Rise in Pension Age

Gosh, fancy not being at all frivolous, my life would be duller with no frivolity, shared with friends and family.
Each to their own.

Callistemon21

I spent my pocket money on pop and jazz records and had a Dansette for my birthday.
It was red, I loved it.

I never got to Majorca until I was about 60!

Never had a Dansette, lucky you.

We first went to Majorca when I was 30, he was 32, our daughters were 11 and 13 (other 2 had not been born yet).

Jaxjacky

Gosh, fancy not being at all frivolous, my life would be duller with no frivolity, shared with friends and family.
Each to their own.

Totally agree Jaxjacky I still love lots of frivolity in my life. I used to blow all my wages on clothes, records, holidays and nights out when I first started work, and I didn’t have a mortgage until I was 28, or a child until I was 32 - I don’t regret a second of it.

Casdon

Jaxjacky

Gosh, fancy not being at all frivolous, my life would be duller with no frivolity, shared with friends and family.
Each to their own.

Totally agree Jaxjacky I still love lots of frivolity in my life. I used to blow all my wages on clothes, records, holidays and nights out when I first started work, and I didn’t have a mortgage until I was 28, or a child until I was 32 - I don’t regret a second of it.

I still think I got married far too young, should have jumped on a yacht and sailed round the world for a few years 😁
But perhaps, having enjoyed years of frivolity (and study and work - I wasn't totally frivolous) I was ready to settle and start saving.
And not having a family for a few years meant we could both enjoy a social life too 🙂

Casdon

Jaxjacky

Gosh, fancy not being at all frivolous, my life would be duller with no frivolity, shared with friends and family.
Each to their own.

Totally agree Jaxjacky I still love lots of frivolity in my life. I used to blow all my wages on clothes, records, holidays and nights out when I first started work, and I didn’t have a mortgage until I was 28, or a child until I was 32 - I don’t regret a second of it.

I moved to London when I was 19. I managed to spend my monthly salary after the first week, having paid rent etc and would always run out and so ended up working in the evenings as well. I worked behind a bar and then in an art house in Upper Regent Street - the Cameo Poly if anyone remembers it.
I also worked during my holidays once at Richard Seifert (architect who built Centre Point) as a tea lady and then assisting a Cordon Bleu cook who did directors lunches.
But, I did go to a lot of concerts, also a lot of exhibitions and gigs in clubs.4
It would have been impossible to save for a deposit, or have taken more years than I care to think about, but I enjoyed my young life in London very much.
Like most others my age living in London we did not buy a house until we were 32, at which point all spending went out of the window because all our money went on the house. We didn't go out, apart from visits to friends for a weekly bath for at least one year, if not longer. We had a cold water tap and a kitchen sink so we boiled kettles the rest of the time.

I too would not have missed a second of it.

Norah you are exceptional to have married and had children so young. Presumably your chance for freedom and frivolity came later when your children were grown up and we were bringing our children up, with all the limitations that places on one.

Thanks Doodledog for the explanation about contracting out of part of the state pension.

It is nice to know that the UK government has not shafted me and that the contracted out pension earnings (COPE) have simply been transferred to my private pension which I am receiving now. I have written to the DWP pension service asking for further clarification.

I have not decided yet, but I might buy back an extra £100 per month (before tax) of state pension. I understand the deadline is now 31st July 2023.

I also have an overseas pension but it is tied up in a property which I am currently renting out since you can use the state pension to buy a property there.

growstuff

I don't trust what David Hencke writes about the National Insurance fund and WASPI women. I believe he was paid by WASPI at one stage to write for them.

The NI fund has never been ring-fenced for pensions. NICs and taxes all get lumped together and the bills are paid. There have been times when the amount allocated for pensions hasn't been enough and vice versa. The 2011 changes to women's pension ages were never to do with saving money. If women live to the average age expectancy, they'll receive the same - and more, of course, if they live longer.

Nevertheless, I agree with Chardy. Performance at work does decline for many as they get older and I just don't think it's right that people should have to do paid work until they drop. People in low paid jobs are more likely to be exhausted and to die earlier, so are the ones who would be most affected by a further rise in the SP age. As I've already pointed out, younger people are already paying considerably more in NICs and deserve better. One way or the other, money needs to be found to maintain the current SP age.

If the government really feels it needs to raise money, it could abolish the higher rate tax exemptions on pension contributions for high earners and/or charge pensioners a means-tested health tax.

www.cedawinlaw.com/rising-like-a-phoenix

Surely the sensible thing is to have a flexible pension age that recognises that some occupations do wear people out early and that some people have health problems that means they can no longer work.

If we had a retirement age of 70, we could have a decade before that when people could be medically retired onto the same pension as they would have at 70.

How could you define the occupations which wear people out? They may do so physically or mentally. If mentally, it is more likely to be the level at which one works than the occupation per se. I don’t see how that is workable.

There is no need to define the professions. If it can be shown that for reasons of health, whether those are work induced or just general health decay, someone is no longer capable of holding down a job, in the decade before retirement, then they will be retired, granted a state pension and will no longer have to keep going through the need to prove they cannot work to get state aid, as they do at present.

Germanshepherdsmum

How could you define the occupations which wear people out? They may do so physically or mentally. If mentally, it is more likely to be the level at which one works than the occupation per se. I don’t see how that is workable.

Do you mean the impact of a lack of autonomy on one’s mental health, Germanshepherdsmum, there’s some interesting research about that? It probably would support the earlier retirement of people in unskilled roles, who also do manual work which is physically draining over the long term.

M0nica

There is no need to define the professions. If it can be shown that for reasons of health, whether those are work induced or just general health decay, someone is no longer capable of holding down a job, in the decade before retirement, then they will be retired, granted a state pension and will no longer have to keep going through the need to prove they cannot work to get state aid, as they do at present.

* M0nica* sorry there would need to be a complete sea change in the way Pensions and benefits are administered for that to happen and there is no certainty that someone medically retiring at 60 would get the same pension if they worked until they were 70 as you seem to think

The fact that a majorr change of attitudes is necessary, doesn't mean that it cannot happen. Not that long ago the thought of same sex marriage would have been unthinkable, and we have survived the sea change that saw that.

Nobody can. Silly notion.

Germanshepherdsmum

How could you define the occupations which wear people out? They may do so physically or mentally. If mentally, it is more likely to be the level at which one works than the occupation per se. I don’t see how that is workable.

Nobody can. Too many variables. Silly notion.

Oooops, didn't quote this post on last attempt, sorry, double post.

M0nica

The fact that a majorr change of attitudes is necessary, doesn't mean that it cannot happen. Not that long ago the thought of same sex marriage would have been unthinkable, and we have survived the sea change that saw that.

But same sex marriages didn't cost the country millions, didn't effect the way people claim benefits and /or pensions, it is not a question of attitude but of legislation it will not be a question of claiming benefits or pensions, I can tell you countless ways legislation would have to change without thinking about it

Chakotay But change of atitudes is entirely different from not being able to afford. There could be a universal change of attitude that accepts the idea of a variable retirement age and is keen to see it in place, but it isn't introduced because we cannot afford it.

I think 65/66 is about right. Some people will choose to work beyond SPA, but others will be too ill to carry on until 65/66. Some jobs already have an early retirement age, which is why contributions to pension schemes are higher than average.

Rather than coming up with some formula based on jobs, people themselves should have the choice. Life expectancy has increased, but the age of health living hasn't. I think we should revert to the old system, where people over 60 could opt to claim unemployment or sick benefit, but the requirement to seek full time work was relaxed, so people didn't get hassled by job coaches. The unemployment element of UC is less than half of the state pension, but it would mean that those who just can't work any more would have some transition pay. Sickness benefits are more, so anybody who's ill could claim something more like the state pension.

M0nica

Chakotay But change of atitudes is entirely different from not being able to afford. There could be a universal change of attitude that accepts the idea of a variable retirement age and is keen to see it in place, but it isn't introduced because we cannot afford it.

M0nica peoples attitudes tends to be coloured by what they get or think they can get out of any situation people under current state pension would want it as they will be the ones to benefit from it, people already over state pension who have had to work the extra years will have a different attitude - there will never ever be a universal attitude when anything about pensions when everyone is different.