Posted on 01/28/2023 12:47:47 PM PST by nickcarraway
Furious campaigners warned proposals to hike up the state pension age 11 years earlier than planned would leave the retirement plans of older workers in tatters.
Employees aged 54 and under would be forced to delay quitting their jobs under plans floated by the Treasury. Chancellor Jeremy Hunt’s team has examined bringing forward a planned rise in the pensionable age 68 by more than a decade to save billions.
But Age UK said making 50-somethings wait longer for their pension would leave many struggling to make ends meet in later life.
Charity director Caroline Abrahams said: “We feel strongly that there is no justification for raising the state pension age at the moment, especially as we know that the people who will lose out the most are those unable to work due to ill health and caring responsibilities, as well as anyone who becomes unemployed in mid-life and then finds it impossible to get another job, due in part to a lack of training opportunities as well as rampant ageism in the labour market.
"As things stand, any decision by the Government to make today's fifty-somethings wait longer for their state pension will consign hundreds of thousands of people to a difficult and impoverished later life.”
Prime Minister Rishi Sunak is facing a Cabinet split over when to make changes to the retirement age.
Raising the point the state pension can be claimed quicker than planned would save the government billions of pounds.
Ministers are required by law to review the state pension age regularly and the deadline for the latest decision is May.
The annual deadline for completing a self-assessment tax return is exactly one week away so this is the last chance to avoid a fine from HMRC for late filing and claim valuable tax relief on pension contributions.
Last year, two million missed the deadline and incurred an instant £100 fine plus interest on late tax due.
Read more HERE.
An increase to 68 is currently planned for 2046 and the Treasury wants that to be brought forward to 2035.
Work and Pensions Minister Mel Stride, who is responsible for the decision, is fiercely opposed to the move and believes it would leave millions of employees in their late 40s and 50s having to hastily revise their financial plans.
He is understood to be aiming for 2042 instead.
A DWP source said: “The Government is currently undertaking a review of the state pension age as it is legally obliged to do, taking into account two independent reports and a wide range of evidence.
“When reaching his recommendation on the state pension age moving to 68, taking into account all the latest evidence, including projections on life expectancy, the Secretary of State is absolutely clear on the need for fairness for our pensioners across the country to be at the forefront.”
Government insiders believe the Treasury is trying to flex its muscles ahead of the budget on March 15 and has “jumped the gun” by raising the prospect of speeding up the plans.
Treasury sources insisted the Chancellor has not set out his preference because the review is yet to report back.
They said the pension age has not featured in any discussion about the March 15 budget so far.
The government is weighing up the costs of coping with an ageing population with the needs of workers who have already planned for later life.
Campaigners warned raising the retirement age in 11 years would plunge tens of thousands of older people into poverty every year.
The Centre for Ageing Better said an increase to the state pension age would “plunge tens of thousands of older people into poverty every year”.
The organisation said the planned changes “should not be rushed”, with its own analysis showing the number of 65-year-olds living in absolute poverty more than doubled in the two years after the process to increase the state pension age to 66 began.
Dennis Reed, director of campaign group Silver Voices, said there is “no justification” for any rises in the state pension “at the current time or indeed in the next decade”.
He said life expectancy is no longer rising so the previous defence for increasing the pension age “no longer holds”.
Sir Steve Webb, former pensions minister and a partner at LCP pension consultants, also pointed out that life expectancy has “barely changed” in recent years.
Sir Steve said that pushing the retirement age forward would make a “huge difference to tomorrow’s pensioners”.
He also said that the economically inactive would be negatively affected by the changes, explaining that those people would be forced to live longer on Universal Credit, which he described as being a “very meagre income”.
Conservative MP Lee Anderson said the Government should focus on getting the “work-shy” back into the workplace.
“Getting these people back into work will save millions on our benefits bill and provide extra income to the Treasury to help pay our pensioners,” he said.
One MP told the Daily Express that such a move would be an act of “self-harm” by the Government, saying it would make little sense to announce the changes before the next election.
The state pension age is due to rise from 66 to 67 by 2028.
Senior Tory Sir John Hayes accepted that it is “likely” that the pension age will go up at some point, but he would want the evidence in favour of the policy to be “very compelling indeed”.
Research the Centre for Ageing Better carried out with the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) last year revealed that nearly 100,000 more 65-year-olds are in poverty due to the most recent rise in state pension age to 66 for men and women between December 2018 and October 2020.
This more than doubled the number of people aged 65 in absolute poverty than before the change.
For a major government policy to have such a serious negative impact is deeply worrying. Naturally there is a lot of concern and caution that this process might be accelerated so that the state pension age jumps to 68 by the end of the 2030s.
With the right action and support, the raising of the state pension age can be beneficial. Allowing older workers to continue making a valuable contribution to the workplace and UK economy for longer, and giving them the opportunity to earn additional income and boost pension pots.
If the government is serious about further and faster increases to the state pension age, it also needs to be matched with a considerable improvement in access to work for people in their sixties: investing in tailored employment support for those out of work, expanding access to occupational health support, and bringing flexible work and carer’s leave proposals into legislation.
Our report makes clear the consequences of raising the state pension age. It is important the government appreciates much needs to change about our current labour market before future increases. Failure to do so will mean that for a significant proportion of older people, the years leading up to retirement will be onerous and cash-strapped.
Dr Emily Andrews is Deputy Director for Work at the Centre for Ageing Better. Lewis warns pensioners missing out on money Enter your email address here SUBSCRIBE We use your sign-up to provide content in ways you've consented to and to improve our understanding of you. This may include adverts from us and 3rd parties based on our understanding. You can unsubscribe at any time. More info
Employees aged 54 and under would be forced to delay quitting their jobs under plans floated by the Treasury. Chancellor Jeremy Hunt’s team has examined bringing forward a planned rise in the pensionable age 68 by more than a decade to save billions.
Sturgeon forced to instantly U-turn on BBC interview after backlash
But Age UK said making 50-somethings wait longer for their pension would leave many struggling to make ends meet in later life.
Charity director Caroline Abrahams said: “We feel strongly that there is no justification for raising the state pension age at the moment, especially as we know that the people who will lose out the most are those unable to work due to ill health and caring responsibilities, as well as anyone who becomes unemployed in mid-life and then finds it impossible to get another job, due in part to a lack of training opportunities as well as rampant ageism in the labour market.
"As things stand, any decision by the Government to make today's fifty-somethings wait longer for their state pension will consign hundreds of thousands of people to a difficult and impoverished later life.”
Prime Minister Rishi Sunak is facing a Cabinet split over when to make changes to the retirement age.
Raising the point the state pension can be claimed quicker than planned would save the government billions of pounds.
Ministers are required by law to review the state pension age regularly and the deadline for the latest decision is May.
The annual deadline for completing a self-assessment tax return is exactly one week away so this is the last chance to avoid a fine from HMRC for late filing and claim valuable tax relief on pension contributions.
Last year, two million missed the deadline and incurred an instant £100 fine plus interest on late tax due.
An increase to 68 is currently planned for 2046 and the Treasury wants that to be brought forward to 2035.
Work and Pensions Minister Mel Stride, who is responsible for the decision, is fiercely opposed to the move and believes it would leave millions of employees in their late 40s and 50s having to hastily revise their financial plans.
He is understood to be aiming for 2042 instead.
A DWP source said: “The Government is currently undertaking a review of the state pension age as it is legally obliged to do, taking into account two independent reports and a wide range of evidence.
“When reaching his recommendation on the state pension age moving to 68, taking into account all the latest evidence, including projections on life expectancy, the Secretary of State is absolutely clear on the need for fairness for our pensioners across the country to be at the forefront.”
Government insiders believe the Treasury is trying to flex its muscles ahead of the budget on March 15 and has “jumped the gun” by raising the prospect of speeding up the plans.
Treasury sources insisted the Chancellor has not set out his preference because the review is yet to report back.
UK piles pressure on Germany with Cleverly pleading for tanks
Should the PM compromise on Brexit to improve relations with the EU? They said the pension age has not featured in any discussion about the March 15 budget so far.
The government is weighing up the costs of coping with an ageing population with the needs of workers who have already planned for later life.
Campaigners warned raising the retirement age in 11 years would plunge tens of thousands of older people into poverty every year.
The Centre for Ageing Better said an increase to the state pension age would “plunge tens of thousands of older people into poverty every year”.
The organisation said the planned changes “should not be rushed”, with its own analysis showing the number of 65-year-olds living in absolute poverty more than doubled in the two years after the process to increase the state pension age to 66 began.
Dennis Reed, director of campaign group Silver Voices, said there is “no justification” for any rises in the state pension “at the current time or indeed in the next decade”.
He said life expectancy is no longer rising so the previous defence for increasing the pension age “no longer holds”.
Sir Steve Webb, former pensions minister and a partner at LCP pension consultants, also pointed out that life expectancy has “barely changed” in recent years.
Sir Steve said that pushing the retirement age forward would make a “huge difference to tomorrow’s pensioners”.
He also said that the economically inactive would be negatively affected by the changes, explaining that those people would be forced to live longer on Universal Credit, which he described as being a “very meagre income”.
Conservative MP Lee Anderson said the Government should focus on getting the “work-shy” back into the workplace.
“Getting these people back into work will save millions on our benefits bill and provide extra income to the Treasury to help pay our pensioners,” he said.
One MP told the Daily Express that such a move would be an act of “self-harm” by the Government, saying it would make little sense to announce the changes before the next election.
The state pension age is due to rise from 66 to 67 by 2028.
Senior Tory Sir John Hayes accepted that it is “likely” that the pension age will go up at some point, but he would want the evidence in favour of the policy to be “very compelling indeed”.
Research the Centre for Ageing Better carried out with the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) last year revealed that nearly 100,000 more 65-year-olds are in poverty due to the most recent rise in state pension age to 66 for men and women between December 2018 and October 2020.
This more than doubled the number of people aged 65 in absolute poverty than before the change.
For a major government policy to have such a serious negative impact is deeply worrying. Naturally there is a lot of concern and caution that this process might be accelerated so that the state pension age jumps to 68 by the end of the 2030s.
With the right action and support, the raising of the state pension age can be beneficial. Allowing older workers to continue making a valuable contribution to the workplace and UK economy for longer, and giving them the opportunity to earn additional income and boost pension pots.
If the government is serious about further and faster increases to the state pension age, it also needs to be matched with a considerable improvement in access to work for people in their sixties: investing in tailored employment support for those out of work, expanding access to occupational health support, and bringing flexible work and carer’s leave proposals into legislation.
Our report makes clear the consequences of raising the state pension age. It is important the government appreciates much needs to change about our current labour market before future increases. Failure to do so will mean that for a significant proportion of older people, the years leading up to retirement will be onerous and cash-strapped.
Dr. Emily Andrews is Deputy Director for Work at the Centre for Ageing Better.
The government will probably move toward assisted suicide at some point soon. Canada has. If you feel like your “golden years” won’t be so golden, here’s your easy way out ...
Governments now look at people like they’re heavy luggage, a burden, something that needs to be eliminated.
All gov’t great ideas should only apply to government employees, and all their greedy ‘pay raises’ must be voted into approval by the taxpaying civlians...
The promise of public pension payouts before SS retirement age (e.g., 65) is/was idiotic.
I realize this article concerns the UK, but similar principles apply.
I’m sure that the millions of citizens that don’t have guaranteed government pensions are very, very sad for these government employees…
I can hear it now… “Gee… What a shame…”
It is the pension structure, attempting to pay current benefits NOT out of fully AND PRIVATELY INVESTED funds, but out of income streams from current workers and/or taxpayers, which is to blame for many state pension problems. Another problem is determination of future benefits on formulas that are not pinned to the value of the invested funds set aside while working, but merely on “guarantees” thirty years in advance of an income of X, based on formulas that use things like “years of service”, “last five years highest salary”, ect, ect, ect.
ALL pension should be on a sound fiancial basis based on (a) the money set aside for retirement while working (pension contributions), (b) the investment earnings and value appreciation of those funds, (c) an account balance at retirement, (d) a conservative estimate of rate of future investment earnings and value appreciation of that balance as benefits get paid from it, and (e the remaining life expectancy of the individual when they start receiving the pension. Anything elae gets those involved in trouble.
Any changes to retirement programs should only be targeted toward new hires. One they begin work, they should be under current retirement requirements. You don’t change rules already in the game. Politicians are idiots which is why there are hated so much. No common sense.
Lazy gov. tit suckers don’t pay in their fair share.
Another ‘bound to go wrong’ idea from the idiots.
Of course, that comes with it's own set of problems. You are telling those new workers they are a different class from the previous workers, essentially their serfs. Or, at least, they may perceive it that way.
True but at least they know the retirement rules the day they start.
When I worked for the City of Maitland, FL in 1973 joining the FL state pension fund was voluntary. I do not know about now.
But I do know that here in Kentucky joining and paying into the state pension fund is mandatory for all state employees.
The reason? Because current contributions are needed to pay current benefits. How’s that for fiscally sound? Trying to reform it (to save it) got Matt Bevin tossed from office. Can’t piss off government employees - especially those hard working members of the “teachers” union.
A family member who works for the state says she views it as a tax and expects minimal return when she is old enough to retire. Thus she has set up private retirement fund and private investments. This relative actually has a needed job that benefits us residents. Works hard and is damn good at her job. We still tease her a little though.
Ain’t socialism grand! You morons in the IK should be elated, you know like a pig in s@#t
Government giveth and Government taketh away.
I guess Covid didn’t provide the pension/social security relief that the deep state anticipated.
They’re certainly a cost center in a socialist government bureaucracy. At some point, the bureaucracy becomes so entrenched that any political effort to dislodge it will not be successful. At that point, the political power represented by the votes of the employees becomes irrelevant.
“Governments now look at people like they’re heavy luggage, a burden, something that needs to be eliminated.”
You disagree with the government raising the retirement age?
Just release a deadlier Covid variant. If it kills mostly 60+ it fixes the system. Don’t try to force everyone’s “survival “ with forced Vax.
I lol when .gov starts pushing vaxxes for the elderly—while at the same time saying they are trying to save the planet by reducing carbon emissions.
One way they plan to “save the planet” is by getting rid of the elderly.
.Gov certainly does not them healthy and living longer!
No one will touch social security...
...until they do.
And it will look something like this.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.