Rise in Pension Age

those living in the Channel Islands live longer

Jersey attracts very wealthy people as residents. Perhaps that helps with longevity?

Gin Looking in people's trolleys in supermarkets is no guide to what they eat, only what they buy in supermarkets.

You will see very little fruit and veg, bread or meat in my supermarket trolley because I buy those items in the local market, farm shop and bakery and many people shop between supermarkets for different food stuffs. All a supermarket trolley shows you is what food people buy in that particular supermarket.

Katie59 Speak for yourself. I am not overweight, drink very little and neither I nor my son and family feed our children (of any age) junk food and I take plenty of exercise. This week, at a few months short of 80 I walked up three flights of stairs at my local hosiptal at a reasonable speed with no breaks. Ceiling heights were high and their were three sets of staircase between each floor.

So are the people arguing that those not blessed with good health have brought it on themselves also suggesting that they should get their pension early?

The government actuaries work on the idea that nobody should be retired for more than a third of their lives. The idle beer-swigging fag-puffing pie-eater in my earlier post is likely to have reached the two-thirds life-expectancy mark at 40 or so. Given the extra tax involved in that lifestyle is there a case to be made for his (or her) getting a pension then? That seems logical to me.

Doodledog So are the people arguing that those not blessed with good health have brought it on themselves also suggesting that they should get their pension early?

Of course not. Earlier pensions would lead to more women "stirring tea" - longer. Not that taking care to spouse is a real retirement factor anyway.

And "blessed with good health" is in many instances a matter of choices. Not always, of course, but generally watching one's diet, exercising daily for a substantial time, moderating drinking and smoking - all do contribute.

Sunak has obviously seen the disorder on France about retirement ages. After the local elections he might think again. Would Labour increase the retirement age?

What no one is mentioning is that as we all live longer and longer, if we do not increase the retirement age we are placing an immense burden on those in work who will be paying the taxes that fund peoples pensions.

I saw somewhere in the past week that unless the French government increases the pension age well above 64, they could reach a situation where there will be one pensioner to every 2 taxpayers, who will have to pay enough tax to fund the generous French pension, plus all the other government expenditure.

. . . generally watching one's diet, exercising daily for a substantial time, moderating drinking and smoking - all do contribute.
Yes, which is why it would make logical sense for them to get a pension earlier than those who have not moderated. Cigarettes and alcohol are heavily taxed, so smokers and drinkers have paid more in, and will get a pension for fewer years on average.

It seems that there is confusion on this thread. On the one hand people are saying that the pension age should be raised as we live longer, yet on the other that we are a nation of slobs who don't look after ourselves, and will die early. I don't really understand the comment about women having pensions for longer being a bad thing - this thread is about the pension age for both sexes.

I think Pensions should and do act on the law of averages, there is no alternative. On average longevity is whatever it is and the pensionable age and amount available to pay for pensions should be based on that.

Of course some people will benefit more than others. It is like house insurance, we all take it out in case there is emergency but I have yet to hear someone complain that they didn't do as well as a friend because the friend's house was destroyed by fire and theirs wasn't.

Doodledog

*. . . generally watching one's diet, exercising daily for a substantial time, moderating drinking and smoking - all do contribute.*
Yes, which is why it would make logical sense for them to get a pension earlier than those who have not moderated. Cigarettes and alcohol are heavily taxed, so smokers and drinkers have paid more in, and will get a pension for fewer years on average.

It seems that there is confusion on this thread. On the one hand people are saying that the pension age should be raised as we live longer, yet on the other that we are a nation of slobs who don't look after ourselves, and will die early. I don't really understand the comment about women having pensions for longer being a bad thing - this thread is about the pension age for both sexes.

It is a confusing thread.

I state believe pension age will need to approach 70 soon, to just be able to pay out the pensions on the number of those paying in. Could be wrong. And that will be neutral for people who have taken care of their health.

Do you receive a state pension Norah? How many years did you work outside the home before you received yours?

I accept that the state pension age has had to increase. Like myself and my husband, folks who want to retire or semi-retire early will need to have a private pension to bridge the gap or benefits if unable to work. BUT I am angry that the government penalise us for having invested in said private pension, reducing the state pension. It makes no sense to me.

The government doesn't reduce the state pension if you have a private pension. Do you mean an occupational pension? In which case, you paid lower NI contributions at the time. Younger people with occupational pensions no longer pay reduced contributions, so will receive their state pensions and occupational pensions in full - provided they live that long.

I too have issues with government on certain issues too, but saying they are killing us off is just silly. Life expectancy has increased over the last 20 years, my mother died mid fifties, my husband at 60. Both appearing fit and healthy until nature took its course. Are you saying it was a bad lifestyle choice, no it wasn't, just bad luck, if you think cancer chooses you because of your lifestyle well it doesn't. Think yourself lucky if you live long enough to get a state pension, if you have payed in. What about the children's hospitals full of children fighting serious illness, is it their life style? Ridiculous. Be glad it's you still drawing your pension instead of moaning your still here to get it.

I think that sometimes people like to tell themselves that illness is self-inflicted as it gives them a feeling of control over their own lives- 'it can't happen to me as I live on lentils and walk 100 miles a day' (or at least 'if it does happen to me I am blameless, unlike that lot over there'). Also, there is a personality type that enjoys looking down on others.

Of course there are things we can all do to stay healthier, such as eat well, don't smoke/drink/take recreational drugs, and we can refrain from extreme sport, childbirth, occupations that involve danger, driving, and avoiding travel other than on foot and off-road and so on. Unfortunately, one choice sometimes contradicts another, so that avoiding (eg) rugby can protect from head injuries or spinal damage, but lead to obesity, or diverting emergency service personnel into desk jobs could save on treating their occupational injuries but lead to more in the people they would have saved. How do we balance the risks of sedentary occupations against those of heavy manual work?

Tax from sugar, alcohol and tobacco funds a lot of research and other benefits, but drinking, smoking and eating disorders cost the NHS money and can lead to early death. As we know, people can smoke and drink for decades and live to a ripe old age in good health, but equally, non-smoking teetotallers some can get lung or liver disease. We know what increases the risk of various diseases, but they can contradict one another (ie reduce the likelihood of one thing, but increase the chances of getting something else), and in any case, isn't people dying young a good thing if we are suggesting that we live too long to get a pension when we are young enough to enjoy it?

Statistically, it is poorer people who are more likely to be fat, to smoke and to drink too much (thus paying a lot of tax on their lifestyle choices), They are more likely to have started paying in at a younger age if they left school in their teens, and are also more likely to have to work longer at more physically demanding jobs than the better off. I don't know the figures for gym membership, but some of them are expensive, so I'd guess that again, they are disproportionately taken up by the better off, who retire earlier anyway.

Again, I'm not sure what any of this has to do with pensions, which should, IMO be a straightforward financial quid pro quo, but as we have strayed into the territory of health, isn't it better to have a system where we all pay in and we all get treated when we need it, without judgement about whether we were 'responsible' for our condition? I think it was someone's son saying that as a medic he judged that most of his patients were guilty of causing their own illnesses that moved the discussion to a point where (I assume) largely non-experts are sitting in judgement too. It's much more complex than that, even if it had anything to do with state pensions, which it doesn't - unlike with occupational pensions you can't claim them on the grounds of ill-health.

growstuff

Do you receive a state pension Norah? How many years did you work outside the home before you received yours?

No I don't, I have never worked outside my home.

Norah

growstuff

Do you receive a state pension Norah? How many years did you work outside the home before you received yours?

No I don't, I have never worked outside my home.

So you don't really have the same experience as those in their mid 60s who are still hanging on at work, possibly despite health issues, who would love to retire but can't afford retirement without the state pension.

Nor does anyone who retired before pension age was raised. Such as me (and I worked for some years after receiving my state pension despite longstanding health issues). Such as many on GN. Why be so deliberately goady and unpleasant?

growstuff

Norah

growstuff

Do you receive a state pension Norah? How many years did you work outside the home before you received yours?

No I don't, I have never worked outside my home.

So you don't really have the same experience as those in their mid 60s who are still hanging on at work, possibly despite health issues, who would love to retire but can't afford retirement without the state pension.

I have plenty of life experience, thank you.

I've always worked hard, albeit at home.

Plenty of people have been made redundant in their 50s, before pension age, plenty of people have decided to be sahp and have no pension.

Doesn't mean that they don't know other people or understand that the pension system can't last as it is with fewer young paying in.

I work as a Care Assistant in a residential home. The way the Government keep increasing the state pension age, I will end up retiring from work on a Friday, having a retirement party on the Saturday night with a disco, buffet and alcoholic drinks. Then spending all day Sunday packing my suitcases, ready for a taxi to pick me up. NOT to take me to the airport for a holiday, but to take me back to the same residential home where I will move in as a resident!

Plenty of people have done all the childcare/running a house without help and worked fill-time all their lives, often as single parents. I don't think you really have any idea what that's like and how much such people would love to be able to afford to retire.

Norah, did you ever get family allowance/child benefit? If so, you may be entitled to some state pension.

growstuff

Plenty of people have done all the childcare/running a house without help and worked fill-time all their lives, often as single parents. I don't think you really have any idea what that's like and how much such people would love to be able to afford to retire.

It’s not just single parents that are run ragged with childcare and work growstuff

Siope

*Norah*, did you ever get family allowance/child benefit? If so, you may be entitled to some state pension.

I think this must be happening to my pension forecast, as the figure is higher than I thought it would be. Not complaining!

GrannyGravy13

growstuff

Plenty of people have done all the childcare/running a house without help and worked fill-time all their lives, often as single parents. I don't think you really have any idea what that's like and how much such people would love to be able to afford to retire.

It’s not just single parents that are run ragged with childcare and work growstuff

Don't forget, too, that some of us were juggling all that with caring for elderly parents too.
Some of us were on our own for long periods too as not everyone's partner/husband who worked in a 9-5 job.

Nurseries? No such thing.

GrannyGravy13

growstuff

Plenty of people have done all the childcare/running a house without help and worked fill-time all their lives, often as single parents. I don't think you really have any idea what that's like and how much such people would love to be able to afford to retire.

It’s not just single parents that are run ragged with childcare and work growstuff

I never said it was!

However, it would appear that some people think that running is a household is the same as a full-time job. How can it be, when some people look after their children without any outside help, manage their home, look after elderly parents while working full-time?

Maybe people who do all the above deserve two pensions or to retire earlier!