Just this once ...

[whole diary]

[stuving]

Nice if society can afford it, but with massive numbers of baby boomers reaching pension age soon, it does seem to be creating a generational inequality.  (Takes cover and waits for the bricks to start flying over my head!)

Hmmm ... the pension age has been crept up ... ladies from 60 to 66 and going further I believe, so it that more money for a shorter period - has life expectancy gone up by that same number of years, or more, or less.   Yes, look at the number of baby boomers but also consider they've been putting funds in for so many years and there were more of them doing that too. And finally take a look at changes in life expectancy - will the figures be dented by a disproportionate number of people passing on at the moment?

Hopefully you don't take those questions as a brick.

... and the increase in life expectation that the shift of pension age was based on happened ages ago. Decisions about pensions happen very, very, slowly (apart from the speed-up of the equalisation affecting certain women). Here's a few snapshot values (i.e. not for cohorts) for various birth dates, all for the UK^▸ (United Kingdom):

birth years	males	females
1950-52	66.2	71.2
1974-76	69.4	75.6
1980-82	70.8	76.8
2000-02	75.6	80.4
2016-18	79.2	82.9

So more than enough to justify the odd year or two later pension age there ...

[bradshaw]

We loosely planned for our retirement when Marion and I got married almost 25 years ago. Then her retirement age was going to be 60. We took life decisions based on that and then, some years ago, were informed that her retirement age would now be 66. That shot serious holes in to the plan and meant that I was still supply teaching at 69, some four years ago.

It was this 6 year rise that has caught out so many of the mid-1950s women.

[Celestial]

That's interesting stuving, though I guess of more interest is those who were born in the generations that have recently retired and will do so in the next 10 to 20 years (which would include the boomers).  

Grahame's implied challenge has got me diverted from rolling gloom, sorry News, and I found a graph* on the ONS^» (Office for National Statistics - website) site which shows that the male life expectancy of those who reach age 65 has increased over the last generation from 14 years in 1981 to 20 years in 2018. And it's expected to rise by another 1 year every 10 years.  So I think that means that by 2030, if the pension age hadn't been increased, the pension cost of a new retiree would have increased by 50% in 50 years (from 14 years to 21 years?)   My brain is hurting now, too many numbers!
  
*  Sorry, couldn't work out how to include it. But it's here.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/lifeexpectancies/bulletins/pastandprojecteddatafromtheperiodandcohortlifetables/1981to2068

[Robin Summerhill]

Hmmm ... happy to comment in generality but not exactly going into personal finances on the public board.   Clearly a topic of great interest (in generality) to many of our members.

...  I would not go as far as Robin in saying "My advice to anybody in this situation is to take the money" ... rather my advise would be to very carefully look at your own circumstances, options, and what may or may not happen in the future. 

One of the best things about advice Graham is that one is under no obligation to take it!   

Of course everybody should examine their own personal circumstances in detail, but many don't, and many (perhaps not necessarily anybody on this forum) may blithely assume that a pension deferral so that they get a bit more later is a good idea. I take a dissimilar view and my simple example (not in any way representing SWMBO^▸ (She Who Must Be Obeyed)'s finances, by the way) was given to illustrate it.

There may well be issues such as higher rate tax liability that might cnange the figures, that I accept, and that is another reason why everybody should look closely into their own personal circumstances.

[stuving]

I'm beginning to wonder how Graham come to have just retired ... is he a bit of a Time Lord on the quiet? This is in Dad's army pay book, which records training and specialist skills:

[chuffed]

I received my state pension last March at the ripe old age of 65 and 8 months. I had 29 years paid in, and then my remaining 17 years were made up of 9 years credits and 8 years Class 3 voluntary contributions. I was in a contracted out profession (teaching....but this also includes health and social care workers, local council. fire and police, civil service, and armed forces).I was  blissfully unaware of what contracted out meant ,until I  discovered that my state pension was forecasted to be 5/6 of what I was expecting to get, despite having 46 years under my belt.I have been going backwards and forwards between the Pension Service in Wolverhampton and HMRC as they keep giving me different figures. I have had my second state pension payment yesterday and it still does not yet reflect the latest payment I made to HMRC in January!. My advice to folks coming up to state pension age would be to check, recheck and check  again, because it is quite apparent to me that neither agency has a clue what the other is doing or saying!

[grahame]

Oh, and best wishes for a long and happy "retirement" too though I suspect it's more in name than reality from the number of things you seem to be involved with.   

Thank you ... the move from being rudely fit, healthy and energetic in body and mind, and needing to be so to be able to put away (through state enforced schemes or otherwise) enough for when that is not the case, and indeed when additional costs arise, is not a sudden one.     Whilst there are people - perhaps many of them - who move from a full time job which is all they have known for decades and loved to "what can I do now with all this time?" mode overnight, I am, as you surmise, not one of them.     

Some things have gone, only two of them as unexpected / unwanted shocks, and other allowed to fade.  Other things have been allowed to grow / enhanced or taken on to fill gaps.  The coming of bus pass and state pension is merely the point at which the label changes.  I've noted and marked it,  but it's just a line stepped over in this great field of life, and the field continues for me with little difference.

[didcotdean]

People with a contracted out career (which includes me) were one of the winners of the pension changes as it enabled being able to make up the state pension from the old basic rate, which was all the contracted out NI was paying for to the new full rate by additional contributions, whether through work or voluntary payments, providing you were far enough away from state pension age. Even paying Class III would pay back over a few years, the exact number depending on your income tax rate.

The current old basic rate is £134.25 whereas the full new State Pension is £175.20 per week. Currently each additional year would give £5 extra per week.

[ellendune]

People with a contracted out career (which includes me) were one of the winners of the pension changes as it enabled being able to make up the state pension from the old basic rate, which was all the contracted out NI was paying for to the new full rate by additional contributions, whether through work or voluntary payments, providing you were far enough away from state pension age. Even paying Class III would pay back over a few years, the exact number depending on your income tax rate.

The current old basic rate is £134.25 whereas the full new State Pension is £175.20 per week. Currently each additional year would give £5 extra per week.

It is important to understand that those retiring before it has fully phased in will only get a proportion of the difference as you need a certain number of years of NI after the date the change 2014? was made.  That is why the Class III contributions you mention are so important.