Those are the words of David Sinclair, chief executive of the International Longevity Centre.
The Daily Express asked three pensions experts what should be done to keep the state pension affordable.
Sinclair is the first. He’s one of the few realistic voices in the state pension in increasingly heated debate about the state pension age,
And he’s telling us uncomfortable home truths that politicians will never admit. There are some tough questions over the state pension age, and we won’t always like the answers.
Since 1940, the state pension age has risen gradually and now stands at 66 for both men and women.
It will start risiing to 67 between 2026 and 2028, with a further jump to 68 between 2044 and 2046.
That process could be brought forward to 2037.
It’s brutal, but it still may not be enough.
Last year, the International Longevity Centre calculated that the state pension must be pushed up to 70 or 71 by 2050.
That’s necessary to maintain the current ratio of workers per pensioner, as it’s their taxes that pay for today’s pensions.
Sinclair says almost 13million Britons claim the state pension today. In 2023-24, the bill stood at around £125billion.
That’s 10% of all public spending.
And it’s due to hit £138billion this year and keep climbing thereafter unless we see some major reforms.
Options include accelerating state pension age hikes. But there others.
Sinclair said Labour faces difficult choices to keep the state pension affordable: tax more, borrow more, cut other spending, raise the state pension age or reduce its generosity.
It could even means-test it. Or axe the hugely popular state pension triple lock. Both would spark outrage.
But ignoring the problem is no longer an option, Sinclair says.
The problem is that many fall ill in their late 50s and early 60s, and carry car carry on working to state pension
More than 1.5million are forced out of work early due to ill health. Others have caring responsibilities.
The average person works for just 31 years.
This makes raising the state pension age alone even harder, Sinclair says.
We need major investment in preventative action against ill health and workplace ageism, alongside a stronger benefits safety net for those who fall through the cracks, he adds.
All that will cost money too.
Politicians dread tackling the subject, and with good reason. “For government it’s a lose, lose, lose scenario,” Mr Sinclair says.
He added: “The Labour government “will be terrified about even suggesting a cut to the triple lock after the outcry over its decision to axe the Winter Fuel Payment.”
But it’s got to do something. And fast. Pushing the state pension age even higher maybe one of the easier options, given that it won’t hit people for a decade or two.
Unless Labour can find other ways of cutting spending. There’s been little signs of that so far.
The row over the state pension age and triple lock is only going to intensify. Pushing the state pension retirement age to 70 or 71 may be one of the least controversial moves.