Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
cashinmattress

'faster Rise' In State Pension Age Predicted

Recommended Posts

Blue rinse brigade

A government commitment to 'revise' the timetable for increasing the state pension age could pave the wave for faster rises, according to a leading pensions firm.

In today's Queen's Speech, the new coalition Government said it will not start to increase the age at which Britons can claim their state pension until at least 2016 for men and 2020 for women.

But the Government confirmed that it will carry out a review of the current timetable and implement the findings 'if the review finds that the existing timetable is no longer appropriate'.

This could see the pensionable age rise much faster than had been planned under Labour, say pension experts at Towers Watson.

Previously, Labour had scheduled the state pension age to rise to 66 between 2024 and 2026, with two further increases at 10-year intervals.

Eventually, the increases would see it reach 68 by 2046 for both men and women.

However, life expectancy among Britons has increased by almost two years since the 2006 review on which those numbers were based.

This marked increase, coupled with the huge hole in the public purse, has given the Conservative-Liberal Democrat government cause to carry through a review of the timetable, and experts now fear that the inevitable rises could happen more quickly.

John Ball, of pensions experts Towers Watson, says: 'While attention has focused on how soon the State Pension Age will rise to 66, the bigger question is what happens afterwards. Rather than rising to 68 by 2046, we could see it going up further and faster.'

'The logic used to justify a State Pension Age of 68 by 2046 could now justify a State Pension Age of 70 by then – and that's before you factor in any need to make state pensions cheaper because of what has happened to the public finances.'

Men in their sixties and women aged 55 or over would not be affected by the Government's plans. But around four million people currently expecting to receive state pensions at 65 could get them up to a year later.

And those that are younger could face waiting even longer.

'It was always odd to assume that the State Pension Age would reach 68 and then suddenly stop. This generation of politicians could do their successors a favour by establishing a clear expectation that it will continue to rise if longevity continues to improve,' says Ball.

There is going to be a great deal of civil unrest on this issue, especially as there will be PLENTY of boom boom boomers enjoying the antiquated system, whilst their kids are working to the grave.

Oh well, we all know this is coming, and in reality the pot is empty.

It's all going to end in tears. I suppose its a great thing to have the surveillance and police state we do, which will keep the petty crime rate down.

And of course we will have limitless energy in which to enjoy your retirement in a few decades from now...

Edited by cashinmattress

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pension age soon to be increased to X + 40

Where X is your age. :P

Interesting....

Let me change it though...

Pension age:

30 + X + 40 < age < 80 (X being your current age)

So you officially retire somewhere between 70 and 80.

Just think of the joy of seeing all these bent over old gits forever working. It's a lot like most of the USA, as there are millions of em that can't ever retire. Seen it myself many times. I even had an 82 year old woman serve my breakfast in a Denny's in Florida.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Blue rinse brigade

There is going to be a great deal of civil unrest on this issue, especially as there will be PLENTY of boom boom boomers enjoying the antiquated system, whilst their kids are working to the grave.

Oh well, we all know this is coming, and in reality the pot is empty.

It's all going to end in tears. I suppose its a great thing to have the surveillance and police state we do, which will keep the petty crime rate down.

And of course we will have limitless energy in which to enjoy your retirement in a few decades from now...

" While their kids are working to the grave"

Thats all part of the problem the kids are not working to the grave , there is not enough job's that pay a salary for them to do , so they are drawing out of the system instead of paying into it , this is having an effect on the pot of money the state has to pay these pensions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's just ********, If I stay in a job till 80 then I'm taking up a job for someone else. It's a zero sum game. :huh:

More like if I'm 20 I will be able to take out a 60 year mortgage. :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If, on your left side you have an unemployed young person, out of work, having everything paid for them .... and on your right side you have somebody who owns their own house and has savings and a dream to start their own company, then wouldn't it make more sense to say that once you've worked your 30 years of NI contributions then you can 'retire', to receive just the basic state pension (so no top ups/credits/etc, just the basic amount) .... I bet there are loads of people aged 50 and above who would love to give up their job and start their own business, have more time for themselves ... and this would free up a job for that nice young chap.

If you have one job and two people, somebody has to work and somebody has to miss out. As I see it they're both 'trapped' by the rules as it is and both would be happier in my scenario. Also, older people are well-placed to start their own businesses ... so statistically they might be more likely to do that if they could give up their job and get a basic little income.

One pension amount (basic), paid to a homeowner with savings, who has chosen to retire in this manner, is cheaper than having one young person kicking about, with all sorts being paid out.

What's the point of making one man work for 60 years ... while the other stands idle... when both could work 30 years.

My system would also require less Jobcentres and less form filling because you no longer need to hassle and monitor the young man over job applications every fortnight, because the older person wouldn't be having to sign on.

Divide the work by the people I say. If there were more than enough jobs to go round, then start fiddling around with making the working life longer, but while there aren't enough jobs, what's the point?

Edited by ScaredEitherWay

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest The Relaxation Suite

Blue rinse brigade

There is going to be a great deal of civil unrest on this issue, especially as there will be PLENTY of boom boom boomers enjoying the antiquated system, whilst their kids are working to the grave.

Oh well, we all know this is coming, and in reality the pot is empty.

It's all going to end in tears. I suppose its a great thing to have the surveillance and police state we do, which will keep the petty crime rate down.

And of course we will have limitless energy in which to enjoy your retirement in a few decades from now...

As I predicted many years ago, there will be no retirement age at all soon. It is going to be packaged as a "gift" from the government allowing people the "freedom" to stay in the workplace until they die at their desks. By the time the boomers' kids are dying at their desks all the boomers will be long gone, remember. It's all worked out beautifully.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest AuntJess

Once again we have the resentful outpourings from the less-than-cognitively-complex.dry.gif They who judge a whole generation on the activities of a few. Try judging all blacks on the same dimension and you will find a huge outcry from the likes of Chakrabarti - strangely silent about certain forms of prejudice, OTT about other perceived forms of it.

FWIW - and I suspect I waste my typing time here, so much easier to believe one's own fantasy, it gives one an excuse to hate - many of my contemporaries are STILL in work at 65 and many at seventy. Some of them self-employed (that is where you get off your duff and create your own future) although many are not.

I would very much like to be in the running for a job today, but have heard on the QT that it would not 'wash'. Oh, no one will admit they are not giving me a job 'cos of my age, but that will be the reason.

And if they did give me the job ? Well, the - "damners if you do, damners if you don't" will have summat else to whine about. The oldies are taking our jobs, Boo-hoo. Altho' in my field of expertise, I suspect I have forgotten more than many of you are ever likely to discover.cool.gif and I think that goes across the board. Many very good practitioners in their field are forced not only into retirement at 65, but into early retirement(50/55) to make way for the 'New Wave', and if they are owt like a few on here, no wonder the country is going to the dogs.

What a number of you need is more get-up-and-go and less self-pity. Start thinking about growing 'a pair'.

Edited by AuntJess

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting....

Let me change it though...

Pension age:

30 + X + 40 < age < 80 (X being your current age)

So you officially retire somewhere between 70 and 80.

Just think of the joy of seeing all these bent over old gits forever working. It's a lot like most of the USA, as there are millions of em that can't ever retire. Seen it myself many times. I even had an 82 year old woman serve my breakfast in a Denny's in Florida.

no I don't mean it like that, X is a variable figure, so when you are 25 your retirement age is 65, when you are 35 your retirement age is 75 when you are 60 your retirement age is 100.

I.e. you never retire.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I predicted many years ago, there will be no retirement age at all soon. It is going to be packaged as a "gift" from the government allowing people the "freedom" to stay in the workplace until they die at their desks. By the time the boomers' kids are dying at their desks all the boomers will be long gone, remember. It's all worked out beautifully.

OR...they will announce a massive increase in the state pension - £1m per annum. Can be drawn on reaching the age of 120.

OR...they will wait until the "30 years of stamps needed to qualify" change has worked its way into the system for a few decades and people have planned this around looking after their children / ageing parents, then they will announce they are changing it to 50 years, starting immediately.

OR (as you mention) it will just be replaced by means-tested benefits: income support etc, both "packaged as a gift from the government" and sold using "why should a cleaner at HSBC pay tax to pay the chief exec's state pension" type reasoning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Inter-generational theft is the new social issue of the day. Its part of the austerity. At some point cuts to the basic pension must take place (they already have in Latvia and other such places). The new government is promising more money for oldies. I wonder where Willets stands on this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Youth unemployment is caused by the fact that it is totally uneconomic to employ young people here for most normal jobs due to the high cost of living. We exported jobs to lower cost countries (or gave jobs to immigrants from low cost countries who can take the money home and buy much more with it there) and simultaneously lowered interest rates to prevent the cost of living falling here at home, as a genuine free market would have done.

Now there is almost an entire generation (18-30ish) which earns very little compared to their parents at the same age. Many of them are unemployed, and many are staying in education (funded by the state/student loans/parents) because it is better than doing nothing. You would expect people aged 18-30 to be net contributors to society as they are generally healthy and have the time and energy to work (although they may not be as skilled as somebody ten years older), but I suspect the current 18-30s are paying in very little as a group due to their employment situation. That means the burden of paying for the 65+ retirees is falling on a smaller and smaller group of workers in their 30s-50s, and the problem gets worse every year, hence all this insane talk about forcing people to keep working into their 70s when there is an entire generation of young people currently idle and desperate for work.

A possible solution might be to allow UK living costs (including housing) to fall so that it is economic to employ a UK youngster again, getting the 18-30s into work, and using the resulting extra tax revenue to support retirees.

Sadly we will probably remain for some years in the ridiculous situation where a couple in their 50s have their unemployed 20something offspring still living in their £250k semi, while the government sends them letters telling them their retirement age is going up because there is no money to support them with, and everybody fails to see the connection.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just think of the joy of seeing all these bent over old gits forever working. It's a lot like most of the USA, as there are millions of em that can't ever retire. Seen it myself many times. I even had an 82 year old woman serve my breakfast in a Denny's in Florida.

Why can't they retire? Is there no pension provision in the states?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why can't they retire? Is there no pension provision in the states?

The government one IIRC is pretty terrible instead people have 401Ks which is like a government backed bank account in which you use to fund your pension.

You can cash it in with significant penalties though, if your 401K has nowt in it by retirement age then you don't retire!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Once again we have the resentful outpourings from the less-than-cognitively-complex.Posted Image They who judge a whole generation on the activities of a few. Try judging all blacks on the same dimension and you will find a huge outcry from the likes of Chakrabarti - strangely silent about certain forms of prejudice, OTT about other perceived forms of it.

FWIW - and I suspect I waste my typing time here, so much easier to believe one's own fantasy, it gives one an excuse to hate - many of my contemporaries are STILL in work at 65 and many at seventy. Some of them self-employed (that is where you get off your duff and create your own future) although many are not.

I would very much like to be in the running for a job today, but have heard on the QT that it would not 'wash'. Oh, no one will admit they are not giving me a job 'cos of my age, but that will be the reason.

And if they did give me the job ? Well, the - "damners if you do, damners if you don't" will have summat else to whine about. The oldies are taking our jobs, Boo-hoo. Altho' in my field of expertise, I suspect I have forgotten more than many of you are ever likely to discover.Posted Image and I think that goes across the board. Many very good practitioners in their field are forced not only into retirement at 65, but into early retirement(50/55) to make way for the 'New Wave', and if they are owt like a few on here, no wonder the country is going to the dogs.

What a number of you need is more get-up-and-go and less self-pity. Start thinking about growing 'a pair'.

Actually it's majority of boomers who are grasping shits and the minority who got off their duff.

it's perfecly reasonable to talk about a group of peopel who have done something and then point out exceptions - a small example would be "most germans were behind Adolf apart from a few fringe groups of active dissenters like the white rose" or "most german industrialists went along and pocketed their profits and slept soundly at night apart from a few rogues like oscar schindler."

Most boomers have cheered on the states massive displacing rise in society and cheered on HPI, unpayable pensions pots etc etc

A few haven't.

Most have. They voted for it, they lobbied for it. They got it.

And it's going to choke them. Hey ho.

No worries though, any boomer can prove your credentional as a non grasper, self made man type boomer by simply never claiming anything and paying of whatever medical help, pension etc themselves.

Edited by Injin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually it's majority of boomers who are grasping shits and the minority who got off their duff.

it's perfecly reasonable to talk about a group of peopel who have done something and then point out exceptions - a small example would be "most germans were behind Adolf apart from a few fringe groups of active dissenters like the white rose" or "most german industrialists went along and pocketed their profits and slept soundly at night apart from a few rogues like oscar schindler."

Most boomers have cheered on the states massive displacing rise in society and cheered on HPI, unpayable pensions pots etc etc

A few haven't.

Most have. They voted for it, they lobbied for it. They got it.

And it's going to choke them. Hey ho.

No worries though, any boomer can prove your credentional as a non grasper, self made man type boomer by simply never claiming anything and paying of whatever medical help, pension etc themselves.

Where is your evidence for these assertions? viz:

- most boomers have cheered on....

- most have. They voted for it, they lobbied for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where is your evidence for these assertions? viz:

- most boomers have cheered on....

- most have. They voted for it, they lobbied for it.

The legislation passed, the pensions and entitlements claimed, the voting record, the whole social discourse etc.

if you can show me a large cross section of the boomers wanting a smaller state and less borrowing and spending, lower house prices, who are handing their pension in unclaimed, who aren't using the NHS, who are tax protesting and all the other things that woudl indiciate opposition to the status quo* I am happy to change my mind.

* you know, that fiery tempered bra burning, vietnam war protesting, mass lobbying political change stuff they used to get up to back when taxes were fully paying for their uni educations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There is going to be a great deal of civil unrest on this issue, especially as there will be PLENTY of boom boom boomers enjoying the antiquated system, whilst their kids are working to the grave.

In reality the Boomers are likely to outlive their children... becoming the first generation is world history to do so outside of a major war.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The legislation passed, the pensions and entitlements claimed, the voting record, the whole social discourse etc.

if you can show me a large cross section of the boomers wanting a smaller state and less borrowing and spending, lower house prices, who are handing their pension in unclaimed, who aren't using the NHS, who are tax protesting and all the other things that woudl indiciate opposition to the status quo* I am happy to change my mind.

* you know, that fiery tempered bra burning, vietnam war protesting, mass lobbying political change stuff they used to get up to back when taxes were fully paying for their uni educations.

The voting record was on many other things not just on enetitlements.

As for me showing you a "large cross section of boomers" I don't have to as I have made no assertions.

To repeat - where is your evidence for your assertions on the specific matters you commented on?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The voting record was on many other things not just on enetitlements.

As for me showing you a "large cross section of boomers" I don't have to as I have made no assertions.

To repeat - where is your evidence for your assertions on the specific matters you commented on?

The fact that it's the status quo proves the boomers wanted it, as does thei rcontinued support of and claiming from.

To show they weren't in favour of it, you'd have to show mass boomer protests against it.

Simple.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The fact that it's the status quo proves the boomers wanted it, as does thei rcontinued support of and claiming from.

To show they weren't in favour of it, you'd have to show mass boomer protests against it.

Simple.

Where is your evidence that because they receive this largesse they wanted it?

Not being in favour of something does not necessarily lead to mass protests - and, to repeat, I have not made any assertions.

To repeat once again - where is your evidence for your assertions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where is your evidence that because they receive this largesse they wanted it?

They claim it. They don't have to, but they take it anyway.

Not being in favour of something does not necessarily lead to mass protests - and, to repeat, I have not made any assertions.

Me either, I've just pointed out the obvious.

To repeat once again - where is your evidence for your assertions.

The status quo.

And notice, it's only when it's changing that you are hearing any moaning from the boomers.

:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I often wondered what would happen to a country if you took away all the incentives that make people get up and drive 50 miles to a shitty job. I guess the present 'elites' want to find out.

I think the crucial and society changing bit is going to be the "what happens when people stop accepting promises of payment tomorrow, next year, next decade, when old and infirm and want paying right now, today?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They claim it. They don't have to, but they take it anyway.

Me either, I've just pointed out the obvious.

The status quo.

And notice, it's only when it's changing that you are hearing any moaning from the boomers.

:)

No it really won't do you know.

Many things are claimed but many are passively received. In any case this doesn't demonstrate that they voted for "it." in the first place.

Your assertion that you've pointed out the obvious rather begs the question does it not?

Perhaps you'll always get moaners when something changes - why pick on the boomers?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 259 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.