gold plated final salary pension. He will soon be 90.
His company pension has already paid out 37 years and there must be quite a lot like him. He started work at 16, so has now been drawing a pension for the same length of time as he was working!

Are you for real? Not everyone has a private pension or one that could sustain them until they claim state pension. You are deluded ! Agree OP the state pension age should be lowered. There are just not enough jobs to go round especially with machines taking over retail personnel’s jobs.

I'm 63, arthritis is an increasing problem but because I'm still mobile I won't be considered for any joint replacements. I've been looking after late DH until recently, but no way will I be fighting my way back into the workforce for the next four years. Luckily I inherit a large chunk of DH's occupational pension, and with having been unable to go anywhere or do anything for some years, there's plenty of money to bridge the gap till I get my state pension. Sister is in a physically demanding job and is taking more and more time off due to poor health.

I'm 47 and my SPA is 68, DH is 49 and his is 67. We're both teachers and our pensions are tied to state pension age which is something I hope can be reviewed in the future otherwise there will be many future generations being taught by people who don't really want to be there and just waiting our their days - losers all round. One benefit of being a teacher is that we have 6 months full pay sickness, and 6 months half pay. Again though, it'll be future generations who lose out as 1. they will not have permanent teacher and 2. school budgets will be decimated by increased employee costs.

You have the option to take pension benefits earlier than 68, you will need to accept a lower annual payment, but you do not need to wait until 68.

It's interesting that when the pension was first introduced in the UK the age was 70 - when only one in four people reached 70, and those that did had an average life expectancy of 9 years or so - so system was designed to support a small, short-lived group. Even when the age was changed to 60/65 people were expected to spend around 13 years on it - not the 20-25 years now.

Due to automatic opt in, most people in the future will have some sort of private pension, although for some it won’t be much. If you are on a low salary and you and your employer only do minimum contributions, you won’t have a lot.

However, I think people will be expected to use this to fund the gap between not being able to work and state pension age. That’s probably why it’s been brought in - so state pension age can be increased but most will have some sort of provision to lean on if they can’t wait that long. Even if that means they’ll have spent a lot of it before they actually get the state pension.

Also people are being very rigid in their thinking - people tend to slow down towards retirement - maybe cut their hours or move to a lower impact job. You don't have to stay in the same job for 40 years and then suddenly stop.

I am not sure how old you are, but it’s actually really hard to get another job in your 60s.
And not every employer will allow you to go part time. It’s a very easy way of trying to get rid of older people.

It's great saying 'priotise your retirement'. What happens when you get cancer at 62 or a stroke at 64? Or the start of dementia? Most private pensions start at 65.

I foresee incapacity benefit going up.

My Father who is 90, was constantly telling his male relatives to join their company pension schemes and not to rely on the state pension.
They all thought he was mad and said it was the governments duty to look after them.
So of course the inevitable happened. My Dad retired at 53, they retired at 65. They are now all dead and my Dad is doing very nicely on his huge pension! Most big companies have offered pensions for a long time. And if not, there were private options. There was tax relief on just about everything in those days, so a lot more could have afforded a little extra to be put aside. You got tax back if you were married, if you had a mortgage, if a child went to uni etc

Yes I tend to agree. Even with a sedentary job travel etc can be tiring. I wonder if it's an option to sort of phase in state pension, so, for example you could get half of the full amount at 60. So that people could work fewer hours. Probably very difficult to implement but I like the idea

I've just looked it up and it says for the UK 79.4 years for males and 83.1 years for females
I don't know where the OP's figures came from.
There will be differences in areas for the UK, but that's an average

Many of the people I work with use their retired mothers for childcare. If they can't retire, that will have a knock on impact on another generation. Not to mention the amount of elderly folk working voluntarily for charities

I have seen this 2 tier idea before, whether it should effectively be based on life expectancy. Would keep the actuaries very busy!

Those are life expectancy for the UK I think. The PP was talking about healthy life expectancy:
Males in the UK could expect to spend 60.7 years (77% of life) in "good" general health, compared with 60.9 years (73%) for females.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/healthandlifeexpectancies/bulletins/healthstatelifeexpectanciesuk/between2011to2013and2022to2024

I totally agree @PyongyangKipperbang