³ÉÈËÂÛ̳

Commentators discuss government plans to raise the state pension age for men to 66, possibly by as early as 2016.

that people reaching retirement age are being punished for the mistakes of bankers and politicians:

"We are in the extraordinary position whereby elderly people - who've done as they were told by experts, be it bankers or governments, and saved over their working lives - are seeing those savings produce nothing to live on as interest rates vanish.
Ìý
"They're having to live on capital - if they have any - and now their age bracket is being told they've got to go on working until they drop, to qualify for the pensions they've worked for all their lives.
Ìý
"I'm fortunate because I'm rich. But that doesn't mean I don't understand how ordinary people are being hit. A year ago, I was getting £1.5 million in annual interest. Now, it's basically nothing."

Labour MP this will come as a shock to people on lower incomes with shorter life expectancies:

"The previous Labour Government planned to bring in this change in 2024, giving people plenty of time to plan. Now it is to be brought forward eight years.
This change is, for people approaching retirement, just around the corner.
Ìý
"This may not mean a lot to those who have a good occupational pension or some other income stream. But for those who rely on the State it is further unwelcome news from the Coalition."

The the policy has a "cold logic" as people shouldn't be forced into unsuitable jobs:

"With life expectancy rising, anyone saving for their own retirement would have to devote ever more of their wages to achieve the same pension at a particular age. If people were acting individually, at some point their desire to stop working tomorrow would be tempered by their need for money today. There is no reason why collective policy should not respect the same logic. All the more so since the pensions minister, Steve Webb, seems determined to override business objections and scrap rules that allow bosses to turf workers out on grounds of their age."

The the rise in pension age "unavoidable":

"The speed with which the Coalition is moving on pensions is welcome after the drift of recent decades. It is crucial that the reforms do not get bogged down in endless consultation. Meanwhile, one thing is certain: future generations will look back on today's retirees with envy."

Blogger the news as "sensible" and suggests the retirement age goes up to 75:

"The state pension is a form of social insurance: insurance against outliving your rational savings. Not a form of assurance, a way of saving for something which is likely (or certain) to happen. As such it should be paid at around and about the average lifespan."

James Bartholomew, who wrote a book criticising the benefits system called The Welfare State We're In, how the changes have come through without opposition:

"The politically impossible is sometimes possible. And how has it been done in this case?
1. Long preparation of public opinion over many years by many people, gradually bringing home to middle-of-the-road people that welfare is not working very well and has had all sorts of perverse consequences. This got to the point where all parties were committed to reforms, often unspecified, of welfare benefits.
2. Barely mentioning the whole subject during the election.
3. Consequently not having to make promises that would be broken such as 'we will not cut housing benefit'."

Links in full

•
•
•
•
•
•