Jesse Ramdeo
Senior Reporter
jesse.ramdeo@cnc3.co.tt
The T&T Association of Retired Persons (TTARP) has welcomed — and even taken credit for — recommending the increase in the National Insurance System (NIS) retirement age from 60 to 65, according to the association’s First Vice-President, Reynold Cooper.
During an interview with Guardian Media yesterday, Cooper said the proposal, announced by Finance Minister Dave Tancoo in Monday’s national budget, will “significantly reduce the perception of age discrimination,” reinforcing the view that older citizens are capable of working beyond the traditional retirement age of 60.
“We are pleased about it because we feel that the elderly can work up to age 70 and beyond,” he said.
Cooper confirmed that TTARP had made the recommendation to the Finance Minister but said the association did not propose the ten-year phased implementation period.
“Yes, it was a recommendation, but we didn’t recommend the ten-year phase. We recommended that the age be increased to 65, with the option for someone to leave before 65. The ten-year part was something the Minister had in his own view. I don’t know what research went into that approach,” he explained.
TTARP maintains that many senior citizens remain capable of working into their 70s and noted that several countries have retirement ages between 67 and 69.
Addressing public concerns about the accompanying increase in NIS contributions, Cooper described the upcoming three per cent rise—set to begin in January 2026, followed by another increase in January 2027—as an “investment” rather than an expense.
“When you pay that amount of money, in the future at age 65, you’re going to get that plus interest because that’s what the NIS does. They invest that money, so it’s an investment that they’re going to return to you when you retire,” he said.
The National Insurance Board (NIB) serves as the country’s main social security mechanism, providing income protection through pensions, sickness and maternity benefits, and employment injury compensation. To qualify for a full retirement pension, a person must have a minimum of 750 contributions, compared to the means-tested senior citizens’ pension.
Actuary Stokeley Smart also endorsed the reform, saying the adjustment was essential to prevent the NIS fund from becoming insolvent.
“The alternative would be the implosion of the fund, or if nothing was done, taking some sort of draconian measure later down the road, which would not be particularly palatable to the population,” Smart told Guardian Media during a Zoom interview yesterday.
He clarified that while people can still choose to retire early, pension payments will only begin once they reach the new qualifying age.
“If at 63, when the age for the pension is now 65, you retire, you won’t qualify for the pension then. Once you make the contributions, whatever the age you decide to retire early, you won’t get that until you reach 65. You can still leave early if you want, but you won’t be eligible for the national pension until that point,” he said.
Smart downplayed the impact of the contribution increase, calling it “a small cost aimed at safeguarding the financial future.”
“It is absolutely not going to go up exponentially—it’s a phased increase. The alternative, if this is not done, is that you get nothing, which is an exponential decrease. The pros outweigh the cons in that regard,” he added.
Former Director of the Division of Ageing, Dr Jennifer Rouse, offered a nuanced perspective on the reforms, describing them as necessary but cautioning that policymakers must account for the evolving “culture of ageing.”
Dr Rouse said ageing today is not simply a matter of getting older but reflects changing social realities and attitudes toward work and retirement.
She noted that the mandatory retirement age of 60 in most sectors is increasingly outdated, given longer life expectancies. Citing an Elections and Boundaries Commission (EBC) survey showing more than 1,000 centenarians nationwide, Rouse said longevity has redefined what it means to be an older worker.
However, she expressed concern that the reform may have been proposed without sufficient consultation—especially with younger generations whose attitudes toward work differ significantly.
When asked if the NIS reform was necessary, Dr Rouse responded, “Yes and no.”
“Yes, it is necessary to maintain the contributory nature of the NIS Fund, which instils a sense of responsibility and ownership in workers. This provides dignity, as contributors receive benefits from an investment they personally made rather than relying on a means-tested grant from the Consolidated Fund.
No, because the incremental approach, while typical, may not fully address the underlying issues of a negative growth rate and the changing nature of work. The move also risks being perceived negatively by young people who might see older workers as ‘usurping spaces for their entry’ by having the age extended.”