View more on these topics

Life expectancy to form part of state pension age review

Old-Couple-Elderly-Pension-Pensioners-700.jpg

The Government Actuary’s Department is to look at projected life expectancy in future years as part of the state pension age review.

Pensions minister Richard Harrington has commissioned the work, which will see the actuary department consider two scenarios based on adult life starting at 20.

The first scenario is based on people receiving the state pension for 33.3 per cent of their adult life, which is the experience of those reaching state pension age over the past 10 years.

The second scenario is based on people receiving the state pension for 32 per cent of their adult life, which is the experience of those reaching state pension age over the past 20 years.

Harrington says: “People are living and working longer than ever before, that is why it is important we get this right to ensure the system stays fair and sustainable for generations to come.”

An independent report on state pension age is currently being led by former CBI director general John Cridland.

The first review on state pension age will report back by May 2017.

Recommended

16

Paul Lewis: Paradox time in new state pension land

Here is an investment I promoted on my radio show recently. You pay £733 and in return you get a guaranteed annual income of £231 for life, index-linked by prices, earnings or 2.5 per cent, whichever is the highest. Isabel wrote in: “I asked my financial adviser but he didn’t know anything about it”. I […]

Johnson
6

Put state pension into ‘run-off’ says think tank

No further entitlements to a state pension should be given after 2020 to reduce the cost to the government, a think tank has argued. In a paper today, The Centre for Policy Studies’ Michael Johnson argues that while past entitlements should be honoured, the state pension is “facing fiscal calamity” without reform. Total spending on […]

4

Nic Cicutti: Who will be left behind by state pension reform?

At what age should people be able to retire and still draw a full state pension? This question has resurfaced following an interim review into the state pension age by former CBI director general John Cridland, published last week. The report does not formally suggest any particular date; for that we will have to wait […]

China: growth defence or another debt-fuelled boom?

By Douglas Turnbull, Head of Chinese Equities at Neptune Following recent stimulus efforts from Beijing, Neptune’s Douglas Turnbull examines how the government’s long-term reform agenda can be balanced with supporting growth and addressing structural challenges, and the investment opportunities arising from this.Click here to read more Important information: Investment Risks Neptune funds may have a […]

2016 Global Survey of Individual Investors: How is investor behaviour rewriting the job description for financial professionals?

Trapped between expectations for near double-digit returns and strong apprehensions about investing in persistently volatile markets, investors worldwide are of the opinion that professional financial advice is worth the fee. But even though they believe individuals who work with a financial professional are more likely to achieve their goals, investors have a clear vision of […]

Newsletter

News and expert analysis straight to your inbox

Sign up

Comments

There are 16 comments at the moment, we would love to hear your opinion too.

  1. The Chinese model should be adopted. If you have a heavy manual or dangerous job, then 65 is appropriate. If you work sitting on your backside (like we all do) then I really don’t see what’s wrong with a retirement age of 70.
    Footballers and other sports people retiring when they are still practically teenagers is ridiculous. They earn big money (even in the lower teams) and should be able to get a decent job when their sporting days end. They will also no doubt have built a decent nest egg if they had any sense at all.

  2. Will the review take into account individual impaired lives for pension increases ?

  3. Trevor Harrington 16th November 2016 at 4:22 pm

    First of all, in case anybody was wondering, Richard Harrington is no relation of mine.

    Secondly, as I have pointed out many times before, I have indeed taken the time to read and understand the Office Of National Statistics (ONS) figures on life expectancy (2012).

    There has been NO CHANGE IN THE AVERAGE LIFE EXPECTANCY FOR MALES OR FEMALES IN THIS CONTRY FOR OVER 40 YEARS.

    More people might be living longer, but there are also many more people dying at younger ages. These are the facts confirmed by the ONS own statistics.

    I have speculated that the younger deaths are an inevitable facet of obesity and long term substance abuse, and neither of those social problems are going to change in the next 40 years.

    Therefore, the only reason why any Government might want to use the fallacy of greater longevity in curtailing state pension benefits, is simply because they are short of money, or to put it another way, successive Governments have spent our NIS contributions on something other than that which they were intended.

    Now that is an undeniable fact.

    I have also speculated that this tragic overspend, or misappropriation of our NIS contributions, has actually gone to unearned Public Sector Pensions which have been awarded to the higher earners in that sector.

    This government seems to recognise that as a fact by introducing a “lifetime allowance” for pension funds (including final salary Public Sector Pensions) of £1.75 million, which it has rapidly reduced to £800,000 from next April 2017.

    Having curtailed the ridiculous pension fund to maximum of £800,000 (which is the same as £40,000 per year pension x 20 = £800,000), the next step must surely be to “supertax” such pensions which are already in payment, by and adding a “supertax” on pensions in payment of 5% then 10% then 20% etc.

    If you are in receipt of pensions in excess of £40,000 per year, watch out because they are coming to get you …. and quite right too … you have been given my money and I want it back.

  4. Seems a reasonable place to start!

  5. Harry Katz, sitting all day on your bum brings its own health problems. However, I agree with your point about the type of job we have should come into the picture. My own brother at aged 56 who has a manual job is shot to bits with dodgy knees and a bad back. He’s got to work until 67 or 68 and I just can’t see it happening. My ex civil servant friend who has mostly sat on his bum all day is on a fantastic indexed linked pension at aged 60 and of course he’ll get a nice state pension top up at aged 66. Means tested pensions and time until we drop have to come into the picture at some point as the present system is so unfair to a lot of people. And, don’t get me started on how unfairly later aged women have been treated.

  6. Will be interesting when they discover that women typically live longer than men.

  7. Thanks Trevor- your summary is spot on. However, your comment about ducking is a little…There are plenty of working females with a full time job, and a long commute who still look after their husbands/partners and families. I suspect mortality rates for this group will soon align with the equivalent working males but it won’t show in the statistics for another 20-40 years.

  8. Surely past performance cannot be relied upon for future planning!

  9. your life expectancy may go down as well as up

  10. Now come on folks. For non-manual work 65 is too young to retire in today’s world. That the bureaucrats can stop at 60 is disgraceful. (Yes, I know there are exceptions – people who are born with an ‘R’ in the month and have Dengue Fever). The equation to calculate is which is cheaper deferring state pension to 70 and potentially having younger ages unemployed. Or paying the state pension earlier and avoiding younger unemployment. (If indeed unemployment is the problem).

    • Trevor Harrington 21st November 2016 at 3:03 pm

      Afternoon Harry,

      Common sense says that we all should have a state pension age of 60 …. then if people want to work longer they can … voluntarily …
      This would remove some of the aged “job blockers”, so that the young can get a start, and revenues to the exchequer would be improved by :-
      A) the majority of state pensions at age 60 would be being spent at macro economic level
      B) income tax revenues would not be affected because the young would be doing the jobs that the elderly are currently hanging onto
      C) far fewer people on disability or income support after age 60 because they would have their state pension
      D) the local economy, particularly retail, would be helped by pensioners out and about doing stuff

      The fact is that it is the first measure of a developed society (civilised society?) that enables people to retire well before they die, and therefore discourages large families of children as people do not have to breed their own pension provisions, as is the case in countries with no social security or state pension provision …. example …. pretty well all the countries in Africa … etc ..

Leave a comment