Rupert Smedley, 61, will be forced to change his retirement plans if Labour does speed up increasing the retirement age
Rupert Smedley is among the many who would feel “cheated” and “ripped off” if Labour sped up plans to increase the retirement age in the UK.
The 61-year-old, from West London, works as a business development consultant, and has done so for years.
He is happy to keep working for as long as possible but on a “declining time basis with more flexibility”, as he expected when he first entered the world of work.
But with confirmation on Tuesday that the Government is looking into how it might increase again, this may be more of a dream than a reality.
Speaking to The i Paper, he said: “When I heard about this, initially, I felt cheated and ripped off.
“How can you change the goal posts yet again from an agreement I paid into from 40 years ago?”
The retirement age is already being increased from 66 to 67, coming into effect between 2026 and 2028. A further increase to 68 is planned between 2044 and 2046, but some experts believe this could be brought forward.
If this were to happen, Mr Smedley would have to change his retirement plans completely, as would his wife, which neither of them ideally wants to do.
He added: “It would change my plans and those of my wife also, affecting my mental and physical health at a time when it is least expected and shows the Government is prioritising the wrong things.”
For his wife, retirement is likely to be something that she takes much sooner due to ill health.
If Mr Smedley was forced to continue working late into his 60s, it would put an “increased strain” on him, particularly with the stress – financial and personal – of his wife being out of work.
He said: “The opposite should be happening during this time. I would have worked for 50 years. It isn’t fair that we aren’t getting what we were promised.”
While a lot of experts agree it is likely that the Government will end up increasing the retirement age to 68 sooner than planned, there are different dates they think are likely.
Tom Selby, director of public policy at AJ Bell, said the “parlous state of the public finances” and the fact that life expectancy has increased significantly since the rise to 68 was legislated for are to blame for this.
He said: “I think it’s more likely than not that either this Government or the next will need to bring that date forward.”
David Robbins, director at risk and insurance group WTW, expects this to move forward by a few years, as the Budget watchdog is working on the basis that it increases to 68 in 2039.
He explained: “Going slower than that would mean extra spending versus those projections. My best guess is it would be a few years earlier [than 2044-46].”
Mr Smedley, who is a father to three adult children, is now worried about whether or not he will have enough in his pot come retirement.
He has both savings and a pension, he said, which he pays £50 per month into. He started building this nest egg in 1988 when he was 24.
Not giving people who have paid their taxes the “return they were promised” is what has really upset Mr Smedley.
He added: “I think the Government has its priorities all wrong. The people who have paid into the system should get the return they were promised and not be messed about at a time they can least respond to it with time and planning.
“Saving money from the elderly is just a rip-off and wrong. It’s very poor judgment and sends the wrong message to those in the workforce at the other end of age.”
Referring specifically to the reforms, Work and Pensions Secretary Liz Kendall said: “So many aspects of our life: public services, the world of work and the state more generally, hasn’t woken up to the fact that we are all living longer.
“More of us have got health conditions. More of us are caring not just for our kids, but our mums and dads too.
“It’s often both at the same time, and we’ve got to wake up to that. As we live for longer, we were going to work for longer.”