What age will you live to?

No one knows how long they will live. But actuaries, the clever statisticians employed by pension and insurance companies, know the probalilities of us making it to certain ages. The figures make for surprising reading. For example, someone aged 30 has a two-thirds chance of living to 85. Someone aged 35 has a one in seven chance of living to 100.

But despite these statistics and major advances in healthcare, most people don't think they will live longer than their parents. Sadly, increasing longevity does come at a cost. Anyone who wants a comfortable retirement has to make sure they have adequate pension provision and that means saving a lot more money...

Age	% chance of reaching 85	% chance of reaching 90	% chance of reaching 100	% chance of reaching 100
20	72	55	17	5
25	71	53	16	4
30	70	52	14	4
35	68	50	13	14
40	67	49	12	12
45	65	46	10	11
50	63	44	9	10
55	63	43	8	9
60	62	42	8	8
65	62	42	7	7

Click to read our basic guide to pensions

The figures were supplied by the LifeTrust foundation, an organisation which aims to raise awareness of lengevity and its financial implications.

More from Money Central:

50 tips to ride out a recession

25 reasons to avoid the new iPhone

House prices, the latest forecasts, region by region

The 10 worst property investments ever

Ten ways to save without even noticing

The 10 strangest will bequests ever

The 10 craziest parking tickets ever

The 10 most ridiculous fines of all time

The 10 most audacious swindles ever

Ten tips to survive a property downturn

The 50 wierdest terms of financial jargon - and what they actually mean

Comments

[johgol]

have been reading interesting comments on reaching a certain age. No one has yet mentioned the fact that we are subject to planetary cycles which interact in a mysterious way with our life cycles, and hereditary factors can be traced. Thousands of years ago our ancestors were more enlightened in that sense, now we seem to be more interested in the mechanics of life.

[Don]

If medical technology is improving then 65 year olds will benefit as 20 year olds do.

Younger people are more prone to accidents and death, especially in cars. The cost of your car insurance tells you that.

Young people drink more alcohol than older people and young people are now much more prone to binge drinking than older people were.

Younger people are subject to more stress, we now live in an age of stress and older people, unlike younger people, have years of dealing with it or they just plain forget what caused them stress in the first place. :)

Older people have led more active lives compared with younger people who are overeating more, drinking alcohol more, taking more drugs, doing less exercise in favour of TV and video games.

Older people are more sexy too. Just look at Sean Connery. :)

Thank you and good day.

Since when did so many stupid people come on this site. I think half of you should shift down the dailymail or Independent

[tadge]

Does this mean that the longer I live, the less likely it is that I will live?

[Dave]

Too many geeks!

[Balliol II]

Why does the table of expectations stop at 65? I am curious as I am 79.

[william Haines]

The tables are wrong because they haven't figured in changes in diet and lifestyle. Increasingly people's diets are getting worse leading to obesity, diabetes, cancer etc. Most occupations are now sedentary leading to general decline in fitness. And alcohol and drug consumption has replaced smoking. This is why we won't live as long as our parents.

[Frances]

The table is wrong because, as so many people have pointed out, however old you are, you have more chance of living another 30 years than another 50 or 60, so the the person who is now 65 must have a better chance of reaching 90 than someone who is 20. Possibly what is meant is that today's 20 year olds have a greater chance of reaching 65 (and therefore of reaching 90) than today's 65 year olds had when they were 20. This is of interest to actuaries, but not to today's 65 year olds, who are the ones who have actually survived and so have no interest in what their chances of survival were at age 20!

[Michael]

Doctors if they are true to the Hippocratic oath have the ability in the West to keep almost anyone alive well past the point where most want to live. I want to live only while my ability to look after myself is intact. I dont believe in God. Quality of life, dignity self respect and lack of burden on others are key values to me. I would like the right but not obligation to choose to die in a controlled and painless way when i am ready. As an adult why cant I do that ?

[Mr Magoo]

The point is that each cohort is not the same as the last.

People aged 20 now have different environmental factors affecting their chance of death than those who were 20 in 1988 and are now 40.

Factors such as medical treatments (possibly including future developments), different attitudes towards smoking or other things that are known to reduce your life expectancy.

So whilst the probability for any individual group of people to reach age 100 when aged 30 should be lower than the same group of people aged 60, we know the current 60 year olds have not been subject to the same environmental and social factors that the current 30 year olds have.

I haven't reviewed the methodology the actuaries have used, but I imagine it could take such things into account.

Any questions? :)

[Geoff Entwistle]

Tom asks who would want to live to 100. The answer is someone who is 99.

[Nilsey105]

Is suicide taken into account by these statasticians? If so have they factored in the rise in suicide rates from the rises in gas-electric-food-fuel etc etc prices. 35% british gas price increase this week is to pay for the 250,000£ bonuses for the top management. One for Mr Miliband to sort.

[Statto Fan Head]

To Mark who works with stats.

You are viewing the problem wrongly and assuming that the path that someone took to 65 from 35 is the same as the path someone who is 35 today will take to 65.

They take into account advances in medicine and technology that is not retroactive.

Simply put 65yr olds today are going to be less healthy that 65yr olds in the future.

Duhhhhhh!

[Ian]

Re percentage change of reaching an older age must increase with age. Not so, if one assumes that people born more recently have better medical care in infancy or better nutrition the average expectancy may increase over time.

[Ivan (3 Maths A levels) de Nemethy]

I see you have modified the percentage tables following my earlier correction. They are beginning to make more sense but the percentage columns are upside down relative to the age column. Invert the percentage columns and take the rest of the day off.

[Ivan de Nemethy]

The table is fundamentally flawed. The percentage chance of reaching an older age has to increase with age for every age band. The percentage chance tables cannot ever decrease as the age attained increases. Take a sample of 100 people at age 20 – 42 will live to age 90. The number of survivors at age 65 must be less than 100 but the same 42 will live to age 90 – hence the percentage must be higher than 42.

[Mark]

As someone who works with statistics, I am a little puzzled. How can it be more probable to reach a 100 when you are 35 than 65? Surely the former have the added risk of death between 35 and 65? Is it due to anticipated improvements in healthcare?

[Tom Taylor-Duxbury]

Why would one want to live to 100?
What can one do when at least modestly infirm which is almost a certainty,
We're here for a good time, not a long time!
I'd prefer 75 in a flash and a bang - the only time I'd wet my pants will be my last

[Anto]

I'm 127, I'd like to know my chances of reaching 200 please.