Actuarial Outpost
 
Go Back   Actuarial Outpost > Actuarial Discussion Forum > Pension - Social Security
FlashChat Actuarial Discussion Preliminary Exams CAS/SOA Exams Cyberchat Around the World Suggestions


Upload your resume securely at https://www.dwsimpson.com
to be contacted when our jobs meet your skills and objectives.


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #21  
Old 09-07-2009, 08:01 AM
campbell's Avatar
campbell campbell is offline
Mary Pat Campbell
SOA AAA
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: NY
Studying for duolingo and coursera
Favorite beer: Murphy's Irish Stout
Posts: 82,896
Blog Entries: 6
Default

From the UK:
http://www.professionalpensions.com/...ent-age-hit-86

Quote:
People with no retirement savings could be forced to work until they are 86 if they want to achieve two-thirds of their final salary, Standard Life says.

Analysis of published government data by the life and pensions firm found the real retirement age of people currently not saving for retirement could be between 74 and 86 if they hope to achieve the "holy grail" of retirement incomes.

Advertisement

Senior pensions policy manager Andrew Tully said the figures painted a stark picture of "retirement reality" for man people in the UK today.

He said: "The holy grail of retirement saving is to fund an income worth two-thirds of your pre-retirement income. If people rely on the state in the hope or belief that the government will bail them out, they will either have to survive on a basic income throughout their later life or simply face the music and defer retirement until much later.

"Most people in the UK would like to retire at age 65 or even earlier. To achieve this goal with a decent retirement income, private saving is essential. The old adage of it pays to start saving early has never been truer."

Association of British Insurers research from November, last year, showed that more than a third of the working population - nearly 10 million people - are not saving to a pension at all, with many millions more not saving enough.
I'm being a little more loose with what goes in this thread.
__________________
It's STUMP

LinkedIn Profile
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 09-08-2009, 02:45 PM
Maine-iac's Avatar
Maine-iac Maine-iac is offline
Member
CAS SOA AAA
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: The Pine Tree State
Favorite beer: Wine
Posts: 34,591
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by campbell View Post
From around the world --

. . . Uganda:
http://www.newvision.co.ug/D/8/12/691127
If the life expectancy is that low, it could be due to very high childhood mortality, of course....or armed violence [and lowering the retirement age is not going to fix those problems]
Actually, I've heard some fairly compelling arguments that promoting employment opportunities for young people, particularly young men, does lower the rate of armed violence. A variation on the "idle hands are the devils's plaything" theme. Out-of-work seniors are much less likely to respond to the situation with violence, or make good recruits for warlords

Now the childhood mortality thing would be a much harder sell, though I suppose if the employment rate among those in their child-bearing (or child-fathering) years increased, then that population might be able to afford better pre-natal care . . .
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 09-14-2009, 06:25 AM
campbell's Avatar
campbell campbell is offline
Mary Pat Campbell
SOA AAA
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: NY
Studying for duolingo and coursera
Favorite beer: Murphy's Irish Stout
Posts: 82,896
Blog Entries: 6
Default

More on the UK retirement age change
http://www.independent.co.uk/money/p...n-1786016.html

Quote:
At the start of next month, nearly 185,000 women will receive letters telling them that they will start getting the state pension up to one year later than they would otherwise have expected. This mailing from the Pension Service not only contains vital information for each individual recipient but marks a major turning point in the UK's pension provision.

The state pension, currently claimed at minimum ages of 60 by women and 65 by men, is on its way up for the first time since David Lloyd George introduced the "old age pension" of five shillings a week 100 years ago. All women turning 60 on, or after, 6 April next year will have to wait beyond their 60th birthday to get the benefit. Exactly how long their entitlement is put back depends on their exact birth date. And these letters will give that precise information to each woman.
....
"We are all living longer," says the pensions minister Angela Eagle, explaining the main reason behind the change in retirement ages, in an interview with The Independent. "We expect the first person to live to 120 to get there in 2063. She's retired already and receiving a pension."

In general, we can expect five major trends over the coming years. First, the state retirement age will go up further: to at least 68. Secondly, carrots and sticks will increasingly be used to get individuals and employers to make private pension contributions. Thirdly, significant changes will be introduced to make pension planning still worthwhile. Fourthly, there will be mistakes and losers along the way (as seemingly small technical changes can have substantial repercussions). Finally, a growing minority of individuals will get more involved in their own retirement planning and, in many cases, will vastly improve their position as a result.
....
Retirement age

Both men and women under the age of 31 (more precisely those born after 5 April 1978) will have a state retirement age of 68, under timetables already laid out by the Government. For 31- to 41-year-olds (those born between 6 April 1968 and 5 April 1978) the state retirement age is set at 66 or 67. And for 41- to 51-year-olds (born between 6 April 1958 and 5 April 1968), it is set at 65 or 66. Robin Ellison, a former chairman of the National Association of Pension Funds, predicts a new non-means-tested state pension age of "70 or later" but at a more generous level than today's 95.25-a-week.

The minimum pension age is also going up for private pensions, from 50 to 55, on 6 April next year. Planning for this is "a must for those close to retirement", says Tom Stalkartt a financial planner at BestInvest.

For instance, a 50-year-old with a personal pension could start drawing that pension now. But if they leave the decision beyond April next year, they will not be able to draw their pension until age 55. But taking the pension at 50 is not a light step either, says Stalkartt: "You should bear in mind that if you retire at 50, you could be relying on your pension fund to support you for over 30 years. That's a long time to regret a decision made in haste!"

More people are likely to work beyond their early 60s in future. Legislation making it easier to work and draw pensions at the same time will increase this trend.
__________________
It's STUMP

LinkedIn Profile
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 09-21-2009, 06:37 AM
campbell's Avatar
campbell campbell is offline
Mary Pat Campbell
SOA AAA
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: NY
Studying for duolingo and coursera
Favorite beer: Murphy's Irish Stout
Posts: 82,896
Blog Entries: 6
Default

Some legal issues re: mandatory retirement age in government positions
First literally - retirement age rule for judges changed in Kansas
http://www.kansascity.com/news/break...y/1456216.html
Quote:
Reno County District Judge Richard Rome's birthday was Saturday, a milestone that would have spelled the end of his career before July. But the new law, sometimes called "Rome's law," allows all judges who turn 75 during their term to complete the term if they choose and then retire.

Previously, Court of Appeals and district court judges were required to step down at age 75 and Supreme Court justices five years earlier, with no exception made for finishing their term.

Now the rules are the same for all the judges.
....
Rome said he's "very grateful" the Legislature changed the law, but believes that forcing judges off the bench when they reach a certain age wouldn't survive if its legality were challenged.
State dept lawsuit over mandatory retirement
http://legaltimes.typepad.com/blt/20...epartment.html
Quote:
A foreign services officer filed suit against Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the State Department this morning, alleging that she was denied placement in certain overseas posts because of her age.

In her complaint, Elizabeth Colton, 64, says that after serving as an international journalist for media outlets such as Newsweek, ABC News, NBC News, Asiaweek, and National Public Radio, she joined the Foreign Service in 2000 and quickly advanced up the ranks. Colton was given assignments in overseas posts in countries such as Saudi Arabia, Algeria, Sudan, and Pakistan.

Colton's complaint (.pdf) filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, says that in late 2008 she was offered a position as chief of the Political and Economic Section at the U.S. Embassy in Algiers, when she was then 63 years old. But shortly after she accepted the job, the offer was revoked when her supervisors realized that the two-year post would require her to work past the Foreign Service's mandatory retirement age of 65. The Foreign Service's human resources department informed Colton that she could not take the position and filled the post with another candidate.

The complaint says Colton applied for and was denied an exemption to work past the mandatory retirement age.
....
The complaint seeks an injunction to keep the mandatory retirement age from being implemented. She also seeks damages that include lost income and benefits and attorney fees.

“Imagine if someone told Hillary Clinton she couldn’t be Secretary of State because she would turn 65 before her term is up,” Thomas R. Bundy III, a Sutherland partner, said in an interview. “Just because you turn 65 it doesn't mean that you are incapacitated. You still have a lot to offer in service to our country.
It will be interesting to see with our increasing longevity if mandatory retirement ages can hold. With age discrimination laws, I assume most are struck down in the private sector, so it's a matter of official regulations and laws. I know I've seen pilots challenging the FAA mandatory retirement rules.

Anyway, interesting to see how this develops.
__________________
It's STUMP

LinkedIn Profile
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 09-24-2009, 03:35 AM
campbell's Avatar
campbell campbell is offline
Mary Pat Campbell
SOA AAA
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: NY
Studying for duolingo and coursera
Favorite beer: Murphy's Irish Stout
Posts: 82,896
Blog Entries: 6
Default

A look at international public retirement systems, how they work, and just pulling out the part where retirement ages need to change.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/whi...-23?link=kiosk

Quote:
But though Australia and the Netherlands are viewed, at least by some experts, as having the best pensions systems in the world, the OECD suggests that much is needed in the way of pension reform around the globe. And encouraging people to work longer -- through increases in pension age and reducing pension incentives to retire early -- is a key objective, according to the OECD.

Countries must shore up the long-term finances of pension systems crippled by aging populations and out-of-date laws, the group said. Consider, for instance, how the worker-dependency ratio has changed over the years. In 1950, there were seven people of working age for every one of pension age. Today, there are four workers for every one of pension age and by 2047 there will be just two workers for every one of pension age.

"Life expectancy has increased so the retirement age must go up," Archibald said. "People can't expect to live one-third of the life being educated, one-third working, and one-third in retirement."



According to the OECD, retirement ages, after falling for decades, have indeed risen since 2000. And some countries are increasing the full retirement age to beyond age 65: Australia and Germany to 67; the United Kingdom to 68; and Denmark to age 67 and then linked to life expectancy, according to the OECD. Along with Norway, Iceland and the U.S. that brings to seven the number of OECD countries that already have or plan to have normal pension ages above 65.

Despite its apparent benefit, however, proposals to increase the normal pension age are met with strong resistance, the OECD said. Given that, they said, other types of reform merit attention, including those that provide incentives for people to work longer. "In Belgium, Denmark, Greece and the Netherlands, the option of retiring early has been restricted," according to the OECD. "Finland, France and the United Kingdom have improved the returns to working after normal pension age."

"If people were to work longer as they live longer, that change alone would go a long way in ensuring that public pensions are affordable, and that their costs are sustainable in the long term," the OECD reported.

Those costs are substantial. Consider this: OECD countries currently spend an average of 7.2% of national income on public pensions. But the figure varies widely. Italy spends the most at 14% while Mexico spends the least at 1.3%. Of note, the Netherlands spends 5% and Australia spends just 3.5%.

For its part, the OECD said countries need to go through the painful process of putting their pension system on sounder financial footing. Korea, for instance, recently lowered its target pension-relative-to-earnings replacement rate from 60% to 40%.
__________________
It's STUMP

LinkedIn Profile
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 09-24-2009, 08:37 AM
MountainHawk's Avatar
MountainHawk MountainHawk is offline
Member
CAS AAA
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Salem, MA
Studying for Nothing!!!!
College: Lehigh University Alum
Favorite beer: Yuengling
Posts: 64,850
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by exactuary View Post
no way

not from any starting age

in usa

but article seems to be uk

still not 2.5
Missed this.

Life expectancies from here: http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005140.html

For white males:

1850-2004: 38.3 to 75.4 = .240 years per year
1900-2004: 48.2 to 75.4 = .261 years per year
1950-2004: 66.3 to 75.4 = .169 years per year
1990-2004: 72.4 to 75.4 = .214 years per year

White females:

1990-2004: 79.4 to 80.8 = .100 years per year

All Other Males:

1990-2004: 67.0 to 69.8 = .200 years per year

All Other Females:

1990-2004: 75.2 to 76.5 = .093 years per year


So it's wrong for females, but it doesn't seem that bad for males.
__________________

Play in the AO Prediction Game now!



1
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 09-28-2009, 07:13 AM
campbell's Avatar
campbell campbell is offline
Mary Pat Campbell
SOA AAA
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: NY
Studying for duolingo and coursera
Favorite beer: Murphy's Irish Stout
Posts: 82,896
Blog Entries: 6
Default

Roundup of stuff on UK retirement age policies:
http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/pension...=6&expand=true

Quote:
Charities for the elderly have lost a High Court battle to challenge compulsory retirement at age 65.

Age Concern and Help the Aged brought the case to challenge the law that allows employers to dismiss workers with no redundancy pay at age 65.

The charities fought on the grounds that the UK's default retirement age was in conflict with an EU directive against age discrimination.
....
Pensions minister Angela Eagle has brought forward a review of the retirement age to next year, when it is expected that a strong case will be made for raising the compulsory age limit. This is likely to be fought by employer groups.

....
Indeed Mr Justice Blake went further, saying: 'I cannot presently see how 65 could remain as a DRA (Default Retirement Age) after the review.'

There is cross-party support for plans that will increase in the long term the age at which individuals can draw the basic state pension. Between 2024 and 2046 the state pension age will rise for both men and women. This increase, again, will be gradual, occurring over two years every decade.
Reaction to that ruling:
http://timesonline.typepad.com/law/2...n-ruling-.html


Separately, pension plan managers asked about raising retirement age [scheme = pension plan]
http://www.professionalpensions.com/...retirement-age

Quote:
Scheme managers are split over whether the retirement age should be increased to 70.

An exclusive survey by Professional Pensions - which polled 100 top scheme managers - showed that 48% of scheme managers said the retirement age should be increased, 48% believed it should not be raised and 4% did not know.

Advertisement

This comes after The Pensions Regulator chairman David Norgrove said legislation, which is set to increase the retirement age progressively to 68 by 2044, will go further in the future - predicting it could eventually be increased to 70 (PP Online, August 10).

One scheme manager said the retirement age should be raised - but on the understanding this only applied to people born later than those who currently expect their state pension at 68.

Another manager, First UK Bus pensions manager Ian Robertson, said the retirement age should only be increased to 70 if it was phased in over a long period and consideration was given to occupations that would not be physically possible between 65 and 70

He said: "The state may have to look at some form of early/ill health retirement to cover these people."
__________________
It's STUMP

LinkedIn Profile
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 09-28-2009, 02:06 PM
Loner's Avatar
Loner Loner is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: The Third Half
Posts: 45,046
Default

Who needs to retire? This 100-year-old woman is still working:

http://www.dailyrecord.com/article/2...25/1005/NEWS01

Quote:
PARSIPPANY, N.J. (AP) — Astrid Thoenig got dressed, went to work and sat at her desk smiling Thursday as she slid her finger gently under the envelope flap of yet another identical birthday card. They don't make that many that say "Happy 100th."


Thoenig was interrupted by a steady stream of deliverymen bringing bouquets, chocolate-dipped strawberries and stacks of cards to the Thornton Insurance Co. in Parsippany where she's been answering phones, keeping financial records, handling payroll and typing up documents for more than 30 years.

"It's another day — it's hard to explain," Thoenig said of turning 100. "I don't feel old, and I don't think old."

Born Sept. 24, 1909, in Bloomfield, N.J., Thoenig's earliest memories start in 1918, when she witnessed something so traumatic, "it erased all memories of my childhood before that."

"I remember coming down the stairs from my bedroom and saw these two coffins in the living room: one white, for my sister, and the other for the grown person," she said, recalling how the flu pandemic of 1918 killed her father and her 10-year-old sister within hours of one another. "To see my father and sister — of all the things I can't remember — that's very vivid in my mind."

Thoenig, her remaining sister, and her mother also were infected but survived. Her mother lived until 101 and her sister, who suffered permanent hearing loss from the illness, was 95 when she died. A few years ago, scientists tracked Thoenig down and took blood samples from her as one of the few remaining survivors of the pandemic of 1918-1919 that killed an estimated 30 million to 50 million people worldwide, including thousands in New Jersey.

As Thoenig turns 100, her grandson, 43-year-old Peter Thornton, said she couldn't have picked a better era.

"If you had to pick a dramatic century to live, it has to be Astrid's," he said. "The invention of the automobile and the airplane, television and computers, the moon landing and two world wars. 1780 to 1880 would have seen changes from a musket to a rifle."

Thoenig says "thinking young" has helped her take a century's worth of technological changes in stride. The daughter of Swedish immigrants, she credits her strong constitution, a wonderful family and getting up every day to get dressed and go to work with keeping her mind sharp.

Thoenig once sewed all her own clothes and still dresses elegantly, accenting with gold jewelry, colorful glasses and a full head of blond hair that makes her look decades younger. Her strong, agile hands come from a lifetime of typing, knitting and embroidering.

Married twice — her first husband died from injuries that earned him a Purple Heart in World War II — Thoenig started working shortly after high school, and has held positions at banks, lawyer's offices and for the borough of Caldwell.

Her current job is her favorite — working alongside her son, John Thornton, and grandson Peter at the family-owned insurance company.

"I'm 67, and one of our jokes is: 'How can I retire before my mother does?'" John Thornton said. He says his mother is a meticulous worker, reviewing contracts, preparing the payroll, making sure bills are paid, and is always pleasant company.

Thoenig credits her son for giving her the job, taking her to work — although she still drove until age 98 when a botched hip operation made it difficult to get around — and always being patient.

The growing stack of birthday cards may have identical motifs, but the messages inside them each touched her in their own way. Some, sent by people she's never met, were from seniors who continue to work and are inspired by her example: "I'm at my job 37 years and still love it," someone wrote.

She took special delight in a bouquet from her dentist with the message: "This is only the beginning!"
__________________
2012 AO Rap Battle Champion
Co-Legend of the Water Cooler(TM)
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 10-03-2009, 06:12 AM
campbell's Avatar
campbell campbell is offline
Mary Pat Campbell
SOA AAA
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: NY
Studying for duolingo and coursera
Favorite beer: Murphy's Irish Stout
Posts: 82,896
Blog Entries: 6
Default

More on the Netherlands
http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archive...talks_coll.php

Quote:
Employers organisations pulled out of last ditch efforts to come up with an alternative to the government's planned increase in the pension age early on Wednesday evening, saying there was no point in continuing.

Unions and employers had been attempting to come up with alternative ways of raising €4bn for the treasury to an across-the-board rise in the pension age from 65 to 67. Their deadline was October 1.

Union leaders, who had just arrived in the Hague for the meeting, reacted furiously. 'This is unbelievable,' Agnes Jongerius, chairwoman of the FNV trade union federation told the Volkskrant. 'It is a slap in our face,' said Bert van Boggelen, head of the CNV federation. And Richard Steenborg, of the white collar MHP union said he felt as if he had been put out with the rubbish.

Gradual increase

Unions, employers and lay members of the government's SER advisory committee had been trying to come up with an alternative plan since the spring because they all opposed the government's plan to gradually increase the state pension age by one month a year.

However, in recent weeks, their talks had focused on different ways of raising the pension age, rather than taking different measures altogether.

The unions want people to have the choice when they want to retire on reaching the age of 65. Employers wanted a one-off increase to 67 in 2025.

The collapse of the talks means the way is now clear for the government to start implementing its plan. Social affairs minister Piet Hein Donner is to bring in draft legislation soon, the Volkskrant says.
__________________
It's STUMP

LinkedIn Profile
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 10-06-2009, 03:41 AM
campbell's Avatar
campbell campbell is offline
Mary Pat Campbell
SOA AAA
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: NY
Studying for duolingo and coursera
Favorite beer: Murphy's Irish Stout
Posts: 82,896
Blog Entries: 6
Default

more on UK mandatory retirement age issue
http://www.managementtoday.co.uk/cha...borrowed-time/

Quote:
Back in December 2006, the National Council on Ageing, part of Age Concern and also known as Heyday, commenced a High Court challenge: they argued that by including provisions in the Employment Equality (Age) Regulations 2006 allowing for compulsory retirement of employees at 65, the Government had failed to implement adequately the European Equal Treatment Framework Directive. In July 2007, the High Court referred various questions to the European Court of Justice, which ruled that the provisions were acceptable provided they could be justified and were ‘a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim’. The ECJ then left the High Court to decide whether the default retirement age can be justified by reference to legitimate national social policy aims.

....
Last Friday, the High Court ruled that the UK's default retirement age is lawful, and that it is justified by the Government’s social policy aims (and also that these aims were a labour market objective within the meaning of the Directive). This is good news for employers. There is a significant voice within UK businesses that is against the idea of removing the DRA, because it's viewed as an essential part of employment practice, enabling businesses to plan and develop their workforces - which can also be to the benefit of employees. Without a DRA, the lack of certainty around retirement may create further complications and could lead to an increase in employment disputes. As a result of this ruling, the default retirement age will remain and employers can continue to require employees to retire at 65, with no risk of claims for unfair dismissal or age discrimination (provided that they consider any application made by the employee to work beyond 65 and follow the statutory retirement procedure).

But this may only be a short window of opportunity. On the question of whether the use of a default retirement age of 65 was a proportionate means of achieving its social policy aims, the Court was strongly influenced by the fact that the Government has brought forward its review of the default retirement age from 2011 to next year. The smart money is on it extending the DRA or removing it completely as a vote-winning tactic ahead of the next election. Even if there were a change of Government, it seems likely that the default retirement age is destined to be scrapped as the Conservatives have been backing the Age Concern challenge. There is, however, a strong business lobby in favour of keeping some default retirement age, and there may yet be the opportunity for further consultation and compromise. So watch this space!
__________________
It's STUMP

LinkedIn Profile
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
pension, retirement, retirement age

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:28 AM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
*PLEASE NOTE: Posts are not checked for accuracy, and do not
represent the views of the Actuarial Outpost or its sponsors.
Page generated in 0.22521 seconds with 10 queries