[Politics] UK state pension age will soon need to rise to 71, say experts

[BrightonCottager]

Isn’t it 67 for those born after April 1960?

I was born a few months after then and my SPA is 66 and 3 months. You can check yours here

 

[Paulie Gualtieri]

Life expectancy has plateaued and for women is beginning to reduce (as a result of ill health) but it appears that the study assumes this to be temporary.

Incidentally, you can check your average life expectancy here.

The main issue in this study is increasing poor health which is related to poverty and needs to be tackled by another Government. Redistributive wealth taxes and an increase in the working population through increased immigration (which it appears the Government is doing) could help to keep the pension age down in the shorter term.

Nice to know I’ve served exactly 50% of my expectancy, also my kids will have an average of 3 extra years, the ungrateful shits!

 

[BNthree]

It depends on the job, doesn't it?

A desk job with flexitime and remote working? Sure, you could work to 70 and beyond. But a scaffolder or primary school teacher? Bit trickier.

Exactly the point I was going to make. Gets harder to switch careers and maintain same income level as you get older unless you are minimum wage to start with.

 

[beorhthelm]

Are you familiar with maths?
Britain creates more wealth now. Tax is lower - top rate under Thatcher was 90%

are you familiar with budgets? the spending you cite is for multi-year projects, mostly on rail infrastucture, and response to a crisis - do you not want spending on either of these? meanwhile every year we currently spend £1140bn (or, £1.1 trillion), including £200bn pensions, quite a lot. total tax revenue is the highest since 1960's, largely on increased corporation tax, lowering capital gains, increased income tax on higher rates from static allowances.

 

[BLOCK F]

I think the fella making the leftist rant had a point.

Yes we're paying more in taxes, but we need to because a) Health and social security costs are going up much faster than inflation b) Inequality has risen massively in the last 30 years, especially in the last 5 years. So more of our wealth is held by fewer people who don't pay a lot of tax, so you and I need to pay more

A quick Google shows that the top 10% of taxpayers paid 60% of all income tax in 2023/24, up from 35% in 1978/79. The share of income tax revenue contributed by the top 1% of taxpayers rose from11% in 1978/79 to 29% in 2023/24.
That is a fair old chunk.

 

[nickbrighton]

There is no simple solution to this, the simple fact is, that when set up the state pension would kick in on retirement, and be paid for 5-10 years. The % of the population claiming the pension at any time was a fraction of what it is now.

Now people retire and can expect 15-25 years claiming pension, while the birthrate is falling, and so the % of people supporting the growing number of pensioners is less

The previous system of the current working population supporting the current pensioners simply isnt viable in that form for the long term

When my grandparents were my age (early 60s) they were "old" , living past 70 was seen as a good innings, now 60s is viewed as middle aged, and not making it past 75 is seen as dying young

The solution will be a mixture of measures, working till older, tax, personal pensions etc

Itrs simply not realistic to say we should be able to retire at 65 and have a state pension for the next 20 plus years, it would be nice but simply isnt viable

Whether we like it or not things simply have to change

 

[hans kraay fan club]

Something has to give. Pushing up the retirement age is one solution, means testing (but not abolishing) the state pension is another. There are others.

 

[vegster]

I'm 3 years off my revised retirement age of 66 years 6 months. I intend to live as long as possible milking my State Pension simply because the government has had no problem milking me for my entire working life. Apart from 6 weeks unemployed in 1977 and Child Benefit for my daughter I have always been a net contributor to the state....now its payback, literally.

 

[Flounce]

View attachment 174848

Has Jenny been put down yet?

 

[Comrade Sam]

are you familiar with budgets? the spending you cite is for multi-year projects, mostly on rail infrastucture, and response to a crisis - do you not want spending on either of these? meanwhile every year we currently spend £1140bn (or, £1.1 trillion), including £200bn pensions, quite a lot. total tax revenue is the highest since 1960's, largely on increased corporation tax, lowering capital gains, increased income tax on higher rates from static allowances.

On bullshit projects, also increased arms and funneling of money from public sector to inflated private sector. We spend more funding privatised railways than when they were nationalised. Nearly every time you have an NHS appointment the money goes to a private clinic. Tax revenue has increased from the majority and that is on top of increased population paying tax and inflation. I've seen how these budgets grow in education, slightly more money whilst all the services once supplied for free by local authorities are now bought from private companies. You can fiscal me government tosh all you want, the fact remains the very rich are getting very richer and pay feck all tax as a percentage. We are living in a world created by the victories of Thatcherism and neo liberalism, a very uneven one. Vast numbers of poverty, homelessness, food banks and joke zero hours pay.
I hope you've got a nice fat pension to justify your love of the status quo.

 

[Comrade Sam]

A quick Google shows that the top 10% of taxpayers paid 60% of all income tax in 2023/24, up from 35% in 1978/79. The share of income tax revenue contributed by the top 1% of taxpayers rose from11% in 1978/79 to 29% in 2023/24.
That is a fair old chunk.

However, the percentage they earn is actually far greater and imagine how much tax revenue we would have if they were taxed at the same rates as in the 1970s.

 

[Simster]

There is no simple solution to this, the simple fact is, that when set up the state pension would kick in on retirement, and be paid for 5-10 years. The % of the population claiming the pension at any time was a fraction of what it is now.

Now people retire and can expect 15-25 years claiming pension, while the birthrate is falling, and so the % of people supporting the growing number of pensioners is less

The previous system of the current working population supporting the current pensioners simply isnt viable in that form for the long term

When my grandparents were my age (early 60s) they were "old" , living past 70 was seen as a good innings, now 60s is viewed as middle aged, and not making it past 75 is seen as dying young

The solution will be a mixture of measures, working till older, tax, personal pensions etc

Itrs simply not realistic to say we should be able to retire at 65 and have a state pension for the next 20 plus years, it would be nice but simply isnt viable

Whether we like it or not things simply have to change

Unlike @nickbrighton above, I think there is a simple solution - just raise the retirement age.

I'm left of centre, but this idea that we can continue to expect to pay for people to be in retirement for half of the typical adult life is for the birds.
Back in the day, people would retire at 60 but typically pass away before they were 70. Well that's a nonsense now isn't it? The sort of person who puts money away for a comfortable retirement is also likely to have looked after themselves in the hope/expectation that they'll live well beyond 80.

Average life expectancy is 80 for men. 84 for women, up five years from 20 years ago and 70/76 40 years ago when retirement age was 60/65. So now, retirement age should be 68 at the very least. We can't realistically support people for more than 10-12 of retirement IMO.

 

[Simster]

A quick Google shows that the top 10% of taxpayers paid 60% of all income tax in 2023/24, up from 35% in 1978/79. The share of income tax revenue contributed by the top 1% of taxpayers rose from11% in 1978/79 to 29% in 2023/24.
That is a fair old chunk.

It's interesting, but doesn't take into account the change in distribution of wealth in that time.

The top 10% had 26.5% of the wealth in the UK in 1970. That percentage had risen to 38.7% in 2013.

 

[peterward]

Are you familiar with maths?
Britain creates more wealth now. Tax is lower - top rate under Thatcher was 90%
We are now the money laundering and tax haven capital of the world.
The gap between rich and poor is at its greatest, yet was at its narrowest in the early 1970s, during my lifetime. The vast majority of everything we all create ends up in the pockets of very few of us. There's enough for us all to have decent pensions, schools, hospitals, houses etc.
In the last 5 years alone those whom I'm not allowed to blame have spunked over £44b on HS2,
£12b on Smart meters, £18.8b on crossrail, £37b Track and trace, a basic estimate of £40b in lost revenue due to Brexit, useless PPE £8.7b,
Lost through COVID fraud £21b and on and on it goes. And none of this includes the billions cut in taxes for those at the very top of society. All the benefit and pay cuts barely measure against these giveaways.
Why don't you give me a trope about the boats, teenage vapers or benefit claimants.
We are approaching a Sri Lankan model and they discovered if you don't tax the rich you literally run out of money.

Yes I'm familiar with Maths, use it everyday in my work, how about your good self?

I don't disagree with a lot of the egregious waste examples you rightly cite (in retrospect), many did seem reasonable at conception, others were pure cock ups, though I could throw loads more from previous Labour governments too, it doesnt prove anything except bad governance. And I'm not personally wedded to a single political party, or viewpoint.

I'll try and avoid politicising and hope to give at least food for thought.

Ideologically should the wealthiest pay more in taxes? Yes.

Is this the cause of the UK pensions crisis? No.

I'll take your word for highest rate taxes under Thatcher, but that was 40 odd years ago and this is now 2024, not 1984. Tax rates are not as important as tax income and that's the balancing act that all governments face, encouraging or discouraging investment. I couldn't care if its 90% or 10% for millionaires ideologically. What is the rate that brings most benefit to exchequer (public finances)/economy?

If you want an example in 2024, look across the Irish Sea, Ireland has one of the lowest corporation taxes in Europe, attracting all sorts of "thieves" as you put it, and yet its NHS is better funded, is ahead of ours. It has a retirement age of 66, no social care problems, with no plans to increase age and most importantly it runs a budget surplus each year, often approaching 10B or 2% of its GDP.

Of course Ireland is a quite heavily deregulated, low tax economy, more akin to the Singapore on thames approach that simply doest fit with many political viewpoints, nor class warfare advocates.

But whilst that may truly be politically unpalatable it isnt economically unviable.

What clearly isn't working is UKs half arsed mid rate tax system, managed decline and can kicking. Something which Starmer seems to want to roll over and keep as is.

 

[El Presidente]

Nice to know I’ve served exactly 50% of my expectancy, also my kids will have an average of 3 extra years, the ungrateful shits!

if they were Palace fans they would be cursing you for inflicting three more years of misery (and buying black hoodies) onto them.

 

[vegster]

Unlike @nickbrighton above, I think there is a simple solution - just raise the retirement age.

I'm left of centre, but this idea that we can continue to expect to pay for people to be in retirement for half of the typical adult life is for the birds.
Back in the day, people would retire at 60 but typically pass away before they were 70. Well that's a nonsense now isn't it? The sort of person who puts money away for a comfortable retirement is also likely to have looked after themselves in the hope/expectation that they'll live well beyond 80.

Average life expectancy is 80 for men. 84 for women, up five years from 20 years ago and 70/76 40 years ago when retirement age was 60/65. So now, retirement age should be 68 at the very least. We can't realistically support people for more than 10-12 of retirement IMO.

The government has very quietly set about reducing life expectancy in the last 12 years or so, poor diet, dwindling NHS dentistry and ever increasing waiting lists for NHS treatment is starting to take its toll. Scurvy, Rickets and Measles on the rise oh and falling vaccination rates thanks to all the vaccine deniers/looneys are all taking their toll. i think the highest average life expectancy has been reached.

 

[Eric the meek]

A financial adviser once asked me something that has stuck with me ever since.

'Do you trust future governments to provide for you in your old age?'

The obvious answer is 'no', so you should make your own provision for your own retirement.
Any state pension when you reach state retirement age, will then be a nice bonus.

 

[El Presidente]

Yes I'm familiar with Maths, use it everyday in my work, how about your good self?

I don't disagree with a lot of the egregious waste examples you rightly cite (in retrospect), many did seem reasonable at conception, others were pure cock ups, though I could throw loads more from previous Labour governments too, it doesnt prove anything except bad governance. And I'm not personally wedded to a single political party, or viewpoint.

I'll try and avoid politicising and hope to give at least food for thought.

Ideologically should the wealthiest pay more in taxes? Yes.

Is this the cause of the UK pensions crisis? No.

I'll take your word for highest rate taxes under Thatcher, but that was 40 odd years ago and this is now 2024, not 1984. Tax rates are not as important as tax income and that's the balancing act that all governments face, encouraging or discouraging investment. I couldn't care if its 90% or 10% for millionaires ideologically. What is the rate that brings most benefit to exchequer (public finances)/economy?

If you want an example in 2024, look across the Irish Sea, Ireland has one of the lowest corporation taxes in Europe, attracting all sorts of "thieves" as you put it, and yet its NHS is better funded, is ahead of ours. It has a retirement age of 66, no social care problems, with no plans to increase age and most importantly it runs a budget surplus each year, often approaching 10B or 2% of its GDP.

Of course Ireland is a quite heavily deregulated, low tax economy, more akin to the Singapore on thames approach that simply doest fit with many political viewpoints, nor class warfare advocates.

But whilst that may truly be politically unpalatable it isnt economically unviable.

What clearly isn't working is UKs half arsed mid rate tax system, managed decline and can kicking. Something which Starmer seems to want to roll over and keep as is.

Not disagreeing with all of what you say but my mum is 86 and lives in Ireland, the healthcare and social care system there is shite.

Part of the pensions problem in the UK is the cost of the triple lock, it's political suicide for any party to address it (old codgers are also voters after all), but it is not sustainable unless life expcectancy falls faster or government revenues rise.

 

[Simster]

The government has very quietly set about reducing life expectancy in the last 12 years or so, poor diet, dwindling NHS dentistry and ever increasing waiting lists for NHS treatment is starting to take its toll. Scurvy, Rickets and Measles on the rise oh and falling vaccination rates thanks to all the vaccine deniers/looneys are all taking their toll. i think the highest average life expectancy has been reached.

Yes that's a different discussion and one I agree with you on. This government has done nothing for its people. Indeed, they are the worst government I think I will ever witness.

But if we accept that life expectancy ought to be over 80, then my wider point stands. We are not Norway, we don't have an oil tap to support an aging population unless that population is happy to work for longer. I think retirement age needs to be around 12 years before the average life expectancy.

 

[Spiros]

the pension age is currently gone up to 67 for those born after 1970, 68 for those born after 1978. there's going to be no change here. maybe those born after 1990 might lose another year. people live longer, and retire earlier, not that the article makes much of this. we're getting to point of more people retired than working.

Where are you getting that from? I was born in 1965 but won’t get state pension until 67