UNIVERSITY graduates may have to wait until they are 70 before drawing a State pension, the man charged by the Government with drawing up plans to reform the system has suggested.

Adair Turner, head of the Government-commissioned Pensions Commission, said that lower-paid workers could still retire on a full pension at 65, to reflect their lower life expectancy.

In an interview in the The Sunday Times, Turner suggested the two-tier approach to reflect the fact that professionals live five years longer than lower social groups after retirement.

Turner, a former director-general of the CBI, told the newspaper: 'One of the sad facts is that although life expectancy is going up, it is going up least in lower socio-economic groups.

So we have to be sensitive to that when we put up the State pension age. For example, the person who starts work at 16 would be able to get something at 65. The person who went to university and started serious work at 23 is not going to get it until 70.'

He added: 'We have to be wary of saying 'Well, in order to get our numbers to add up without a further tax increase it (the State pension age) has got to be 70 in 2030, end of story'. It's too cavalier in relation to the life expectancy of people at the bottom end of the income scale.'

Shadow Work and Pensions Secretary, Sir Malcolm Rifkind, expressed serious reservations about Turner's suggestion. Rifkind said: 'Changing the entitlement depending on whether you went to university would not only be wrong in principle but almost certainly unworkable.'


Well there you have it folks. If you wanted to live longer you should have stuck in at school...............unlike the rest of us who like to live for today and spend, spend, spend!
Being logical about this, there is plenty of evidence going back years that suggests that those in "white-collar" work-traditionally that which required a degree-live longer after retirement than those who were in manual jobs.

Sorry, can't get too worked up about this one.

(PS- does this apply to those of us who took our degrees while working full-time and attending to family commitments, or just you layabouts who did full-time studying in your callow youth :wink: )
It won't work, for two reasons:

Firstly, it will impact on a large minority of the population. There might have been a tenuous moral case two decades ago about pointing to the financial and lifestyle benefits of the 10% or so of the population who were graduates. Nowadays, the aim is to get 50% of the population through university or college, many of whom will earn the same or less than those without degrees, and most of whom don't enjoy the state-funded degree courses that Liabour politicians did in the 70s.

Secondly, everyone with a degree will sue under human rights legislation because the proposal is discriminatory.
Another new labour disincentive to work hard.

Just take the easy road and we'll look after you. :roll:

Similar threads

Latest Threads