Latest news with #retirementage
Telegraph
22-07-2025
- Business
- Telegraph
Farage: State pension age will have to rise faster
Nigel Farage has warned that the state pension age must rise more quickly after the Government opened the door to increasing it. The Reform UK leader said the state of the economy and public finances meant plans to increase the standard retirement age to 68 had to be accelerated. 'I don't think we can really afford to [wait to the 2040s], to be frank,' Mr Farage said. 'If there is a sudden economic miracle, then it might change that. But it does not look to be happening any time soon.' The state pension age is currently on course to rise to 67 by 2028 and to 68 by 2046. Mr Farage said: 'I don't think the country has any choice. The state pension age will gradually have to be increased, in line with life expectancy. There is little doubt about it.' His comments suggest that Reform UK would raise the retirement age more rapidly if it won power. Mr Farage's party has just four MPs but is currently leading in the opinion polls. Mr Farage was speaking after the Government launched a new pensions review on Monday, raising the prospect that six million Britons could be forced to delay their retirements. Raising the retirement age sooner than planned is politically controversial. Previous plans to do so were abandoned by former chancellor Jeremy Hunt amid concerns he would struggle to justify the change. Liz Kendall, the Work and Pensions Secretary, said this week she was 'under no illusions' about the scale of the challenges facing both workers and the public purse as the country ages. Triple lock could cost taxpayers £40bn a year The Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) raised concerns about the sustainability of the state pension system earlier this month. It said a 'substantial' increase in the retirement age would be required to maintain the triple lock guarantee, which guarantees payments rise by at least 2.5pc a year. Without changes to the retirement age, the think tank warned that the triple lock will cost taxpayers up to £40bn a year and disproportionately hit poorer households by forcing them to work for longer. The IFS estimated that a year increase in the state pension age would save the Treasury £6bn per year. The strain on public finances was highlighted on Tuesday by official figures that showed the Government borrowed another £20.7bn in June. That was the highest for any June on record outside the pandemic year of 2020. Interest payments on the £2.9tn national debt almost doubled compared with June of last year, while higher public sector pay and spending plans are also adding to borrowing.
.png%3Ftrim%3D0%2C0%2C0%2C0%26width%3D1200%26height%3D800%26crop%3D1200%3A800&w=3840&q=100)
The Independent
22-07-2025
- Business
- The Independent
‘Work until we die?' Independent readers outraged over retirement age review
Liz Kendall's announcement of a new review into the state pension age has drawn a strong response from readers, especially older workers and pensioners who feel increasingly squeezed by reforms they see as both unfair and unrealistic. Many took issue with the idea of raising the retirement age again, warning that it fails to account for physical decline, especially among manual workers. 'My knees have packed in,' said one 73-year-old, who retired at 65 after a lifetime of physical labour. 'There's no way I could keep doing the work I used to.' Several readers questioned Ms Kendall's assertion that future pensioners should take heed and save more, with many pointing out that saving is only an option for the wealthy or those with disposable incomes. A recurring theme was frustration at a system seen to punish those who had 'done everything right' – saving into private pensions and paying contributions, only to be left with little support. 'He told me to retire penniless,' another reader said of her father's bitter advice, 'because then you get everything.' A few commenters looked to the future, suggesting that instead of clinging to outdated models, the government should explore policies like basic income to address the long-term impacts of AI and inequality. Here's what you had to say: Pensioners don't drain the system Pensioners are nearly always referred to as if they're draining the system of something they're not entitled to. Forgotten is the fact that most of them worked until 65 and paid what was due until they did. As we now know, it doesn't protect them from poverty in old age. Only those with private pensions, which are also subject to taxation that wasn't foreseen when many set these plans up, have enough to cover basic costs. Saving? How does the average worker do that? They can hardly afford to put food on the table and get by. Take more money out of people's pockets, which cuts spending, and even more high streets will become derelict and industries will fail. Increasing retirement age? A friend died at 69 recently, and another at 72 (neither were manual workers). Increasing retirement age for manual workers would be cruel as well as disastrous, or are people supposed to work until they drop? Too many pensioners are having to desperately look for jobs to boost pensions that don't enable them to eat and heat. Maybe it's time the government took a look at some of the systems that work in other countries! Quick-fix ideas aren't the solution. A system fit for purpose, where everyone pays their fair share and people can retain their dignity and are able to live without having to calculate how and if they're entitled to benefits or charity to get by, is the only sensible way forward. Will it happen? I would lie if I said I was optimistic! Ambigirls Do you think the state pension age should rise — or is it already too high? Share your thoughts in the comments below. Reform, not tinkering There are issues with the triple lock, but the savings narrative is a fiction. As people (particularly working-class people) approach 70, they are more likely to find themselves unable to find suitable employment or be underemployed. So they will require working-age benefits. It is not difficult to imagine that there would also be increased costs on the health system as ageing bodies are required to work more and more. Further, it is likely that around one-third of millennials will end their working lives in the private rental sector, so housing support will be required at greater levels. We cannot keep tinkering with these systems just to balance the books on paper. We must reform the tax code and the social security net to make both fit for the modern age. lostboy88 Punished for saving My dad saved, paid into private pensions and paid his contributions. He was never unemployed and did everything the government asked him to do. When he retired, he found to his disgust that he was entitled to very little from the state – effectively punished for having saved, etc, whilst others who contributed nothing were given everything by the state. That's socialism. He told me to never make his mistake and ensure I retired penniless to get the maximum back from all I had paid in. saghia Work until we die? OK, so here we have the result of all those people who wanted to avoid benefits cuts. The alternative is for working people to work longer. Some benefit cuts were needed, in my opinion. And before anyone suggests a 0.2 per cent tax on billionaires – whether we like it or not – they can leave the UK, fly in from time to time if they really want to, and then we'd lose the huge amount they do pay in tax. What then? Work until we die? Ordinary people are paying for a few too many freeloaders, in my opinion. Where is the sympathy for non-unionised people who work and pay tax? Hi5 Saving is not the answer Saving? Saving is NOT the answer. If we try to save more, we spend less. If we spend less, businesses sell and make less, so they invest less... just the opposite of what we need to increase the output needed to pay pensions. It is a good example of the confused thinking that affects so many people. An individual who saves more will have more to spend in retirement than they would otherwise have. If we all try to do that, we are all worse off. What is right for an individual is often not right collectively (wet wipes, panic buying, burning smoky fuel, saving for retirement, etc). The Fallacy of Composition. much0ado People aren't saving because they can't People aren't saving because they can't – it's that simple. There is no money left at the end of the month to save anything because of the cost of living. A large majority of people are having to live pay cheque to pay cheque with no slack. Unless something is done about that, then there is a huge problem being stored up for the future, let alone Reeves saying she was going after people's savings!! deadduck Gross inequality is the root of our problems The government can't simply keep increasing the state pension age for one reason: some people become physically incapable of working when they get a little bit older. Asking a manual worker to keep digging holes when he's nearly 70 is absurd. The government needs to deal with tax evasion and avoidance, including offshore. I'd also introduce a land value tax, which forces the wealthy to pay their share. Gross inequality is the root cause of many of our societal problems, and it's time it was addressed. You don't deal with it by taxing working people more – you tax the ultra wealthy who pay basically nothing. flying scot It makes sense to raise the pension age People are largely living longer because of better living conditions, nutrition and healthcare. For example, I'm now much older than all my grandparents were when they died. Although the most vulnerable must still be cared for, it makes sense to raise the pension age to reflect this change in society – it is the 21st century rather than the 1900s... hayneman Onsalught on working-class people I'm 73, retired at 65 and did manual work most of my life. My knees have packed in, and the rest of my body is slowly packing in now – there is no way I am able to do the sort of work I did when I was younger, and haven't been able for well over 10 years now. This is the case for many manual workers. How can Kendall, Reeves, Streeting, Starmer etc. call themselves a Labour government with this continual onslaught on working-class people? The trade unions should withdraw support and funding immediately and advise their members to place their votes elsewhere, preferably not in Farage's direction, though. manwithnoname The future looks unpredictable We must bear in mind that the relentless march of AI and other systems is considerably reducing the number of jobs in many sectors dependent on 'exchanges of data', from simple insurance to DVLA or HMRC, for instance... The list is endless. How can these workers be 'recycled' in the short term? How do we ensure that those mythical 16-year-old voters HAVE some employment to look forward to after finishing their studies, at whatever level? Importing 'low-grade' labour is eating into the job supply at the bottom end, while all those 'surgeons and engineers' cream off the top end... The future looks unpredictable for too many youngsters. Problems must be addressed now! Failure to do that will make the triple lock – an invaluable resource to many pensioners still – look like change from the back of the sofa... YvesFerrer These reviews are so detached from people's realities Financial literacy is not taught in schools. I suspect a large proportion of people who are not planning for retirement don't understand money very well. Also, a huge number of people don't have enough disposable income to save at a level that would give a comfortable retirement. You need, in current terms, around £300,000 to £500,000 in private funds. That is for someone who owns their own home. If you retire but have to still pay for rented accommodation, you've got no chance. These reviews are so detached from people's realities. After paying tax and National Insurance for 50 years, I get my State Pension next year – and I will be paying income tax on it :) Lithiumiron Some of the comments have been edited for this article for brevity and clarity.
Malay Mail
09-07-2025
- Politics
- Malay Mail
‘Walk to Safeguard Judicial Independence' should have taken place much earlier — Hafiz Hassan
JULY 9 — In 'When it comes to retirement age of judges, we aren't trendy', I wrote of former Chief Justice Tun Arifin Zakaria who said that the retirement age of judges should be increased to 70 years old by amending the Federal Constitution. That was in March 2017. More than a year later, eminent constitutional law expert, Prof Dr Shad Faruqi wrote in his column in The Star: 'The provision of the Federal Constitution's Article 125(1) on retirement age (66 years plus six months of possible extension) seriously hinders the ongoing internal effort to reform the judiciary. 'It is therefore recommended that in line with many other countries, the age of retirement of our superior court judges should be extended. The most extreme case is the US Supreme Court, where the appointment is for life. Canada imposes the age of 75. The United Kingdom, Australia, Holland, South Africa, the Philippines and Indonesia observe the age of 70.' The article was republished on the Malaysian Bar website. In April this year, the eminent expert said it again: the retirement age of judges should be extended to 70 by amending Article 125(1). In the preceding years, it is noteworthy that the call to extend or increase the retirement age of judges was also made by Karen Cheah, then president of the Malaysian Bar. According to Cheah, Malaysia should allow its judges to retire at the later age of 70. She noted that many other countries have set the retirement age for judges at 70 years old, and that some countries have proposed for the retirement age to be increased to 75 or even 80 years old. 'Another important reform which the Malaysian Bar believes will strengthen the judiciary and retain the nation's talent is to increase the age of retirement of judges to 70,' she said in her speech at the Opening of the Legal Year 2023 at the Putrajaya International Convention Centre. 'The Malaysian Bar urges the government to make constitutional amendments to give effect to this important reform,' she added. So, what happened to the call made in the name of the Malaysian Bar? Deputy law minister Mas Ermieyati Samsudin (left) holding up the memorandum she received from Bar president Karen Cheah (right) during Walk for Judicial Independence at Padang Merbok in Kuala Lumpur June 17, 2022. — Picture by Yusof Mat Isa If the call had been pursued vigorously, without fear or favour, the peaceful 2.6km march for judicial independence in Putrajaya, aimed at handing over a memorandum to the Prime Minister's Office, should have taken place following the call by Karen Cheah. The 'Walk to Safeguard Judicial Independence' starting at the main entrance of the Palace of Justice (POJ) – the very heart of the judicial system, from where justice is dispensed – would have long demonstrated the commitment of the Malaysian Bar to judicial independence and integrity. * This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of Malay Mail.
Yahoo
06-07-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Warning issued for millions of state pensioners who plan to retire before age 74
A warning has been issued for millions of workers who plan to retire BEFORE the age of 74. Millions of state pensionrs face working until 74 after a new state pension warning was issued with the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) told to act. State pension age is currently set at 66, but a new report is saying this should rise to 74. In its latest report, the IFS said: 'Increases in the state pension age required to keep spending on the state pension below a certain level of national income would have to be substantial. '[Official] modelling shows that to keep public spending on the state pension below 6pc of national income while retaining the triple lock, the state pension age would have to rise to 69 by 2049 and 74 by 2069.' READ MORE: State pensioners aged over 66 can get £441 a month with these conditions READ MORE: DWP handed new benefit shake-up proposals for PIP and Universal Credit claimants READ MORE Major high street brand cuts 1,200 jobs as sales fall by nearly £100million Mike Ambery, Retirement Savings Director at Standard Life, said: 'The report correctly identifies widespread under-saving and gaps in pension provision. 'We are supportive of their conclusion that there is not a one size fits all solution to these problems but there is a need to be more inclusive, particularly for the self-employed, as well as for younger workers who are not yet included. 'The risk of over saving for those on low incomes is significant but so too is the need for most of those on average or higher earnings to save more. 'Striking the right balance will be a key challenge of the adequacy review, and any change would need to be carefully considered and in consultation, especially with employers.' Jonathan Cribb, an associate director and head of retirement at the Institute for Fiscal Studies pointed out that an underlying problem centred on the NHS and social care: while state pensions and pension benefits were estimated to increase by £45bn by 2050, he said, the pressure on public finance from health and social care was estimated to rise by £105bn in today's terms over the same period.
Yahoo
02-07-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Workers ‘face retirement at 74 unless pension triple lock scrapped'
Britons face working until they are 74 unless the Government scraps the triple lock on pensions, according to a leading think tank. The Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) issued the warning amid concerns that an ageing population will mean the country cannot meet its ballooning state pension bill. It said that a 'substantial' increase in the age people can start claiming their state pension is required to maintain the triple lock, which guarantees payments rise by at least 2.5pc a year. Without changes to the retirement age, which is currently set at 66 for both men and women, the IFS warned that the triple lock will cost taxpayers up to £40bn a year and disproportionately hit poorer households by forcing them to work for longer. Labour and the Tories have both committed to keeping the triple lock, which ensures the state pension always rises in line with the highest wage growth, inflation or 2.5pc. However, the IFS said a double lock that instead linked increases in payments to wages or inflation was more sustainable for the country's strained public finances. Official projections by the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) show that spending on the state pension is set to rise from 5pc of GDP today, or £150bn, to 8pc by 2070, equivalent to £240bn. In its latest report, the IFS said: 'Increases in the state pension age required to keep spending on the state pension below a certain level of national income would have to be substantial. '[Official] modelling shows that to keep public spending on the state pension below 6pc of national income while retaining the triple lock, the state pension age would have to rise to 69 by 2049 and 74 by 2069.' Its report also referenced a previous government review of the state pension age by Baroness Neville-Rolfe, which said it would have to rise significantly to prevent costs from rising sharply. Britain's current retirement age is 66, although it will rise to 67 by 2028 before increasing again to 68 by 2046. Under the current triple lock policy of at least a 2.5pc increase, the IFS estimated that state pension payments will rise from £230 a week to £250 by 2043 in today's money. This would raise the level of the state pension to 33pc of average earnings from just over 30pc today, but add £15bn to annual public spending by 2050 compared with lifting it in line with wage growth. The OBR has predicted that the national debt will rise from around 100pc of GDP today to 270pc in 50 years' time without significant changes in either spending plans or in the economy's growth rate. The surge in debt will be driven by higher pension and healthcare costs. David Miles, a top official at the watchdog, said the forecasts show 'that is an unsustainable path and something has to give somewhere.' 'There are significant risks,' he told the House of Lords' Economic Affairs Committee, noting the danger of investors refusing to finance the ballooning debt. 'One way to interpret that [270pc projection] is that you won't follow that path because the bond markets will force you off it somewhere down the road, and there will be a sort of reckoning and there may have to be a significant restructuring of the role of the state, the size of the state, to reflect the demographics, the diminished productive potential of the economies.' The IFS also said employers should be forced to pump more money into the private pensions of their employees. It called on bosses to put at least 3pc of revenues towards a private retirement fund, with both employees and employers gradually contributing more as their earnings rise. The institute said this would improve financial security in retirement and boost nationwide pension savings by £11bn. Paul Johnson, the director of the IFS, said: 'There is a risk that policymakers have become complacent when it comes to pensions. Without decisive action, too many of today's working-age population face lower living standards and greater financial insecurity through their retirement.' Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more. Sign in to access your portfolio
