Its an interesting discussion. Certainly the funding issue is important and cannot be wished away. But also the the entire concept of a pension, providing a sufficient moderate lifestyle in retirement as working people enter into their latter years needs to be focused on, otherwise what is the point in saving for retirement if it means having to work longer?
I do fear, that once the genie is out of the bottle and the retirement age is increased to 67, then those 20 somethings starting out out will probably be facing into a retirement age of 70+.
This is particularly relevant where the mortality differentials in different socio-economic groupings is concerned. With those in the most deprived areas , working labour intensive or low-skilled jobs, having lower life-expectancy. I think in Britain there was a proposal to raise retirement age to 70, but was quickly binned when it was discovered that age 70 is in excess of the life expectancy of some of the most impoverished areas of Britain.
So is the resolution to move the retirement age to a later date, or to look at other ways of funding? My preference would be to look at other ways of funding. I cant say for certain, but my impression is that little has been done to explore more efficient ways of redistributing the cost. I think the age limit is a blunt instrument, and moving the age limit is a blunt response to a blunt instrument.
It has been mentioned in the course of this discussion that some people prefer to keep working. Part-time or full-time. Perhaps an option to defer the receipt of their State pension would be option? A carrot could be that they no longer contribute from their earnings, making their continued employment more attractive while simultaneously reducing the cost of the pension. Of if they continue to contribute, then their pension will be that little bit higher when they do decide to call it a day?
Another way, perhaps controversially, is knowing that while people are living longer that it also correlates with increasing levels of nursing for longer periods of time as peoples mental and physical faculties begin to deteriorate. Speaking from personal experience (I'm sure others can testify also), having watched an elderly relative live through a healthy and fulfilling retirement, there came a point when nursing, food, light, heat, and company, were the only things of real substance in this persons life. Is there a case to be made, when you add the allowances and the pension, that some or all the pension is diverted to the cost of healthcare? Is this not a more efficient use of resources rather than allowing the pension build up as some tidy inheritance pot?