If the proposals were adopted by the government, the state retirement age could rise to 70.

The National Association of Pension Funds (NAPF) also said that the current system of income guarantees and tax credits should be scrapped.

Instead it wants a flat-rate �100 per week payment to be made to all pensioners.

Forcing people to work until the age of seventy is not the way to end pensioner poverty

Steve Webb, Liberal Democrat Work and Pension Secretary

Huge loss

The NAPF represents the interests of the occupational pension fund managers and its members control more than �700bn ($1,095bn) in assets.

The proposals come after sharp falls on the stock market have hit pension scheme values.

According to pension fund consultancy UBSL, a year of falling stock markets has cost the final salary pension schemes of FTSE 100 companies �59bn.

The fact that people are living longer and spending more time in retirement is the main reason given by the NAPF for its proposal to increase the state retirement age.

Saving for retirement

The latest UK census found that for the first time there were more people over the age of 60 than under 20.

At present, men retire at 65 and women at 60. The government already has plans to equalise the retirement age by 2020.

Initially, the NAPF said the retirement age should be raised from 65 to 67. But if current demographic trends continued, it should be raised to 70.

The NAPF would also like to see greater incentives for people to save towards their retirement.

A recent NAPF survey found that a third of workers weren't contributing to a pension.

In particular, the NAPF would like low-rate taxpayers to be given higher-rate tax relief on pension contributions.

Citizen's pension

According to NAPF chairman Peter Thompson the pension system is weighed down by red tape jargon and complexity.

" Because of this, too many of today's workers are put off thinking about pensions, storing up potentially massive problems for the future," Mr Thompson said.

As a result, Mr Thompson wants the system of means-tested income guarantees replaced by a single 'citizen's pension', paying a flat rate �100 a week.

The pension will rise in line with earnings rather than inflation.

No answer

Reacting to the NAPF proposals, Steve Webb MP, Liberal Democrat Work and Pensions Secretary told BBC News Online that although reform was necessary an extended working life was not the answer.

"Forcing people to work until the age of seventy is not the way to end pensioner poverty. Instead, the State pension should be increased for older pensioners," he said.

Your comments:

Pensions should be means-tested, and not based on post-retirement income. A

An individual's earnings over his or her lifetime should be assessed before any state pension is awarded.

Why should those of us who are putting money aside for a pension have to provide pensions for others who can afford it but can't be bothered?
Al, UK

I work for BT. I will have to retire at 60, as per company policy. I will get some pension from BT but not enough to live on. The lump sum can fill the gap of 5 years but I can't see lasting 10. What happens then? Is BT going to have to change its retirement policy? Its going to be ok for people with long service but people like me with 20 years or less can see trouble a head. Don't tell me somebody has to lose!! My first job did not have company pension scheme.
Reg, UK

I can't believe that people are only just waking up to the fact that the pension age needs to be raised. For years I have been arguing this point, but everyone seemed to think that they would be retiring earlier not later. The earlier we "bite the bullet" the quicker we can pay our elders a decent pension. The longer we take the worse the country and retired people are going to be!
Colin Johnson, England

Horrific!! I'm currently 40. Three of my four grandparents died from heart related problems aged about 60, and my parents in their early 60s aren't in the best of health. Taking such statistics into account, under the proposed regime I may not live to enjoy retirement.
Derek, UK

Stop it! The closer I get to retirement age, the further it goes into the distance!

Clare, UK

How many employers are willing to employ people over 50? Not many and will this change encourage more to be taken on. I doubt it. The MPs have been failing to make the required changes to the system for the past 30 odd years & any changes they do make are scrapped by the next parliament anyway. The only way forward is to increase the NI contributions of all employees and employers and for that income to be invested by the government instead of spending it. The MPs will not vote for any change as it would be unpopular but it will not affect there pensions anyway. The taxpayers pays for their pension which is far better than any pension out in the market.
Dave H, UK

Many people, particularly those in manual jobs, are very tired by the time they reach 65. Making these people work until 70 will definitely result in reduced pension payments. Many will die before making a claim or soon after. Unfortunately, the standards of living which, many aspire to in retirement are beyond our means. People need to moderate their expectations. Shortfalls only exist because of a certain expectation in the first place.
Richard, UK

Forcing people to work in stressful professions to the age of 70 will have the additional effect of reducing life expectancy. These people will have paid with their leisure years for the inaction of others to provide for themselves.
Roger Ordidge, UK

Stop it! The closer I get to retirement age, the further it goes into the distance!
Clare, UK

For the past 4 years, I have been calculating losses caused by pension mis-selling as part of the FSA's review. Every day I look at figures showing what pittances we are all heading for in retirement. I, if anyone, know the importance of making pension arrangements. Yet I still haven't got round to it because even though I know the business inside out, it's STILL too difficult for me to decide on my best course of action. The problem I have is not so much the moods of the markets, but seeing into the future with enough clarity to avoid the pension industry's trip-wires and booby traps designed to reduce your savings to zero in a flash if you put a foot wrong.
LW, UK

How many employers would be prepared to put up with problems of having staff continue until 70 - disabled access, large print, problems of motivation, learning difficulties and ill health. Whilst workplaces are geared to the younger generation working until 70 seems impractical - I am only 42 but am finding it harder to keep abreast of new developments already - imagine the problems in 30 years !
Fiona Jarvis, UK

We should be given more incentives by the Treasury to save and invest in a variety of ways, not just through pensions to purchase annuities. For example, purchase property for rent, be allowed to invest larger sums in cash ISAs (why only �3,000 for a safe investment against �7000 for a risky one?, or other incentives - why just ISAs. For example, if you were allowed to keep your savings in any 'investment' product (property, shares, insurances, cash savings, even antiques) provided you keep it there for a period of say 5, 10, 15 years, and use the proceeds to provide you with an income, this should be free of tax on profits and be given additional tax incentives at source of saving ie set against tax on purchase etc.

It's absolutely ridiculous to expect people to stay in full-time employment until they are 70!

Sue, UK

I have been ploughing more and more money into a personal pension, only to see it drop monthly in terms of its worth (so how is this a safer bet than property etc?). If I had put the same into a mortgage on a buy to let, a cash ISA or equivalent, or even an antique, I would be thousands of pounds better off now.
Walter Killman, England

I don't expect anything will be done. There are no votes in it! A Government with a 4 to 5 year horizon will not take essential but unpopular actions - regardless of the consequences. Leave it to someone else to clear up the mess.
Roger Horsgood, UK

Since 1998 the estimated value of my Pension "pot" has been devalued by more than �97000. It can be argued that because my house has increased in value by more than �100000 in this period I am no worse off. However, it does not take a rocket scientist to work out that my likely pension has been drastically reduced and I will have to sell my family home to make up the shortfall and to avoid death duties on my estate when I die. Is this a just reward for attempting to save for a decent retirement?
Mike South, England

For one of the major economies in the world and one of the richest countries we sure know how to penny pinch. For many of us the years between 60 and 70 are those when we can look forward to a healthy active retirement. After 70 is pot luck. Asking people to save hard all their lives for a retirement that may never happen is not realistic. Most of us are trying to live today without gambling on the future. This country is rich enough to pay for a decent pension for all those not in company pension schemes and should just get on with it and stop worrying everyone.
Jane Barber, UK

It's absolutely ridiculous to expect people to stay in full-time employment until they are 70! I am in my early 50's and am already thought of as "old". Hardly any employers are going to want to keep on people of 60+. Also there isn't enough jobs for everyone now - this is going to make it worse!!
Sue, UK

Why does the Government force companies to repay those missed years of pensions contributions from their vast profits given to share holders?

Deb, UK

LW (UK) is quite right. There is only one loser when it comes to saving for a pension, and that's the saver. I contracted out of Serps in the mid-eighties and contributions went into the equitable life fiasco. Last year I bit the bullet, lost 10% and transferred to Standard Life. Now it seems like another chunk is disappearing down the plughole. As far as retirement/quality of life is concerned I think there is only one factor. Luck! You can save all you like but there's every chance it will be frittered away by bad investment, and even if your pension survives, what chance have you? We all know that once retirement age is reached, you become a second class citizen with regard to health matters. To sum up, stop worrying about retirement and pensions, its out of your hands.
GS, UK

Pensions - I don't understand them! When will personal finance ('home economics'?) be part of the national curriculum? It's one of the most important issues that faces everyone: how to manage money, day-to-day, getting mortgages and loans, and saving for the future. I can't believe how little we all know about how to do it (and yet we all learn much less important things at school and college!)
AF, UK

We have had a decade of unprecedented growth (with two notable blips) and only one year of poor stock market returns- where did all the money go?

Kathy Wiles, UK

Not so long ago politicians were saying that progress in technology would mean that we would all have more leisure time. I haven't worked for 32 years for the good of my health, I want to be able to enjoy my retirement. This proposal is typical of the pensions/insurance industry, they don't mind taking our money but try getting them to pay out!
John, England

If companies had not been allowed to take payment 'Holidays' from their contributions when their funds were buoyant they would not have a short fall now. Why does the Government force them to repay those missed years from their vast profits given to share holders?
Deb, UK

Well done to the pensions industry for managing our money well, but why start to lobby for a hike in the retirement age? What needs reform is the savings industry - up front charges decimate the majority of savings and timing has an unduly negative effect on final sums passed on to the consumer - if you retired 5 years ago, you would have been heading for a bumper payout, if you retire now you will find yourself very disappointed- why are pension companies not made to even out their payments to account for lean as well as bumper years?

We have had a decade of unprecedented growth (with two notable blips) and only one year of poor stock market returns- where did all the money go?

Personally, I agree that the state retirement age should go up- but only to encourage more people to keep working, not to wring more money out of them for the pensions companies. Rather than store money where it cannot be reached or reclaimed, it makes more sense to have proper savings accounts with no charges that allow us all to build our own futures managing our own finances - its how its done in the US and there is no talk of a pensions crisis there.
Kathy Wiles, UK

Why have a fixed state retirement age? Why not let people decide when they want retire for themselves? To those who decide to retire at 60, the state will give �50 per week. Those who decide to retire at 70 will be given �100 per week, etc. Everyone can balance when they retire against how much money they want and what other funds are available to them.
SW, UK

Saying pensions should be means tested is a ridiculous statement. I will be entitled to a state pension when I retire because I will have paid for it all through my life. I am counting on my state pension to give me the comfort zone I have been working for. To take that away from me without enough warning for me to plan would be criminal. The ONLY way pensions should be changed is for the under 20's who would at least have time to plan for their retirement with this knowledge.
Norman Crooks, Northern Ireland

The retirement pension should not be means tested. We all make contributions, which are not means tested, so we should all get the same state pension.
Roger Pickwick, England

I think the proposal for a flat �100 a week for everyone is a good idea. Anything more the person has saved can add to this minimum. Currently, many people (like me) without a pension provided by their employer, have no incentive to save because most of their pension savings will be lost when they are means tested for benefits. I'm 32 and recently got a quote for a pension of �12,000 a year at age 65. They suggested I need to pay �500 a month for the next 33 years to do this! See the problem?!
Saw, UK

I now understand why a third of people in this country do not have savings

John Kapp, UK

Even if older people choose to carry on working rather than replace their delayed pensions with alternative benefits, and even if employers are willing to use them, there will only be a marked change in working patterns if employees are given a statutory right to stay in their present jobs until they reach the higher retirement age. This has serious implications for job opportunities and youth unemployment levels. Are we not in danger of simply shifting the financial burden from state and company pensions for the old, to the dole, pretend work schemes and supplementary benefits for the rest?
Ian, UK

I think the proposal for a flat �100 a week for everyone is a good idea. Anything more the person has saved can add to this minimum. Currently, many people (like me) without a pension provided by their employer, have no incentive to save because most of their pension savings will be lost when they are means tested for benefits. I'm 32 and recently got a quote for a pension of �12000 a year at age 65. They suggested I need to pay �500 a month for the next 33 years to do this! See the problem?!
SAW, UK

A preposterous and inhumane proposal! It's not solving the problem so much as moving it further into the future. If taken to it's logical conclusion we would have to keep raising the retirement age as medical science and lifestyle changes pointlessly increased our lifespan. Life is so fleeting that we should be looking for ways to enjoy it to the full not work until we drop.
Paul Villa, Wales, UK

Having retired at 55 from the Civil Service I sold my house in Surrey and moved to a much cheaper area. This was my provision for the years that I would wait, If I survived that long till I could supplement my pension with a reduced Old Age Pen. The remaining monies from the difference in prices of the two houses was invested Two years ago, perhaps foolishly, in stock units. I now understand why a third of people in this country do not have savings, that now practically applies to me, and why so many people are rushing for us to join the Euro so that we can give away what money this country does have to those that simply did nothing. My ill health forced this early retirement but like one of your contributors, my parents died just before they were due to retire so what point is there of raising the age except to ensure that there would be so very many fewer people picking up a pension. When is someone going to have the courage to say enough is enough and let us simply be poor but happy!!
John Kapp, England

Retire at 70 - they try that and I'm off to Spain taking my degree and experience with me.
Mike Ward, UK

State pensions and state subsidised pensions are not a short term issue for politicians who have time horizons of less than 5 years. We have a Bank of England MPC for interest rates that has addressed key targets very successfully and transparently. It is essential that we introduce similar for pensions sooner rather than later. Then we'll each know better where we stand and what steps to take and the corrupt and corrupting system created by past politicians and provider companies can be phased out.
Ralph Whittaker , UK

The proposal to raise retirement age to 70 is wholly unpragmatic. It ignores the fact that there are fewer and fewer jobs for the over-50's, let alone the over-60's. It also ignores the fact that most people, be they employed in manually tiring or intellectually stressful jobs, are running out of steam when they get into their late 50's ..... which is part of the reason why jobs for the over 50's are so hard to find. The answer is for legislation to force ALL employees and employers to contribute heavily into pension schemes from the moment people start working.
Adam Bryl, England