raising pension age

When I was in my twenties employment pension schemes didn't really exist unless one worked for a large corporation or the state. Small companies generally didn't have them so one had to go down the private pension route. So then it was a choice between contributing to a pension or maybe having a larger mortgage in order to buy a better house, or for some people, when to start a family. Now companies are required to create a pension scheme for their employees which should mean that in future the majority of people will be able to accrue a decent pension pot.

I read about that, Jane10, which is why I'm a bit doubtful. One way or the other, the overall aim of raising pension age/increasing payments, will be to reduce government expenditure or at least not increase it, which is what will inevitably happen within a few years. I'm not sure that a new system would be a good idea anyway, especially at the moment; it would probably be better to sort out some of the unfairness and anomalies in the current system.

All women should be benefitted...did the suffragettes suffer for nothing...are we just going to go blindly into the tunnel.
Unity is strength

There was a trial of universal basic income in Finland but it was discontinued. It can't have been successful.

A basic income is a thought, isn't it? I'd like to see more details and maybe a small trial. The figures I've seen wouldn't provide a living wage for those who can't work for whatever reason, so I'm not sure.

GracesGran, I can well believe it, but my point is that this isn't just an issue for pensioners. It's happening to people of all ages. Pensioners as a group aren't all poor - far from it. The over 60s have a higher disposable income than most other demographic groups on average. The averages, of course, hide genuine poverty, which is why I'd rather fight for the poor than the old.

The WASPI movement only wants to benefit women born in the 1950s. If you look at their demands, they don't care about 1960s born women (because they're 1950s born) nor men over 60 who are also living in poverty. I'm afraid I have no time for them.

Simple Growstuff. Bring in a Basic Income Payment for all.

Paddyann surely you should be taking your friend to see her MP ASAP. That cannot be right ... though thinking about it in 2019 UK it probably is. But I would try the MP anyway.

How about fighting for an increase and improvement in eligibility in all working age benefits rather than concentrating on pensioners?

I'm sorry for your friend, but what you describe is a n issue with the benefits system (Universal Credit) not a pensions issue. This is happening to people of all ages. Your friend shouldn't be forced to find a job.

I'm a WASPI woman who won't receive state pension until I'm 66 and I don't have a decent income. Sorry, but I remember hearing about it in the 1990s and again in 2011. I can't say I was happy, but I realised why it had to be done.

growstuff it wouldn't have been "sitting in a pot" if it had been used for the purpose it was meant .
My friend has just turned 65 ,she has early onset dementia.She has just finished 2 years of treatment for cancer ,this is the third time she's had cancer .She is not fit for work yet she has been told she has to find a job .Visits to the jobcentre fortnightly where she has to prove she's been looking for employment ,meantime the benefits she was getting have been cut .What a way to treat people in need !Like me she wont get her pension until she's 65 and 7 or 8 months .Thankfully I have a decent income but I've worked for 50 years so I feel the pension I was told I would get should be mine
.If I want to giveit all to charity that should be MY choice not DWP's and quite frankly I dont want to fund the incompetent eejits that are in government in Wm so using WASPI money to pay their debts makes my blood boil .How anyone can think this situation is fine is beyond me .

I agree that a pension age of 75 is ridiculous. It forces people into private pension funds or other forms of investment to fund the gap between being able to work and claiming state pension.

Firstly, it's simply not fair to impose that on people without giving them 40 years (perhaps) notice, so that they can plan.

Secondly, there needs to be provision for those who are disabled or just too ill to work (and many are) and can't make provision for old age.

I used to belong to an over 50s forum about 6 or 7 years ago. Common topics included benefit scroungers, single mothers, the "feckless" with a zillion children living in mansions in central London, etc. I'm sure you know what I mean.

When the government started cutting benefits, I remember pointing out that pensions cost far more than benefits to working age people, but was sharply put down by outraged people who said that the government would never take anything away from pensioners. They wouldn't dare!

Well, they are daring and I guess it wasn't a form of Project Fear after all.

A retirement age of 75 would be the highest in the world.

China is 50 for women 60 for men
India is 60
Norway is 67
War-torn Lybia is 70

To quote Prem Sikka on Twitter

"Raising the pension age to 75 is euthanasia for the working class dressed up as economic policy."

I agree that people can't realistically be expected to work on into their 70s (unless they want to). We just have to accept that we'll all have to pay more one way or another. It's actuariarly obvious as lifespan has lengthened.

The NI fund isn't just for pensions and isn't ring-fenced in a way it perhaps should be.

The government pays nearly £100 billion a year in pensions - more if you count pension credit and housing benefit for the over 60s.

£27 billion wouldn't go very far. In any case, it doesn't make sense to have £27 billion sitting in a "pot" when higher interest rates are being paid on debt. Not paying down the debt just kicks the problem further down the line.

The amount the government pays has reduced slightly as the pension of 1950s women has been delayed, but it's due to increase massively as 1960s men and women reach pension age.

I don't think the pension age should be increased to 70 or 75 because most people over 63 have some kind of medical condition which makes work difficult. However, it's just sticking heads in the sand to think something doesn't need doing. Governments should have started doing more gradually decades ago, but they were too interested in votes.

I would like to see the value of state benefits increase to a living level for everybody, which would mean those over 60 who can't work could claim benefits until state pension age. However, that's a non-starter because people would start bleating about benefit scroungers.

27BILLION from the NI fund went to pay the interest on the national debt! Thats plenty of money to pay pensions of people who cant work past 60 .Why should we pay the debts of an incompetent government while the folk who caused the recession get off scot free? Of course some of you may be Bankers or have family who are and arepleased to dodge paying your dues .

It all depends how you interpret the figures.

This is a little out of date, but the figures won't have changed that much:

fullfact.org/europe/pensioners-eu-uk/

Different countries have different systems.

Moreover, they don't take into account that most people in the EU continue to pay for healthcare after retirement, either privately or through an insurance scheme.

NHS treatment for the retired potentially costs £thousands.

Growstuff I cant remember really, it was my husband who pointed it out and I just quickly read it. I do know it was in the Guardian and it was I believe European countries. When he gets back I will ask him if he kept the article and let you know.

The state pension on its own is actually very good value compared with any private scheme. I can't remember the exact figures, but people can reckon on receiving approximately double the amount they would if they'd paid into a private scheme. Obviously there are individual differences, which averages don't reveal because some people don't reach pension age. Apart from the wealthiest, most people will receive far more than they ever contributed, even accounting for inflation.

Which 15 countries? It's almost impossible to compare because we have a complicated mixture of private and state pensions and benefits. We also have free healthcare, which costs some others dearly.

We, as a country, are 2nd from the bottom of 15 countries for poverty and poor pensions for the elderly. Its not a case of the government can't afford it, we don't have a magic money tree May once said and then found one to pay the DUP.

The money this government wastes is disgraceful, how many billions on Brexit and money is somehow found for any project that will help them stay in power.

Seiko70 it was me that had your post deleted. I was horrified that anyone with a brain could post such a post.

In reality we all pay for the pensions of older folk throughout our working lives. There's no pot of money in reserve. I see no problem with paying in rather more (as long as our contributions are counted towards our entitlement). I think it's necessary with people living longer.

I do think it's very unfair and unrealistic to extend the working age further, though. People can choose to carry on working if they wish to and are in good health - but they shouldn't have to.

True, suzied. Norway put its oil revenues into a ring-fenced fund for pensions. The UK spent its oil revenues on (I'm not quite sure what).

GagaJo, None of us have paid for our pensions. We paid for our parents' and grandparents' pensions. Our children and grandchildren will pay ours.

We haven't even reach the population "bulge" yet, when the 1960s born children will reach pension age. The apparent surplus in the NI fund will be used up by them.