raising the pension age

From my point of view I fail to see what raising the pension age achieves at a societal level.

It improves the ratio of people paying taxes into the system vs people withdrawing pension from the system, so improved the States finances a bit, which can be used to fund things like health care etc...

There are actually two different retirement ages in France, one currently 62 and one 67. I don't fully understand the difference to be honest...

From my French Economic magazine...

L'autre grande justification des promoteurs d'un report de l'âge légal à 65 ans est que tous nos voisins européens l'ont fait. Serions-nous seuls à faire fausse route en restant à 62 ans? C'est clair, l'âge effectif de départ à la retraite des Français est en moyenne plus bas que celui de nos voisins. Mais on oublie de dire qu'il y a deux âges de départ en France : 62 ans, l'âge légal à partir duquel on ne peut pas empêcher un salarié d'ouvrir ses droits mais avec application d'une forte décote si l'on n'a pas cotisé les trimestres nécessaires pour avoir droit à une retraite complète; et 67 ans, l'âge de l'annulation de la décote. Dans la plupart des autres pays, ces deux âges n'existent pas.

It improves the ratio of people paying taxes into the system vs people withdrawing pension from the system, so improved the States finances a bit, which can be used to fund things like health care etc…

Not if no new jobs are created, it just replaces those drawing pensions with those claiming other benefits, still the same number of jobs paying into the system.

It probably benefits the employer as they have less recruitment and training costs, but that is never the stated intention.

From a UK perspective; it's not "raising the pension age", it's raising the age when the State Pension benefits/payments etc can be accessed.

It also increases the number of people paying NI (on earnings when 'retired' but not above State Pension age).

Not if no new jobs are created

But it does if they are or more likely you end up increasing the overall number of man hours worked per year..

What it ignores is some jobs yuo simply cannot continue to 67 or older.  I'm near;ly 62 and if I had still been working as a nurse I would now be off sick on disability due to the physical damage from my job.  Move to a  less physically demanding role you might say - there just is not enough such roles in the health service for all those who would need it.  There would be many others in this sort of situation - building trades would have many roles where your declining physical resilience over 60 would make it impossible to continue.

its fine for those who have sedentary jobs but many of us do not but then how fair is it to have different rules for different roles?

There is a real issue tho that folk like my dad have now had 30 years of retirement for 36 years working.  That cannot be sustainable

Raising the pension age means different things:

1. Delaying the point at which state pension starts to be paid.

2. Increasing the time which people pay tax/social security on their earnings;

3.if older people generally earn more they will also pay proportionally more than a young person replacing them (if they are in gov/state job this may cost the state more)

4. Delaying point at which you can take private pensions ie, take early retirement.

5. encouraging people to make private pension arrangements so they can retire when they want rather than the state telling you.

Your question seems to assume we have more people than jobs.  The government rhetoric in the U.K. is we have more jobs than people so need more people to work.

People are living longer and spending more of that time with chronic illness, putting increasing demand on health and social care. We also have an aging demographic whereby there will soon be more retired people than taxpayers (yay!) and birth rates falling - we’ve also successfully driven off all those younger migrants who were prepared to do labour-intensive, low paid work. Finally, there’s a myth that older folks perpetuate about ‘paying in’ to the system when the reality is they paid for the care of their parent’s generation and today’s taxpayer is paying their bills. The alternative is everyone paying more tax, which in the current wouldn’t exactly be a popular move.

Not if no new jobs are created,

Didn't the "lump of labour" fallacy die out a while back?

If no new jobs were created, how come more people are working now than the total who lived in the UK back in the early 19th century?

But it does if they are or more likely you end up increasing the overall number of man hours worked per year..

And how does raising the pension age do that? If they job exists, keeping someone on for a couple of extra years just stops someone else filling the position. I don't see any path where raising the pension age creates those extra man hours, unless the system is already under resourced by man hours, which I don't believe is the case.

If no new jobs were created, how come more people are working now than the total who lived in the UK back in the early 19th century?

Have those jobs been created by extending working lives or from other mechanisms?

There is also the aspect about differing life expectancy in different social classes and areas.  IIRC this varies from around 60 to late 80s

I think a lot of those who support or push the raising of the retirement age are middle class doing sedentary jobs and have no awareness of how this affects others

Again - what about folk like me?  go on invalidity for those 7 years?

To create more jobs we could all drop to a 4 day week. Get the benefit of that time off while you are young enough to enjoy it.

Work till you drop. That's the idea.

Make provision for yourself. If you're reliant on government for end of life care then you're not taking care of yourself.

That may mean moving jobs.

For me?  What job can I get at 60 that does not involving walking or standing much?

Work till you drop. That’s the idea.

Pretty much always been the idea!

The old three score year and ten - retire at 60 and you were lucky if you made it to 70.

From my point of view I fail to see what raising the pension age achieves at a societal level.

Its all about funding
When the scheme was set up there were 4 workings people t fund the retirement of 1 person
Now its 1.7 working people to fund 1 retired person
(in France)

Along with the extra costs of Healthcare from an ageing population, there are more people to fund and a decreasing number (proportion) of people paying tax.
France are looking the rebalance that, but its not going to be popular.

IIRC when the original retirement age in the UK was set it was at a similar level to average life expectancy.
The issue has come about as that age hasnt increased in line with increasing life expectancy.

Wife will be retiring this yr aged 55, she is NHS midwife comes home broken after 1 x 12hr nightshift, after 3 in a row she is physically and mentally worn out. There is no way anyone should be doing that at 67. One thing shuffling paper about at a desk getting regular breaks at 67 and working 12 hrs going many a shift without a proper break.

You just cycled half the length of Europe tj, you can't be that decrepit!

For me? What job can I get at 60 that does not involving walking or standing much?

You have 2 options:
1) Have higher contributions into a personal pension while perusing that career (eg. fire fighters)
2) Retrain into a different profession when you reach that point in time

I think a lot of those who support or push the raising of the retirement age are middle class doing sedentary jobs and have no awareness of how this affects others

Again – what about folk like me? go on invalidity for those 7 years?

I suppose the flipside of that question is "what jobs do you expect others to do to support the retired?".

Tj has a valid point about differing jobs and their toll, both physical and mental.

But if someone can legitimately claim to be incapable of productive work at age X, but easily live to X+30, that is really unsustainable.

We need to ask how, why, and how to reverse this.

(As a millenial, I know that half my generation didn't enter the work force until 21/22. And the other half at 18. Whereas the generation we are discussing, half of them started at 14. Honestly, I think tht should figure into the calculations more than it does currently.)

4. Delaying point at which you can take private pensions ie, take early retirement.

Only if you will be dependent on the state pension topping your private pension up, otherwise it is up to the rules of your scheme when you can start drawing from it.

Only if you will be dependent on the state pension topping your private pension up, otherwise it is up to the rules of your scheme when you can start drawing from it.

Not true in the UK. You can only access private pensions from at most 10 years before you're eligible for the state pension.

Not sure in the UK. You can only access private pensions from at most 10 years before you’re eligible for the state pension.

Which is why the advice is to save into a pension AND an ISA. Draw down the ISA between when you want to retire and when you collect your pension, then draw down your pension when that door opens.

Which is why the advice is to save into a pension AND an ISA. Draw down the ISA between when you want to retire and when you collect your pension, then draw down your pension when that door opens.

Totally agree. I was just addressing the point that the earliest withdrawals from your private pension isn't usually a detail of your particular scheme, but dependent on the state pension age.

Whereas the generation we are discussing, half of them started at 14. Honestly, I think tht should figure into the calculations more than it does currently.)

Rubbish, 16 at the earliest.

My two uncles who are in their late 80's started at 14 but they'd also retired on a final salary pension in their mid 50's - give them a couple more years and they'll be retired longer than they worked. And both full-on Gammons too.

its fine for those who have sedentary jobs but many of us do not but then how fair is it to have different rules for different roles?

I absolutely get this, but no one is saying you carry on doing the same job. Other jobs are available.

A friend who is a former nurse went on to teaching nursing at medical school at the end of his career, a police officer relative is now back office in the police service, many children's social workers move from front line child protection to adoption as they burn out at the end of their careers. Another friend works for a charity for an easier pace of life in his 60s.

I started work hoping to retire at 55 like my dad did. I'm now 53 and can't get my main civil service or state pension till I'm 67. I'm not happy about it, but there you go.

When the state pension came in it was assumed men would die at 68, so it funded 3 years retirement. If average life expectancy is now 76(?) we'd be working till we are 73.

The issue is how does the state support those who cannot genuinely work beyond 65

You can only access private pensions from at most 10 years before you’re eligible for the state pension.

12 years for me currently - updates to the pension access age is lagging the retirement age...

55 vs 67

Only got three more years to go...

For me? What job can I get at 60 that does not involving walking or standing much?

I've got one...

I think most people have sit-down jobs so they aren't exactly rare. Serious question though - would you prefer to be moved off a physical job onto something possibly entirely different and lower skilled when you get older, or be pensioned off? Which is better for society? I mean most of us would prefer not to work - or would we?

I mean most of us would prefer not to work – or would we?

I think I'd quite like to do something - not full time, but a bit of structure, a bit of social interaction etc...

Rubbish, 16 at the earliest.

The school leaving age was raised to 14 in 1901.[6]

* left a bit out here

Unlike the Education Act 1944 in England and Wales, the Education (Scotland) Act 1945 was largely a consolidation measure, because universal secondary education had already been in place for over a decade.[5] Plans to raise the school leaving age to 15 in the 1940s were never ratified, but increasing numbers stayed on beyond elementary education and it was eventually raised to 16 in 1973.

Source. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_in_Scotland_in_the_twentieth_century

I started work hoping to retire at 55

Dunno why, but that's somehow startling to read. When I started work I didn't know that was possible, outside of footballers and hedge fund managers!

A few people in my cycling group have retired in their early 50s....

Possibly a class thing - my dad started as an apprentice at 16 and worked til 67 - and possibly just illustrative of a confidence and sensible far-sightedness that has always been alien to me 😆

I don't know, a friend retired at 50 from the Police with a full pension (and is living a very nice life on it).

someone I know works in IT for the french Army. he initially signed up as a cadette, age 14, so has 2 years left till he retires, on full pension, at age 44 (!). He says the physical was tough till he was 40 (when it downgrades to a lower-challenge one), and he's spent the last 2 years doing an MBA on work hours.

I started work hoping to retire at 55

Dunno why, but that’s somehow startling to read.

Startling to me too. When I started work I don't think I was within miles of giving a moments thought to retirement. Maybe it is related to the total lack of financial education in schools (and in life generally, unless you happen to have a family member who is keen to discuss it). I certainly didn't start work with any kind of end game or exit strategy in mind

You just cycled half the length of Europe tj, you can’t be that decrepit!

Arthritis in my feet.  I cannot stand for long nor walk more than a couple of miles without significant pain.  If I have walked that distance or more the pain takes days to settle.  I waled around 10 miles a day at work and would be on my feet for 9 or so hours per shift.  Its deteriorating rapidly

If I could cycle around the ward I would be fine..  Cycling does not affect it as its to do with flexing of my big toes.

I worked hard but got to 58 and thought I'd had enough. I now spend lots on labour intensive industries and am a tipper (the lady in a Whitby chipshop just got a fiver) to those on low pay. My pensions get taxed so it's not as though us codgers don't contribute.

A part of the reason for becoming a nurse was the pension.  Decision taken at 18

I don’t know, a friend retired at 50 from the Police with a full pension (and is living a very nice life on it).

I think (happy to be corrected if false) that career BA pilots stopped flying at 50, but were still employed, on full pay, until retirement age. To stop them flying for anyone else.

tj - I'm not suggesting for a second that you shouldn't have retired (I'll be seriously pissed off I can't manage to retire at your age) but there are roles even in nursing that would involve less walking and physical effort.  Training; employee health screening; recruitment; could all be done sitting or sitting for large parts of the day.  Then there are the other jobs you could do.  Given how badly nurses are paid its probably not that hard to find something that uses your people skills etc.  I appreciate its not necessarily something you would want to do.  AND I do think Unions for jobs that can't go on for ever need to fight that case hard (but realistic - if everyone retires from police/fire/nursing/ambulance on "full" pension at 50 / 55 that is a "gold plated" offering compared to working to 67 for the masses).

FWIW the OP started this about France.  Where state pension age is proposed to go from 62 - 64 and they are striking over it.

What it ignores is some jobs yuo simply cannot continue to 67 or older

This argument is so weak. You may not be able to do the job you have done for the past 30 years to retirement but you can do a job. I don't expect to be able to do my job to anywhere near retirement. There are loads of jobs like that you can't expect to do until retirement it doesn't mean you can't work. If you can afford to retire good on you but it's unfair to excessively burden the working age population because you don't want to change jobs. This issue with pensions has been dependency ratios for some decades and no one has been brave enough to grasp the nettle.

Police need 30 years contributions for their full police pension - but I think that is now changed for new entrants ( not certain)

I'd still like to know what other job you guys think I should have done and where such a job is available (Its not just about me - its the majority of nurses I have met)

For example above was suggested nurse tutor.  You need ( certainly here) at least a masters and preferably a PHD. No one is going to retrain a 60 yr old,  Shop work would be out because of my feet ( B&Q are good employers for older folk) Unemployment rates for 60+ yr olds are really high.

 I don’t see any path where raising the pension age creates those extra man hours, unless the system is already under resourced by man hours, which I don’t believe is the case.

I thought in the UK we were saying that WAS an issue - there were not enough people working for economic benefit/growth.  I thought it was a key part of Rishi's message.  Personally I don't think increasing pension age is the way to fix that but I don't believe increasing retirement age is stopping a school leaver / uni graduate getting a job.