Increase in State Pension Age

I have always sort of assumed that I shan't get any money until I am 66. In fact, since the average life expectation has risen so much lately, I was surprised that the government left it alone for as long as they did.

Anyone born between 6 October 1954 - 5 April 1968 will receive their State Pension on their 66th birthday. It is true that average life expectancy has increased but unfortunately average healthy life expectancy is 63.5 years for men and 64.8 years for women. The lowest healthy life expectancy for males is in Tower Hamlets at 52.5 years and the lowest healthy life expectancy for females is in Manchester at 55.5 years.

MPs have protected themselves from the increase in the pension age - the taxpayer funds their pensions.

After protests, the French reversed their pension age back to 60 years - “We committed to put this measure in place quickly for social justice for those who started working early,” said Social Affairs Minister Marisol Touraine.

Many women affected by the new pension legislation started work at 15 years old. School leaving age was raised to 16 years in 1972.

On the other hand, I do feel that people should be encouraged to work for as long as possible. Partly to get rid of the mindset that many employers seem to have, that an older workforce is of less value. I think if older workers are seen more often, the strange idea that many employers seem to have of anyone over the age of forty being past it could subside. I was completely in agreement with the age for women being raised to match that of men, particularly since they seemed to live for longer. So if only one year is added to that, does it really make such a difference to an individual, when not paying out pensions could make such a huge difference to what that money could be spent on? Better care for older people, for example?

Yes I do agree that people should be encouraged to work for as long as possible but this is not encouragement this is forcing people into work. There is a world of difference between choosing to continue to work to supplement your State Pension knowing that if your health fails or you become too exhausted you can fall back on your State Pension at any time.
It is also true that older people in the workplace will challenge age discrimination but the wheels of change move very slowly which is why those within 10 years of retirement should not have had their pension age accelerated so dramatically and should have been given the same protection rights as MPs have awarded themselves – MPs pension age has not increased.
I guess you probably think you are backing men by supporting the equalising of the State Pension age but this change has a detrimental effect on men’s retirement plans too. Firstly, they have to work an additional year. Secondly, consider the case of a married man who is 5 years older than his wife (say, she is 60 years old), the man has to put their joint retirement travel and other plans on hold until his wife joins him in retirement 6 years later. This means he will be 72 years old before they can start enjoying their retirement together and will reduce their time together in retirement. Consider another scenario, where the wife has lost her job at 60 years old and is unable to obtain work due to age discrimination, their joint annual income will be reduced by around £7000 per year in lost pension rights (£42,000 over the 6 years) placing considerable financial strain on the household income.
I think it would have made more sense for the Government to meet us half way and have equalised the State Pension age at 62.5 years – for simplicity they could have rounded this up to 63 years for both men and women.
It is true that women generally survive longer than men but they do not live any longer. Life Expectancy and Healthy Life Expectancy are two very different things. The latest statistics from the Office for National Statistics states that men spend 15.7 years of retirement in ‘not good’ health whereas women spend 18.2 years in ‘not good’ health. Current average Healthy Life Expectancy for men is 63.5 years and 64.8 years for women. (www.ons.gov.uk)
Lastly, the money saved will definitely not be used to care for older people or to benefit anyone. It will probably be wasted on another failed IT scheme - “An abandoned NHS patient record system has so far cost the taxpayer nearly £10bn ...... according to a highly critical report from parliament's public spending watchdog.” Giving us back our pensions would boost the economy as older people spend their money.

I believe that, if the state pension age was the same in relation to the life expectancy when it was brought in it would be something like 72.

I do not think it was the raising of the pension age that was a problem but the fact that governments of each flavour put of doing anything so the changes fell heavily on the shoulders of a few. Hopefully they will keep on top of it now.

I do think we now need to think through the implications coming from the fact that our careers will now be bell curve shaped and not straight line upwards as we have always been led to expect.

I can see what you are saying JiltedPensioner, about the equalising of pension ages but I do think this is the right thing to do. I'm afraid I do not see the idea of a couples pension as a good thing either. So many women have lost out by putting their eggs in the "good man" basket and, these days, many prefer to rely on their own pensions.

The "Healthy Life Expectancy" argument is interesting but seems to have more to do with the NHS and Care services than pension to me.

Also - there are many of us who are married to younger men. So that can work either way. As I really thought, as Gracesgran has said, that the government would have taken the pensionable age up to 70, I am actually relieved that it's only 66.

I have to admit to a slight feeling of disappointment that I wouldn't bet getting my pension in a few years, but really, I know that I can manage without it so I would feel guilty for taking it.

You make some reasonable points, Gracesgran.
Having looked at the link, tho, I see that MPs, Judges and Civil Servants who are within ten years of retirement have been protected from the measures to increase retiral age.
It cannot possibly be fair for those people to be protected while everyone else is left to flounder as best they can.

Those measures are in place to protect us. I attended a talk last week, in which the speaker, a magistrate, mentioned it. He said that they have to be retired to protect us in case they have alzheimers. Admittedly they could get it earlier, but it was felt that that age was the safest at which to stop.

You are quite right, Gracesgran, it is the acceleration in the State Pension age that is the problem. There is no reason why the increase could not have been introduced much more gradually giving women time to adjust. I accepted the original increase in the State Pension age without protest but now the government have targeted the same women for a further age increase it is absolutely unfair and unjust.
I am pleased, Janerowena that you can manage without your State Pension but please spare a thought for those that cannot. 40% of women in the affected age group have no private pension at all and so are totally reliant on their State Pension.
I cannot believe that a magistrate said he would be collecting his pension early in case he gets alzheimers. What about lorry drivers, chefs and careworkers are they safe to continue working with alzheimers? Why do MPs need to collect their generous tax funded pensions early?
I am glad you looked at the link, FarNorth. If you read the signatories ‘Reasons for Signing’ at the bottom of the page, you will see how people (men and women) are struggling to cope.

My First thought was very much like FarNorth's, that it couldn't be fair. It just goes to show how much we need all the information. Thank you janerowena .

those within 10 years of retirement should not have had their pension age accelerated so dramatically and should have been given the same protection rights as MPs have awarded themselves – MPs pension age has not increased.

That, as most people would agree, is what has caused the problem. It allowed no time for alternative arrangements and no penison company is going to take someone within 10 years of retirement age (either that or the premiums would be so high that very few could afford to pay them). This should have been phased in over a period of time to allow for those coming up to retirement age.

Available work for the older generation might be another good idea ....

I agree HollyDaze that this was the problem. We know that they knew for decades that something had to be done and if they had started years ago it could have been done very gradually. I suppose in some ways - rather ironic ways it has to be said - we should be grateful that something was finally done. Heaven knows what would have happened if they had left it any longer.

I read some research about people working on into older age in the US and, not surprisingly, it was much more possible for the better educated and/or those in better jobs to continue and to continue earning well while for those with a generally poorer education and/or poorer jobs there is great difficulty. I am not sure how you overcome this.

Your last paragraph, Gracesgran, just goes to highlight the inequality of society doesn't it. Not everyone can be academically gifted but does that mean that they deserve a life of poverty? And people think Britain is civilised. 'The True Measure of Any Society can be found in how it treats its most vulnerable members' – Ghandi

900,000 pensioners are in severe poverty (incomes below 50 per cent median income in2011/12)

800,000 pensioners are in material deprivation (they cannot afford things that most people regard as necessities) in 2011/12

15 per cent (900,000) of pensioners are in absolute poverty (60 per cent of median income) after housing costs when comparing the real terms income between 2010/11 and 2011/12. This is an increase of 100,000 pensioners compared to 2010/11

The numbers of pensioners living in severe absolute poverty (below 50 per cent of median income) AHC remained at 8 per cent between 2010/11 and 2011/12

1.1 million older people live on incomes just above the poverty line – that is between 60 and 69 per cent of median income. These figures have fallen from 38 per cent in 1998-99 to 23per cent in 2011-12

Above quotes from Age UK Evidence Review: Poverty in Later Life

www.futureyears.org.uk/uploads/files/Age%20UK%20on%20poverty%20in%20old%20age.pdf

It isn't just the inequality of income in our own society but the affect of globalisation that has made it's mark Hollydaze . Many who believe that society should run in the direction capital takes it would say that if a job can be done for a dollar a day in China (or Indian or whatever country has not yet started demanding more) then that is the worth of the job.

I try desperately not to get into the thought pattern that says things used to be better when I was young but my memory is that there was more consensus about moving towards a more equal society. Perhaps I just didn't know the people who said the opposite

I think there is a confusion between the age at which the state pension is payable - these rules are the same for everyone, MPs magistrates, judges, factory workers and the age at which an occupational pension ( if any) is paid. This depends on the rules of the scheme and for public sector workers, these rules are set by the government and so the age is being increased

Sadly those statistics are not surprising Hollydaze. I have not seen any of the parties saying they are in favour of getting rid of age related, means tested additional benefits and offering a "living" pension. Even one at £10,000 would be a start but the new single tier pension seems to be coming in at about £8,000.

There is always the challenge of how you deal with those who do not have enough contributions. Personally, I think we should change the names of the State Pension and Pension Credit to Contributory Pension and None-contributory Pension to clarify the situation.

I do not think they would dare bring it in at £10000. It would leave those of us who have already retired much too far behind.

I agree about the living pension. They could do away with the extra tier of pension credits that way. Many pensioners who can claim credits do not, as they do not know about them.

I think many of the people affected by this don't realise how fit and well they will be at 66. It may seem old until you get there but many of us don't feel the least bit old at that age.

I don't understand the argument about those who will be poor in retirement as surely working for longer will give them the opportunity to save for retirement or, at the very least, they will be better off in work for longer?

There are some benefits to the new rules, I think they only need something like 30 years of NI to qualify whereas I needed 39 which I didn't make. I also stayed at home looking after children and didn't get credits for doing so which they do now.

As I have said on another thread, it is hard to decide how to cut the national cake and this seems one of the fairer ways of doing it.

I was actually thinking of all pensions durhamjen as I am sure they will want to bring the two systems into line as much as they can over time.

Of course, it could not all be done straight away but each time they raised the current pension above the triple lock they could do away with some of means tested benefits and also the universal benefits. So, for instance, a single persons pension could be increased by £3.85 per week above the triple lock and the WFA abolished. Once they had brought them into line - for instance the is no Pension Savings Credit attached to the single tier pension - they could continue to aim for a living pension.

Nonnie said : I think many of the people affected by this don't realise how fit and well they will be at 66. It may seem old until you get there but many of us don't feel the least bit old at that age.

The average life expectancy for men in Glasgow is 58.

Perhaps a slight exaggeration, FarNorth?

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-15368400

I admit that 71 is still not very old, but a vast improvement on 58!

I do think you are more likely to remain fit and well at 66 years if you are not working or working part-time. In many jobs it is unrealistic for older people to meet today's extreme demands. Many older women are employed in jobs with no sick pay and no holiday pay often temporary contracts and no pension.

NI contributions currently stand at 35 years. It did go down to 30 years but the government put it up again. They did not inform people affected instead relying on them to be informed by the media!

Not many women qualify for the 35 years NI contributions and consequently will not get the new improved pension when they retire.

Why would 'not many women' qualify for the 35 years NI contributions? I've already clocked up 43 years and I'm only 63 - that's with taking a couple of years off when the children were babies.

Bearing in mind that a great many women of our generation had careers and also qualified for NI credits when they were looking after children, I'd say it was relatively easy for them to have made 35 years' contributions.

Not all, of course, but certainly more than 'not many'.