Those are the words of David Sinclair, chief executive of the International Longevity Centre. The Daily Express asked three pensions experts what should be done to keep the state pension affordable. Sinclair is the first of those – Express will feature the thoughts of two more specialists in the coming days. Sinclair is one of the few realistic voices when it comes to state pensions in an increasingly heated debate about the state pension age.
And he’s telling us uncomfortable home truths that politicians will never admit. There are some tough questions over the state pension age, and we won’t like the answers.
Since 1940, the state pension age has risen gradually and now stands at 66 for both men and women.
It will rise to 67 between 2026 and 2028, with a further increase to 68 between 2044 and 2046.
That process could be brought forward to 2037.
It’s brutal, but it still may not be enough.
Last year, the International Longevity Centre calculated that the state pension must be pushed up to 70 or 71 by 2050.
It said that’s necessary to maintain the current ratio of workers per pensioner, as their taxes pay for today’s pensions.
Sinclair says almost 13million Britons claim the state pension today. In 2023-24, the bill was £125billion, which is 10% of all public spending.
It’s due to hit £138billion this year and keep climbing thereafter unless we see major reforms.
Sinclair says Labour faces difficult choices to keep the state pension affordable: tax more, borrow more, cut other spending, raise the state pension age or reduce its generosity.
It could even means-test the state pension. Or axe the hugely popular triple lock annual uplift mechanism. Any of these would spark outrage.
But ignoring the problem is no longer an option, Sinclair says.
A big problem with hiking the state pension age is that more than 1.5million have been forced out of work early due to ill health. They can’t carry on working to age 66, let alone 71.
This makes raising the state pension age even harder, Sinclair says.
To keep people fit we need major investment in preventative action against ill health. We also need to fight workplace ageism, and build a stronger benefits safety net for those who fall through the cracks.
All that will cost money too.
Politicians dread tackling the subject, and with good reason. “For government it’s a lose, lose, lose scenario,” Mr Sinclair says.
He adds: “The Labour government “will be terrified about even suggesting a cut to the triple lock after the outcry over its decision to axe the Winter Fuel Payment.”
But it’s got to do something. And fast. Pushing the state pension age even higher maybe one of the easier options, given that it won’t hit people for a decade or two.
Unless Labour gets serious about cutting government spending and waste, but there’s been little sign of that yet. The Tories didn’t do it either, for all their talk.
The row over the state pension age and triple lock is only going to intensify. Whatever politicians decide, it will be lose, lose, lose for the rest of us.
