Retiring To Increase To 68 By Tories

[bassett one]

its rumoured to save huge amounts of cash to goverment will announce a increase in the april budget ,soon be 70 plus soon

[The_DADDY]

Just in Sheffield like?

[HeHasRisen]

I just went to the Gov.uk website and punched my date of birth in and it said I would start getting the state pension at the age of 68, so this change has already happened. In fact its been like this since at least 2017

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/proposed-new-timetable-for-state-pension-age-increases

 

Pointless thread.

 

Edited January 24, 2023 by HeHasRisen

[The_DADDY]

10 minutes ago, HeHasRisen said:

I just went to the Gov.uk website and punched my date of birth in and it said I would start getting the state pension at the age of 68, so this change has already happened. In fact its been like this since at least 2017

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/proposed-new-timetable-for-state-pension-age-increases

 

Pointless thread.

 

bassett one should be told....    

THATS MY JOB!!!!!

[HeHasRisen]

All they are doing is dragging the cutoff forward. The days of getting your state pension at 65 are long gone anyway.

[Anna B]

68 is too old to be compelled to work. People age at different rates and many are simply not fit enough or have the energy to do full time jobs. 

And where are the extra jobs to come from? Shouldn't older people be making way for the young?

[HallamGirl]

And let's be honest, this is nothing to do with "the Tories"... the update to the state retirement age has been on the books for ages, I can't be bothered to look it up but I'd guess 10 years for the increase to 67, and the one to update it to 66 for 10 years before that (when Labour were in power). At any rate it's not a clear line in the sand, it's an increase of 1 month in every 2 from about 2026 to 2028... the increase to 68 isn't even in law yet and was scheduled from 2046. It's all down to living longer, so if you want to give up a few years of life so you can have an earlier pension then go for it.

And to think that France is in turmoil because they're proposing an increase from 62 to 64 and nobody wants to pay for it... and this after huge strikes and chaos about 10 years ago when they went (forcibly) from 60 to 62 ! 

[Longcol]

12 minutes ago, HallamGirl said:

And let's be honest, this is nothing to do with "the Tories"... the update to the state retirement age has been on the books for ages, I can't be bothered to look it up but I'd guess 10 years for the increase to 67, and the one to update it to 66 for 10 years before that (when Labour were in power). At any rate it's not a clear line in the sand, it's an increase of 1 month in every 2 from about 2026 to 2028... the increase to 68 isn't even in law yet and was scheduled from 2046. It's all down to living longer, so if you want to give up a few years of life so you can have an earlier pension then go for it.

And to think that France is in turmoil because they're proposing an increase from 62 to 64 and nobody wants to pay for it... and this after huge strikes and chaos about 10 years ago when they went (forcibly) from 60 to 62 ! 

I can - 65 to 66 was 2019/20.

 

https://www.entitledto.co.uk/help/changes-to-state-pension-age#:~:text=Increase in state pension age from 66 to 67&text=Rather than using specific dates,specified number of months below.

 

(Scroll up a page).

Edited January 24, 2023 by Longcol

[HallamGirl]

Well since you piqued me...

 

Pensions Act 1995, 2007 and 2011... so no, not 3 years ago... (2007 being the key one in argument here)

 

State Pension age review - House of Commons Library (parliament.uk)

 

[ECCOnoob]

2 hours ago, Anna B said:

68 is too old to be compelled to work. People age at different rates and many are simply not fit enough or have the energy to do full time jobs. 

And where are the extra jobs to come from? Shouldn't older people be making way for the young?

I don't agree.  Things have evolved dramatically over the decades.   First and foremost, life expectancy which has increased by nearly 10 years since 1960.

 

Back in the black and white days, it was very common for people to leave school at 15 go straight into a lifetime of work from the shop floor up, often in heavy industry, manual, labour or extremely basic work conditions with basic equipment.  Even the white collar professional office jobs often involved laborious, time consuming and manual processes. 

 

Now, we have increasing numbers of people  staying in school through to 18 years old, then spending several more years in colleges, academies or university, the odd gap year here and there and not even beginning to start full time employment until early or even mid 20s.

 

For the career professionals. Many also have the benefits of flexible or hybrid working arrangements, paid sick leave, paid holidays, parental leave, carer, wellbeing initiatives, sabbaticals....

 

Even for those in the more industrial and manual professions, their trade has moved on significantly with health and safety regulations, increased protections, welfare standards, sanitation, modernised equipment, semi-automation, robotics...

 

Is it really so shocking to you that in return for all this evolution, retirement age itself would be increased.  It's pretty logical.  If there are increasing numbers of people joining the workforce much later in life, spending less years paying into the system with an ever increasing life expectancy post retirement - how on earth would it be possible for things to remain status quo.

 

If people desire to retire early, that's their business. But they should pay for it. Why is everything the state's problem.

Edited January 25, 2023 by ECCOnoob