L’età della pensione statale potrebbe colpire 80 a meno che non si apportano importanti modifiche, avverte di esperti
https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/state-pension-age-could-hit-122000339.html
di PrestigiousBrit
L’età della pensione statale potrebbe colpire 80 a meno che non si apportano importanti modifiche, avverte di esperti
https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/state-pension-age-could-hit-122000339.html
di PrestigiousBrit
29 commenti
An industry expert has warned that the state pension age may need to rise to 80 without dramatic reforms, amid concerns the nationwide bill will be “completely unaffordable” as life expectancy increases.
The UK’s state pension age is set to increase from 66 to 67 between 2026 and 2028. There is a further increase to 68 lined up for 2046 but this is widely expected to be brought forward significantly, with a wider pensions review underway.
However, the annual cost of the state pension is rising and people are living longer – meaning higher pension bills for longer. The latest report from the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) suggested the cost could be £200bn a year by 2073.
The upshot is that either the triple lock needs to go or people need to contribute far more to it during their working lives, with estimates saying the state pension will cost 7.7-8.4 per cent of GDP by the 2070s.
Jack Carmichael, a pensions expert and actuary at Barnett Waddingham, warns that can’t be paid for in current terms, and might even be undershooting the reality by then, too.
“A more cautious approach would be to assume a closing of the life expectancy gap between the individuals with the lowest and highest life expectancy. Under this alternative, the annual cost of the state pension would increase by around £8bn a year – four times higher than the OBR’s central projection,” Mr Carmichael told the Telegraph.
“Keeping the cost at a similar proportion of GDP would then require a massive increase in the state pension age, potentially up to the dizzying heights of 80.
“Even if the central projection is correct and state pension spending hits 7.7pc of GDP, the cost is still going to increase by almost half in today’s terms. That’s completely unaffordable. Employees are either going to have to contribute 50pc more to the state pension or [the government is] going to have to change the system in some way.”
Other experts have said the pensions system could be bringing in less than it pays out in as little as a decade.
That means this government – or at least its review – might have to act now despite the clear unpopularity of doing so.
“This latest state pension age review, however, may eventually force the government’s hand,” said Rachel Vahey, head of public policy at AJ Bell.
“State pension benefits are one of the single biggest expenses for the Treasury and account for more than 80 per cent of the £175bn pensioner welfare bill. Without policy intervention, state pension costs are set to spiral to nearly 8 per cent of GDP over the next 50 years based on the current trajectory, up from 5.2 per cent today.
“One option is to raise the state pension age higher and faster than currently planned. Although the elephant in the room is that state pension age is just one lever government has to help manage the cost of the state pension – the other is reforming the triple lock.”
Terms and Privacy Policy
Privacy & Cookie Settings
PA Media: Money
Battle against state pensions gender gap ‘nearly won’ for new retirees
Vicky Shaw, PA Personal Finance Correspondent
Tue 5 August 2025 at 12:39 pm BST 2 min read
Want to date with senior singles online?
BestDates
•
Ad
The state pensions gender gap has narrowed to £1.80 per week on average for those who have recently started to claim it, according to Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) figures.
Statistics covering December 1 2023 to November 30 2024, reflecting “inflows to the new state pension”, show that on average women are receiving 99.1% of the amount received by men.
The amounts for men and women are on course to be equal very shortly, the department said.
The data was obtained following a freedom of information (FOI) request by former Liberal Democrat pensions minister Sir Steve Webb, who is now a partner at consultants LCP (Lane Clark & Peacock).
Sir Steve requested data showing the average amount of new state pension received by men and women who had claimed within the latest 12 months for which the figures are available.
According to the FOI response, the average newly retired man now receives a pension of £209.95 per week, with the average newly retired woman getting £208.15.
The new state pension was introduced in 2016, simplifying the system.
It had to be phased in gradually, helping to protect the pension rights that some people had already built up under the old system.
Women often lost out under the previous system, due to career gaps and caring responsibilities.
The FOI response said: “Women on the new state pension are receiving over £18 more per week than those on the pre-2016 system.
“That is around 98% of the amount received by men (the average for women under the pre-2016 system is 86%).”
Sir Steve said: “I am delighted to see that when it comes to the state pension, the battle against the gender pension gap is nearly won for those retiring today.
“When there is so much negative news about gaps between men and women when it comes to pensions, these figures show that things can be changed provided that there is the political will to do so.
“There are however far too many women who have already retired who are living on reduced pensions and I will continue to campaign for them to be treated fairly, including by rooting out all of the errors which have led to so many being underpaid for so long.”
Helen Morrissey, head of retirement analysis at Hargreaves Lansdown, said: “Despite this progress, much more needs to be done to close the gender pension gap more widely.”
She added: “We need wider reform to address the reasons why women have to leave the workplace or have gaps in their pension saving by making sure they are able to access good quality and affordable childcare as well as more flexibility in the workplace.”
Younger generations are paying for the current generation of pensioners who wonder why the younger generations don’t want to work. No shit, they are working fucking hard to pay for a pension that they probably won’t fuck see.
To me this is logically expected, I’m in my late 30s, but I’ve always assumed my formal retirement age would be in the 70s due to the average life expectancy and the setup isn’t to support people to live for 20-30 years with no independent income.
But of course MPs like Liz Kendall will be able to retire whenever their political careers crash and burn, and they’ll spend the rest of their lives in the House of Lords getting paid to do nothing except appear in the occasional debate every now and then to continue having access to peerage salaries.
So, who does Liz Kendall sleep with? Who is her lover?
Do you know?
I do.
Is he a) a trade union leader or b) the head of a private equity fund?
Have a guess.
She doesn’t approve when he does drugs though.
I’m going to start a business replacing the tyres on zimmer frames to account for all the extra rubber we’ll burn.
80? At that point the state pension may as well be scrapped entirely and pretty much just say everyone will have to work until they can’t no more or drop. Maybe fund a single cruise before death and call it retirement.
Its is hitting it because of the people we [are allowing to enter right now ](https://x.com/WilliamClouston/status/1952424947487293659?t=6uCr5H0BkTrIY36EXRCM9Q&s=19)
I will agree with this only if the current generation has it applied to them, so the baby boomers who are retired now or about to retire need to keep working and cancel their etirement till they are 80.
If the current generation wishes to change what affects future generations they need it applied to them first
(Pension changes) etc
(National Service) etc
Even if I were in good health i wouldnt want to work until I was 80…
I’ll be doing a half shift on the day of my funeral. Finish at one, crematorium for two, and about half three my boss will be on the Ouija board asking if I got someone to cover the rest of my shift before I died.
The whole system is a mess. The Tories cut Employee’s NI from 12 to 8% last year.
In 1980, State Pension age was 65 for men and 60 for women – while life expectancy was 71. This meant men got six years and women 11 years of taxpayer funded retirement.
Today, the State Pension age is 66 and life expectancy is 82, meaning both men and women get 16 years of taxpayer funded retirement.
We’re now paying the same NI rate as in 1980, but people expect three times as much taxpayer funded retirement.
The State Pension age should be 76 or taxes should be A LOT higher.
I’ve stopped assuming I’m going to get it.
Definitely better to plan for it not being there and ensuring I’ve got enough otherwise.
In 1947 you’d work from 15 to 65 and be dead by 75.
50 years of work to fund ten years of retirement.
Now it’s work from 20 to 65 and live until 85.
45 years of work for twenty years of retirement.
That’s why it’s screwed.
So work longer, or pay more. Otherwise the maths doesn’t work.
>An industry expert has warned that the state pension age may need to rise to 80 without dramatic reforms, amid concerns the nationwide bill will be “completely unaffordable” as life expectancy increases.
Is life expectancy increasing that much? I was under the impression it has flattened in the past decade or so.
There’s no way around it. Higher pension age, no more triple lock.
Every politician knows it too, they just don’t want to be the guys who do it, because we can count on the media causing a storm when it happens.
This is the definition of systemic failure.
Given family history I won’t be fit to work by 70. I’ll not mind I won’t be able to remember enough to care.
Even at 68, there’s a lot of people that are going to be retiring immediately into a long period illness and poor health.
Just go on the dole and blag them for five or ten years they’re stupid at the job centre.
Who’s going to want to employ someone in their late seventies?
There are few jobs which a seventy year old can do anywhere near as effectively as a thirty five year old.
Report is stupid.
Pension age is increasing 1 year every 10 to factor in increasing life expectancy. Each time it saves about £10bn a year or 0.4-0.5% of GDP.
From 5.2% GDP to 7.7% over 50 years. Didn’t factor in age increases, 0.45 x 5 increases = 2.25% so in 50 years pension age will be 72, life expectancy 93 and GDP cost will be 0.25% of GDP higher, assuming the Triple lock continues in current form.
EU average is 12.3% at this moment in time, we’d be 24th if still there.
Is this the same as job related pension? Or do they exist separately?
What’s the point of saying “could” at this point, it hits working classes and extracts more out of them at the added benefit of less of them making it to the fabled age of accessing any of the money (basically turning it into a funeral fund), it’s a perfect fuck you to every worker in the country.
The age is entirely pointless now in these hypothetical posts.
68 is as old as you can probably get away with as although you won’t get a ‘pension’ before that, most of us will be claiming some sort of benefits as we will be unable to work due to age related conditions.
Let’s not all fall for the trap that we think it’s inevitable it’s going up further. Fight it all you can as not only do I want to retire, I also don’t want 70 year olds having to still be builders and surgeons and fucking things up.
claw back the money from those that dont spend it, the rich.
What exactly is a 75 year old going to do for work? Most are going to be slow and shit by that age they simply won’t all be able to keep jobs.
If you can’t give me a pension, don’t take my money from my salary. Let’s me invest it somewhere… All Europe is gone mad. Maybe we should replace politicians with chatgpt, I dunno. Someone pension is already prepaid. Saying you don’t have the money means you are incapable of running a legitimate and viable plan for the future
In an ideal world, all billionaires and politicians could only served/treated by people aged 75 and older.
Surgeons, dentists, pilots, hair stylists, waiters, cleaners, executive assistants. Everybody younger than 75 should refuse to work for them.
Give them real life experience of what it means to force people to work until 80.
Its actually worse than that, there won’t fucking be one at this rate ! Im making all the provisions that I can in my 30s to try and ensure that I won’t need a state pension……
I watched 2 people in my family pass away at 74 and they both retired at 68, of those 6 years retirement they probably had 3 years of decent living before they got sick.
Life is for living and if I can retire at 60 you better believe I will be.