Lowering Retirement Age

[Ric.ror]

Would that be an answer to the increase in unemployment that is being forecast because of C19?

[woofgang]

do you mean lowering the age of state pension?

[Ric.ror]

I do indeed - I should have been more specific - it does seem like a good way of solving the problem

[THECORBYLOON]

The age was increased to reduce the total cost of paying State Pension. How would it be paid for if it were reduced?

[woofgang]

well i'd be happy! I had to wait for my pension and would immediately be on the blower demanding a back payment.

[teacake44]

With all the pensioners that have died in the past 7 months there should be plenty in the kitty for that.

[shaneystar2]

They've already moved the goalposts on retirement age . I can't see them moving them back again. Many people would just not be able to afford early retirement and if they had to rely on the basic state pension then the government would still be paying for pension credits and other benefits and what have you to top them up.Many people don't have private or workplace pensions either or huge amounts of savings and have no choice but to carry on working.
The days of the final salary and golden handshake are long gone.

[Theland]

I got mine on time age 65, but my wife had to wait until she was 62.
I think it should be lowered, creating work for the unemployed, saving on unemployment benefits, and getting tax fro these new workers.

[ichkeria]

Lowering the retirement age would increase the pension bill - considerably.
The increase in unemployment is down to reasons unlikely to be fixed by doing that anyway.

[ichkeria]

With people living longer and many with no proper pension anyway, you'd effectively just be moving the underpaid unemployed to an older age group

[tiggerblue10]

Is that what they increased to 67?

[Ric.ror]

I was thinking that the cost of pensions would/could be approx the same as the cost of unemployment benefits. Also - isn't it better to have younger people at work whereas the likes of woofgang and myself would more than welcome a chance to retire a little bit earlier

[pixie374]

It wouldn't make sense to reduce it, even I can see (under retirement age) it needs to be at least 75, or 80 even.

[Ric.ror]

Pixie - are you trying to see me off? I can't be hanging on until I'm 70 - the next nine years are going to be bad enough

[woofgang]

I am already retired, but as I said if they drop the age again there will be a queue round the block of folk like me demanding a back payment.

[Ric.ror]

No woofgang - no back payments - don't spoil it for the rest of us

[pixie374]

Lol... no. And I certainly don't mean anyone with any disabilities, which are separate anyway. But 75 is not old, frail and past it nowadays. We can't afford to pay for someone's 30/40 year retirement, and most won't need it, either. A bit of thinking ahead is good on occasions.

[ladybirder]

Bang on Pixie. Probably we were only expected to live max 10 years with SP when it was first available.

[Ric.ror]

I wondered if the pension bill and unemployment bill would be (roughly) the same and it would be better to pay old people to stay at home than young people

[pixie374]

SP was first available AT life expectancy. Nobody was really expected to need it. Now we have 18 years minimum having to be in full-time education and up to 40 years retirement. Even if you work full-time for the remaining 49 years... with no breaks, It's difficult to see how everyone is paying for themselves, let alone everyone else, NHS etc.

[ladybirder]

Have a look at this Ric. It's not up to date but gives you a good idea.
https://the7circles.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/Spending-pie.jpg