Life expectancy of 65-year-olds is increasing
Statistics Netherlands expects life expectancy at the age of 65 to increase to 2023 years in 20,5. Policy makers use this figure to determine the future state pension age.
Life expectancy in 2023 is lower in the latest forecast than in the 2016 forecast, which put it at 20,7 years. This is because the new forecast is based on more recent mortality figures than the 2016 forecast. In the last four months of 2016 and the first eight months of 2017, more people died than expected in the older forecast. Such fluctuations in actual mortality cause small fluctuations in life expectancy every year.
The annual population forecast of Statistics Netherlands aims to describe the most likely future development of the Dutch population. One aspect of this is the prognosis of life expectancy. Statistics Netherlands uses a model developed in the international scientific world to make this forecast. This assumes that the stable, decreasing trend in mortality rates in Western Europe will continue in the long term. As a result, temporary accelerations and decelerations in mortality have a less disruptive effect on future expectations than if only the Dutch trend had been assumed. To indicate the uncertainty surrounding the forecast of life expectancy, forecast intervals are calculated (see graph above). These give an impression of the expected accuracy of the forecast.
AOW legislation uses CBS prognosis
The population forecast of Statistics Netherlands is used to determine the future state pension age in accordance with the General Old Age Pensions Act (AOW, art. 7a). In November 2016, the government decided that the state pension age will be raised to 2022 years and 67 months in 3. The state pension age in 65 will be determined on the basis of the now published prognosis of the life expectancy of 2023-year-olds in 2023.
Five years longer than in 1956
Based on the current state of public health and medical technology, 65-year-olds have an average of 2016 years to live in 19,8. This life expectancy in 2016 is more than five years higher than in 1956, the year in which the General Old Age Pensions Act was passed. Advances in medical knowledge and technology and better hygiene, nutrition and living conditions led to a sharp reduction in the risk of premature death.
The increase in life expectancy is not uniform over the years. There are periods when the trend accelerates or stagnates. In general, as in other Western European countries, a marked increase in life expectancy at age 65 has been seen since 1950. For 2023, it is expected to be 20,5 years.
Half of 65-year-olds are expected to reach the age of 86
The increase in life expectancy is an expression of the fact that more and more older people live long after their 65th birthday. Based on the mortality probabilities in 1950, half of those who were 65 in that year reached their 80th birthday. Half of 65-year-olds in 2016 will live to be 86, based on current mortality rates. In 1950 the chance of living to be 90 was 9 percent, now it is 31 percent.
And what about life expectancy if you break it down into men and women. As a rule, women outlive men.
From this you can conclude that men receive state pension too late and women receive state pension too early.
What is the opinion of the readers?
Yes, it is unjustified, I think the women should go later with AOW. They live longer and, as now, they use the AOW for longer. Especially now that it is based on life expectancy, you should be able to demand that the state pension for women starts later or that they receive a lower state pension.
European figures are useless for the Netherlands, as more and more people in the Netherlands decide to take their own lives prematurely.
That is not possible in many (most?) European countries.
If the death rates turn out to be better than expected for the government, and people do not age as quickly as expected, the government can always adjust the calculation in order to still be able to raise the state pension age.
They probably will, just as they accelerated the increase in the state pension age once they introduced that increase.
those approximately 1 to 2000 voluntary exits from life will of course have an enormous impact on a nation of 17 million, especially because this will reduce the number of suicides.
Since 1956, nothing has been done about raising the state pension age to the average expected age of death, as stated in that law at that time. So it was nothing more than a catch-up.
In 2015 there were 5516 (official) cases of euthanasia.
An increasing number compared to previous years.
2011 – 3.695
2012 – 4.188
2013 – 4.829
2014 – 5.306
2015 – 5.516
My father stopped eating and drinking at a certain point and died of cardiac arrest, due to the morphine for the pain.
Officially no euthanasia.
Maybe it should have been called suicide, but it wasn't.
Most cases of euthanasia will occur in older people.
So you shouldn't compare those 5.516 people to the entire Dutch population.
The fact that nothing has been done to raise the state pension age since 1956 does not say much.
It is a choice on which you want to spend money as a government.
The government has spent the money in the past on, for example, lifelong WAO benefits and unemployment benefits of more than 5 years.
And a little less long ago from all kinds of failed infrastructure projects, such as a Betuwe railway line and a HSL route.
And for the future we have the wind farms, money that would pay off better in solar energy, because the solar cells provide more and more energy per square meter and wind turbines are only getting higher.
Then as a government you will no longer have any money left over for AOW.
Dear Ruud, I wonder if your nickname is gloomy or pessimist or something else negative. In the years that I have followed this blog, I have never read a positive response from you. I get the impression that you live an unhappy life there in Khon Kaen.. I hope I'm wrong.
These types of studies are nonsense and give a completely wrong picture. The fact is invariably ignored that the world population in 1950 was much smaller than it is now in 2017. It is logical that more people are getting older. You really don't need to have studied advanced mathematics for this. But many people still die at a younger age. And people never talk about that in these studies.
Dear Harry, people do talk about it in these types of studies, it concerns relative percentages of the population (and then the total size is unimportant) and of course the natal mortality and those who died young are indeed included in the results of the prognosis. You are talking about CBS! For example, it has also been taken into account that 1 in 4 will not reach the state pension age, but will certainly contribute for years.
If you are interested, you can go to the CBS site for the complete report (and similar reports). It is often dry food, by the way.
If life expectancy is lower in this year's forecast (20.5) than in last year's forecast (20), I think life expectancy is not increasing, but decreasing.
That is not convenient, because then the state pension age would have to be lowered, so we will be bombarded with nonsense arguments for just as long: “The figure is lower because the forecast for 2017 uses more recent figures than in 2016 ″: Yes, if you had used older numbers you wouldn't have had to wait a year…., the main thing is made a side issue: “More people died than expected and such fluctuations always cause fluctuations”, and forecast intervals are made up, until we join the queue at the end of life clinic completely exhausted.
Frans, you are seeing it wrong: the intention was, and is, that life expectancy (and therefore the state pension age) would increase by 3 months every year. the intended state pension date for 2023 was therefore 67 years and 6 months. Due to better-than-expected mortality rates (or against, depending on whether you benefit from it or not), those 3 months do not have to be added in 2023, and the state pension age remains at 67 years and 3 months. The government has indicated that it will always determine the age no later than 5 years before the AOW commencement date, i.e. as of 1 January 2018 for the year 2023. And that has now been announced.
For me reason for a small party (an unexpected extra 3000 weevers), because I happen to be from April 1956….
I don't agree with you.
"
Transition period for adjusting the state pension age to the new standard.
From the above and the information under “Increases in state pension age” it appears that the adjustment of the state pension age to the new norm based on life expectancy took place/is taking place in 10 steps, starting in each of the years 2013 up to and including 2022: a increase by 27 months in steps of 1 month (3 times), 3 months (3 times), 4 months (3 times) and 3 months (1 time) successively. The transition period will therefore be completed in 2022. Further adjustments are in line with life expectancy.
"
Source: https://nl.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algemene_Ouderdomswet
The increase to 67 years and 3 months was the last of the transition period, from now on it would be based on life expectancy figures.
It is now falling, and the retirement age is not falling. So there must be a trick formula.
We live increasingly unhealthier lives, too much sugar, too much salt, too much fat and too little exercise and yet we are getting older and older, ra, ra, how is that possible?
There are more than 2.000 centenarians in the Netherlands. They have an average life expectancy of 2.5 years.
Almost all of us have healthier jobs.
Before 1970 hardly anyone went on holiday to Thailand. Since there has been a large increase in tourism to Thailand in the last 40 years, people are also living longer. This seems to me to be a causal relationship.
The life expectancy of the Dutch has been rising since 1950. Then the chance of living to be ninety years old was 9 percent, now it is 31 percent. According to Statistics Netherlands, the growth is mainly due to increased medical knowledge and improved technology, but also to better nutrition, hygiene and living conditions. Source: NOS
Khan Peter,
Life expectancy since birth is everywhere and always mainly determined by wealth or poverty. This applies in particular to infant mortality (up to the age of 5), which has a major impact on life expectancy from birth. The increase in life expectancy since 1950 can be attributed 50 percent to the reduction in infant mortality.
Nowadays, life expectancy from birth for the richest 20 percent (81 years) is still seven (7!) years more than for the poorest 20 percent (74 years), for life expectancy from 65 years the difference is 4 years to the detriment of the poorest. In the 'perceived sense of health', which includes, for example, all kinds of disabilities), the difference is even seventeen (17) years.
Medical knowledge and technology play a much smaller role than is often assumed. Socio-economic factors are the main drivers of mortality and health. In the Netherlands, for example, everyone has almost equal access to medical knowledge and technology. Elsewhere there are big differences.
We are keeping an entire administrative industry in the air, which requires God's power, when people switch to a basic income then at least 80% of that industry is superfluous.