Rise in retirement age proposed for UK

[Eldorado]

"The state pension age should be raised to 75 within the next 16 years to help boost the UK economy, according to a Tory think tank.

"In a new report, the Centre for Social Justice (CSJ) has proposed an increase of the pension age to 70 by 2028 and 75 by 2035.

"The pension age is already set to increase to 67 by 2028 and to 68 by 2046 – but the organisation, co-founded by former Conservative leader and work and pensions secretary Iain Duncan-Smith, wants to see a faster increase."

Full monty at the UK Independent: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/state-pension-age-rise-conservatives-think-tank-centre-for-social-justice-a9064071.html

And at the Telegraph: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/08/17/raising-pension-age-75-would-create-182bn-boost-british-economy/

[Habitat]

So long as parliamentary pensions kick in at 70, that might be fairer, but some of these fleas are getting pensions in middle age.

[freetoroam]

Have they lost more pension money because of a bad overseas investment..again? 

I was asked to op into the new scheme, I have refused. I will invest my own money.

I am paying national insurance so they will have to give me something, the rest I will take care for by myself. 

I think I am just as, if not more capable of spotting the money grabbing thieves than the government. 

The whole pension thing is an absolute scam. 

Stop sending aid to other countries and keep the money here for the older generation who may need it. 

The government want us to pay into their pension schemes, they then hope if they put the age up, you will die before you get any back. 

[spartan max2]

In the U.S it's currently at 67. Who knows what it will be at by the time I get there. 

[stevewinn]

The pension age should be coming down. What a waste of life work is. We get this one and only shot giving our best youthful years. Only to retire in a worn out and dilapidated state with aches and pains. Retirement age should be age 50, With 30+ years of lesuire. (retirement) some sort of finacial system should be set up to make that possible. 30 years of work and contributions should be enough to cover the latter 30 years. But somehow it's not. 

30 years work = age 20 to 50.

30 years of retirement. = age 50 to 80. 

Maybe NI contributions and employer contributions should be retained in the individuals account. Not touched. Instead of the Govt spending it. And then making the next generation pay for the short fall. With the consequence of not only them making up the shortfall but making them work longer for their own pension. 

System needs fixing. 

 

 

 

[RAyMO]

5 hours ago, Eldorado said:

"The state pension age should be raised to 75 within the next 16 years to help boost the UK economy, according to a Tory think tank.

Is this preparing us to do away with the pension altogether. Whats UK life expectancy - 82 or something and stalled. 75 within 16 years and 85 with 30 is probably what the burgers (SIC) are planning.

Edited August 18, 2019 by RAyMO

[Tatetopa]

When Social Security was instituted in the US by FDR in 1935, the retirement age was 65.  The average life expectancy in the US was 61.  Get the joke?  The system was solvent because most people didn't live to claim very much of it.

How much money do you have to invest over the course of your working life to live comfortably for another 30 years?  Probably more than the 10% or so  the US taxes take from the employer and employee..

Basically, retirement is not a matter of age, it is a matter of money.  With enough money you can retire at 30, and spend the next 50 years enjoying it.

  

[Black Red Devil]

Bad sign when a country starts picking on pensions to boost it's economy.

[Black Red Devil]

On 8/19/2019 at 12:59 AM, stevewinn said:

The pension age should be coming down. What a waste of life work is. We get this one and only shot giving our best youthful years. Only to retire in a worn out and dilapidated state with aches and pains. Retirement age should be age 50, With 30+ years of lesuire. (retirement) some sort of finacial system should be set up to make that possible. 30 years of work and contributions should be enough to cover the latter 30 years. But somehow it's not. 

30 years work = age 20 to 50.

30 years of retirement. = age 50 to 80. 

Maybe NI contributions and employer contributions should be retained in the individuals account. Not touched. Instead of the Govt spending it. And then making the next generation pay for the short fall. With the consequence of not only them making up the shortfall but making them work longer for their own pension. 

System needs fixing. 

 

 

 

Love your suggestion but for your solution to work a country would need to have a higher birth rate to replenish the retirees which most Westerners don't produce because of many factors but most of all because of social economic reasons.  Countries with high middle class populations have low birth rates because people don't want to throw their lives away growing kids, 1 or 2 are usually enough and that probably wouldn't suffice for your solution, so either have more kids or bring in the migrants......

That's right, I didn't think you liked that second option.

Edited August 20, 2019 by Black Red Devil

[+and-then]

56 minutes ago, Black Red Devil said:

That's right, I didn't think you liked that second option.

Migrants who come willing and ABLE to work and help support the system have never been the problem.  A flood tide of humanity with its hand out demanding subsidy is quite another, wouldn't you say?

[Black Red Devil]

27 minutes ago, and then said:

Migrants who come willing and ABLE to work and help support the system have never been the problem.  A flood tide of humanity with its hand out demanding subsidy is quite another, wouldn't you say?

Sure and also picking and choosing where they 'legally' immigrate from, based on their race, is usually called racism. Doesn't apply to the Brexiteer aficionados anyway because they didn't want any immigrants.

[stevewinn]

7 hours ago, Black Red Devil said:

Love your suggestion but for your solution to work a country would need to have a higher birth rate to replenish the retirees which most Westerners don't produce because of many factors but most of all because of social economic reasons.  Countries with high middle class populations have low birth rates because people don't want to throw their lives away growing kids, 1 or 2 are usually enough and that probably wouldn't suffice for your solution, so either have more kids or bring in the migrants......

That's right, I didn't think you liked that second option.

think outside the box and not what you've been told to believe.

[Unusual Tournament]

1 hour ago, stevewinn said:

think outside the box and not what you've been told to believe.

Thats not a real answer. The sustainability of a pension system is dependent on a sufficient contributions. As great as your idea is the simple fact is that it would be impossible to fund a pension system for 30 years in order to live off it for the next 30 while funding government for 60 years. 

Great idea either way. Put your name on a ballot. You have the hallmarks of a successful politician. 

Edited August 20, 2019 by Captain Risky

[Black Red Devil]

2 hours ago, stevewinn said:

think outside the box and not what you've been told to believe.

You must be mistaking me for someone who falls for wild agendas.  I look at facts first.

[stevewinn]

2 hours ago, Captain Risky said:

Thats not a real answer. The sustainability of a pension system is dependent on a sufficient contributions. As great as your idea is the simple fact is that it would be impossible to fund a pension system for 30 years in order to live off it for the next 30 while funding government for 60 years. 

Great idea either way. Put your name on a ballot. You have the hallmarks of a successful politician. 

Not impossible, trouble is an individuals (state) pension contributions are not saved by the Govt but spent. which then means as a person reaches pensionable age the Govt is reliant on contributions from a younger person entering work environment in essence covering the retirees already spent pension. trouble is govts in the western world get elected by promising jam tomorrow. as such a catch 22 situation has now arisen. Govt is spending a percentage of the pension money not on pensions but other areas of govt spending. Moving forward the govt has seen its unsustainable and made strides to correct the pension situation, by employers now automatically enrolling their employees in a pension scheme.

The way forward is for govt to stop spending peoples contributions and instead let the contributions build up with compounded interest over the lifetime of that persons contributions. the easiest way to explain it is, its like having a savings account in which you cannot withdraw funds until retirement age. but the key point is the money is there, not like what happens now were the money is spent and the next generation pays for the one before it to cover it. 

My state pension retirement age is 68. (yet i'll reach my full contribution limit by age 59, but the govt will keep on taking my contributions obviously this money wont be going towards my pension but others) This is why i will retire at age 56. (I'll pay the three remaining years contribution 56 to 59 to ensure i get a FULL state pension at age 68) but my private and works pension kicks in at 56 years. this will cover me for 12 years till 68. when I'll be in receipt of three pensions. giving me a combined income of just £10 less than of my current weekly 37.5hr a wage.

impossible you say. okay.

 

 

 

Edited August 20, 2019 by stevewinn

[Duke Wellington]

On 8/18/2019 at 4:37 PM, RAyMO said:

Is this preparing us to do away with the pension altogether. Whats UK life expectancy - 82 or something and stalled. 75 within 16 years and 85 with 30 is probably what the burgers (SIC) are planning.

If you remove childhood deaths, deaths from warfare, deaths from alcoholism, deaths from smoking, and deaths from drug abuse, the average life expectancy is 95 for a woman a 92 for a man. That of course also doesnt take into account how newer generations will see medical advances in their lives pushing back that age further.

[+Desertrat56]

On 8/18/2019 at 7:16 AM, spartan max2 said:

In the U.S it's currently at 67. Who knows what it will be at by the time I get there. 

Yes, those born in 1955 can retire with full benefits at 66, those born in 56 -59 can retire with full benefits at 67 & 1/2, after that it creeps up to 70.  I am getting letters now telling me I should wait to retire until I am 70, though I get full benefits at 67 & 1/2.  I don't know what the 1/2 is about.  I am ready to retire now at 63.  Tired of not having time to do what I want because of needing to work to make ends meet.  My dad retired at age 54 from a company he worked for for 35 years.  He had a nice retirement and a company stock plan.  Now we get 401K if we are "lucky", which fluctuates and will never be a real retirement parachute.

[spartan max2]

1 hour ago, Desertrat56 said:

Yes, those born in 1955 can retire with full benefits at 66, those born in 56 -59 can retire with full benefits at 67 & 1/2, after that it creeps up to 70.  I am getting letters now telling me I should wait to retire until I am 70, though I get full benefits at 67 & 1/2.  I don't know what the 1/2 is about.  I am ready to retire now at 63.  Tired of not having time to do what I want because of needing to work to make ends meet.  My dad retired at age 54 from a company he worked for for 35 years.  He had a nice retirement and a company stock plan.  Now we get 401K if we are "lucky", which fluctuates and will never be a real retirement parachute.

I was born in 94, so does that mean I'm in the 67 and a half range, but it's not locked in so they could change it?

[+Desertrat56]

2 minutes ago, spartan max2 said:

I was born in 94, so does that mean I'm in the 67 and a half range, but it's not locked in so they could change it?

No, probably you will be in the 80 + range for full retirement benefits at the rate they are changing things.  I have only paid attention to my age group.  I think you can get information on the social security website. 

I know at some point, I don't know for sure born after 1960 the age is 70.

Edited August 20, 2019 by Desertrat56

[+Desertrat56]

@spartan max2 here is the link. They don't have anything after 1960, but they will.

https://www.ssa.gov/planners/retire/retirechart.html

Edited August 20, 2019 by Desertrat56
forgot link

[XenoFish]

I'll end up working to the day I die. There's no way I can retire.

[aztek]

as population ages it's health issues, and thus mortality rate goes up ,  the idea here is you die before you can claim pension. 

[+Desertrat56]

2 hours ago, XenoFish said:

I'll end up working to the day I die. There's no way I can retire.

That may be my case too, but I have plans to be in a position to retire in 4 years.

[XenoFish]

Just now, Desertrat56 said:

That may be my case too, but I have plans to be in a position to retire in 4 years.

I had 6 digits and change in my saving account. Decided to trust someone even though every instinct told me not to. Now it's gone and I'm quite a bit distrustful of people. So I won't be able to retire. I'll die still working. 

[spartan max2]

6 hours ago, RabidMongoose said:

If you remove childhood deaths, deaths from warfare, deaths from alcoholism, deaths from smoking, and deaths from drug abuse, the average life expectancy is 95 for a woman a 92 for a man. That of course also doesnt take into account how newer generations will see medical advances in their lives pushing back that age further.

That inaccurate unless you are also excluding heart disease , cancer , dementia/Alzheimer's and general accidents