UK political class want to raise pension age to 75

[Little John]

Regarding the floating of the idea in the political class of the pension age rising to 75:

What is going to inevitably happen, if it is turned into actual policy, it seems to me, is this;

People's health and stamina is going to continue to fail with age in the future at exactly the same rate as it does now or, if anything, due to an acceleration of the decline of living standards across the industrialized world for ordinary working people (for reasons linked to the limits to economic growth on a finite planet that we are all too aware of on here), that rate of decline will get worse.

It is already clear that many people are simply not able to continue their jobs full time beyond around sixty and, for some people in some jobs, their capacity to continue working at them at all post sixty will be most unlikely.

So, given that people may not be able to claim pensions till they are 75, what will they do? It seems to me that there are two possible outcomes. One fraught with problems given the highly mobile nature of the labour force now and the other one just objectively horrible. Let's call them "difficult" and "awful".

*Difficult*

Due to declining wages across all sectors and age groups in conjunction with rising living costs - in particular, the cost of housing - multi generational households are going to make a comeback. This may well involve three generations including grandparents, adult children and grandchildren. The house will have been initially bought by the grandparents and partially passed into the ownership of their children, who will take full ownership when the grandparents die. And this, presumably, would be repeated down the line. Of course, it does not answer all of the problems. For example if there is more than one child. But, it partially addresses the issues of how grandparents are going to feed and house themselves if they cant work but are not in receipt of a pension yet. Their adult children will have to support them. But, in return, they get possession of the asset of the house at some point.

*Awful*

A large portion of the "working" population over the age of sixty will drift in and out of part time, variable hour, low grade, low paid work, insofar as age-related health issues permit them to, in between claiming income-based Universal Credit. Which, incidentally, many of them may not even be eligible for due to have an asset worth more than 16k in the form of their house. In turn, requiring that they sell the house and use the money to live on until it gets below the savings threshold to receive UC. In turn, rendering them potentially homeless and/or subject to the tender mercies of scum landlords. All of which will mean eking out a poverty-ridden existence until they reach the age of 75 where they will finally be able to get their state pension.

Assuming the state pension still offers enough to live on by then anyway and that they live long enough to receive it with the stress of it all.

[kenneal - lagger]

That is assuming that there is a state to pay state pensions or unemployment pay by the time that provision comes in!

I am still doing some fairly physical work at age 70 although I wouldn't want to do it every day of the week for a full eight hour day. People are a lot fitter now than when my Dad was 60. Sadly he didn't get past 66 before asbestosis from contamination during his apprenticeship in Portsmouth Naval Dockyard got him within a year of his retirement. At sixty though he was still fairly fit but not as fit as I am now.

[fuzzy]

There are many employment issues that all govs refuse to sort out. They need to give an incentive to all employers for part time working. Not just for nurses, accountants and care workers. At present this is rare outside of the cities with employment mobility. This would allow those who don't need full time wages the jobs that work for them.

[BritDownUnder]

That is assuming that there is a state to pay state pensions or unemployment pay by the time that provision comes in!

Oh you took the words right out of my mouth. I am sorry about your father by the way. I remember being in a meeting when we were discussing the state pension in 2050 when I was asked for my opinion by some actuarial type.
I simply said that there would not be a state in 2050 to pay a state pension let alone a state pension for it to pay. I then went on about peak oil and resource depletion for about ten seconds and the meeting fell silent for about half a minute. Needless to say I left that company (HSBC Life in Southampton if you must know) shortly afterwards.

Back in the days when I was an unfortunate commuter to London everyday, working as Life Insurance Actuarial Assistant (I never became a fully qualified Actuary as the exams were too hard so I did something easier instead - Electrical Engineering) we used to do surveys on the mortality of the UK population. I worked for an actuarial partnership that ran the strangely named Continuous Mortality Investigation Bureau - trust me it really exists, you can google it.
One day we got some data from an Insurance Company Actuary on the mortality of three groups of their pensioners (all males - very important this) who retired at ages 60 (first group), age 65 (second group) and age 70 (third group).
The first group was largely made up of executives and higher managers who could 'afford' to retire aged 60 and they lived on average to age 77. The second group were the ordinary white collar and middle class workers who retired aged 65 and died on average aged 75. The final group were lower paid workers mostly manual workers with little savings who had to retire aged 70. They died on average age 73.

So you can see that people retiring aged 60 enjoyed 17 years retirement, those retiring aged 65 enjoyed 10 years retirement and those aged 70 on retirement 'enjoyed' 3 years retirement.

Take home message is that working past 60 is bad for your health - no doubt there are a lot of other factors as well like rich people being more healthy - but there is no doubt that hanging on working until 70 will kill you sooner.

Needless to say this data did not get published. It would have been political dynamite.

The government is basically going to raise the pension age until most people eligible for it have died and also because the costs of not doing so would bankrupt the entire National Insurance system.

[boisdevie]

I'm 55 and do a physically hard job. I can do this mainly because I look after myself - a lot of people don't and it's all down to their poor decisions.
I don't expect the state will be able to pay me a pension when I get to what is the current pension age.
Government spending is way too much as it is and a lot is funded by debt - which people who aren't even born yet will have to pay - how the hell is that fair or morally acceptable? That's like me getting a BMW and then expecting my 1 year old grandson to pay for it.

[Little John]

I'm 55 and do a physically hard job. I can do this mainly because I look after myself - a lot of people don't and it's all down to their poor decisions.
I don't expect the state will be able to pay me a pension when I get to what is the current pension age.
Government spending is way too much as it is and a lot is funded by debt - which people who aren't even born yet will have to pay - how the hell is that fair or morally acceptable? That's like me getting a BMW and then expecting my 1 year old grandson to pay for it.

What a load of wholly inaccurate drivel.

So, to be clear, your contention is that as the population ages into it's sixties and beyond, the increasing incidence of ill health in the population that tracks that aging process is entirely or, even, mainly due to "poor decisions"

Are you seriously that stupid?

Or is it merely that you don't like the idea of paying for someone for someone else's needs (even though, statistically, your probability of being on either side of that equation is largely down to a whole series of random variables), but need a pseudo moral narrative to cover your self-interested blushes?

I would have more respect for your position if you just came out and admitted you don't like the idea of paying for anyone else irrespective of their needs.

[stumuz1]

*Difficult*

Due to declining wages across all sectors and age groups in conjunction with rising living costs - in particular, the cost of housing - multi generational households are going to make a comeback. This may well involve three generations including grandparents, adult children and grandchildren. The house will have been initially bought by the grandparents and partially passed into the ownership of their children, who will take full ownership when the grandparents die. And this, presumably, would be repeated down the line. Of course, it does not answer all of the problems. For example if there is more than one child. But, it partially addresses the issues of how grandparents are going to feed and house themselves if they cant work but are not in receipt of a pension yet. Their adult children will have to support them. But, in return, they get possession of the asset of the house at some point.

Just read this thread, very interesting.

The scenario above is so common, that I would postulate to be a norm amongst more middle class families in Germany.

They tend to have have very large detached houses of very good standards, The three generations have plenty of space to escape, gardens put into rooms, veg, formal etc.

Large bedrooms en suite also had sofas, TV etc.

Also, I was surprised by the use of family trusts. Financial decisions are pooled and the fees shared.

In many ways, they are far ahead of us.

[fuzzy]

And have a lower population density, so bigger houses are more affordable.

[fuzzy]

Just to add in my experience it is the old who are too awkward to change their lifestyle. The young don't mind it. I tried 20+ years ago to get either of my divorced parents to pool house sale cash and buy a joint owned, more suitable house somewhere. Neither wanted to know.

[Little John]

Just to add in my experience it is the old who are too awkward to change their lifestyle. The young don't mind it. I tried 20+ years ago to get either of my divorced parents to pool house sale cash and buy a joint owned, more suitable house somewhere. Neither wanted to know.

That's too simplistic and certainly too anecdotal. The entire socio-economic system is currently geared towards individualism in all age groups and all of the social consequences of that. Things are changing. But, there will be some cultural lag in that change in some groups depending who is economically forced to act first in response to that change. I am neither defending nor criticizing ordinary citizens in terms of the above. That's just the way it is. If you want someone to blame, blame policy makers.

[fuzzy]

So have you transferred ownership of your house to your offspring so they can avoid paying a gazillion a week nursing home fees? It would have been a simple thing decades ago, now they won't get away with it. The ludicrous thing is I am about 10 years from retiring age myself. I can see the boomers blissfully ignoring the world around them. When it all goes pear shaped it will be the young -vs- the old and I have some sympathy for the young.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iDxeKd_iR28

[UndercoverElephant]

For example if there is more than one child.

Brute reality for the future: Nobody should be having more than one child.

If you are very rich you might get away with it, but even then you shouldn't. If you aren't rich then having more than one child will seriously compromise the life chances of both/all of them. We need to create a culture where only having one child is the norm. People who deviate from the norm will have to accept there will be consequences, and their kids will suffer them.

[boisdevie]

I'm 55 and do a physically hard job. I can do this mainly because I look after myself - a lot of people don't and it's all down to their poor decisions.
I don't expect the state will be able to pay me a pension when I get to what is the current pension age.
Government spending is way too much as it is and a lot is funded by debt - which people who aren't even born yet will have to pay - how the hell is that fair or morally acceptable? That's like me getting a BMW and then expecting my 1 year old grandson to pay for it.

What a load of wholly inaccurate drivel.

So, to be clear, your contention is that as the population ages into it's sixties and beyond, the increasing incidence of ill health in the population that tracks that aging process is entirely or, even, mainly due to "poor decisions"

Are you seriously that stupid?

Or is it merely that you don't like the idea of paying for someone for someone else's needs (even though, statistically, your probability of being on either side of that equation is largely down to a whole series of random variables), but need a pseudo moral narrative to cover your self-interested blushes?

I would have more respect for your position if you just came out and admitted you don't like the idea of paying for anyone else irrespective of their needs.

You know just how much I care for peoples needs? Well, enough to give a kidney to a stranger, That's how f***ing much you wanker.

[kenneal - lagger]

I've been thinking about a family trust or similar for some time now and recently Southbank Investment have been going on about a Corbyn government coming after the wealthy, which basically means the middle class because the rich can afford to bugger off elsewhere and take their money with them. Even under current tax law it would make sense for us because the land I bought and house I built on it weren't an "investment" they were a place to live and grow food and fuel in an uncertain future. I want to pass it on without them getting a whopping great unaffordable tax bill.

Also having seen my step mother in law and then my mother go into a care home and watched as their house and estate was gradually eased from under them at about £3000 per month to pay for the fees. I don't want that to happen to us. I think it is iniquitous that because I have worked hard to buy a house, renovated and extended one and built another that I should have to pay for my elderly care while someone who has rented all their lives gets that care free and carefree. It all comes down to why the f**k bother to do any thing in life if the only reward is having done something?

I know that not everyone is capable or has the chances that I might have had but why should I lose everything while someone who has more money than they know what to do with and someone else who has no money at all can both get away with paying nothing while I lose everything. At the moment when you're old it pays to have been extremely greedy or very lazy in life.

As to having only one child I don't think that that is fair on the child either. Two children is still below the replacement rate and will result in a smaller population but it spreads the load of elderly care over two adults and means that there is always a spare if one of the children dies. One child also collapses the population faster than might be advisable and leads to the birth of a lot of male babies and miscarriages of female one and a shortage of wives as they found in China. Not good for social cohesion.

[Little John]

So have you transferred ownership of your house to your offspring so they can avoid paying a gazillion a week nursing home fees? It would have been a simple thing decades ago, now they won't get away with it. The ludicrous thing is I am about 10 years from retiring age myself. I can see the boomers blissfully ignoring the world around them. When it all goes pear shaped it will be the young -vs- the old and I have some sympathy for the young.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iDxeKd_iR28

I'll be transferring at some point in the next five to ten years. All we are waiting on is for our eldest to get economically established. Which is looking to be sooner than we thought. And the rule, if you do not know it, is this:

1) Transfer of assets must occur 7 years before death to avoid taxes

2) Transfer before social care requirements does not have a rule other than the authorities may contest if they think the transfer was "unreasonably" close in time to social care needs. In other words, it is woolly. But, we can be sure that woolliness will not last because the state wants its hands on people's private assets at the point at which they need end of life care. In other words, end-of-life care is being fully privatised by the back door. However, as things currently stand, my guess is that the 7 year rule can be used as a rule of thumb for social care. so, the sooner parents in their, say, fifties, transfer their assets to their kids, they safer will be those assets. Which is precisely why, in about 5 or so years, we will have diddly squat in our name cos it will all be in our kid's names.