A longer life, it seems, is a short cut to greater financial difficulty. This week, a new report on longevity from the Pensions Institute at the Cass Business School underlined the financial dangers associated with us living longer.
The research from Professor David Blake puts an extra 12 years on the average lifespan of a man reaching 65 in 2050. This means that anyone retiring at that age should expect to live on average to the age of 91 - or 97 at the upper end of expectations. The research will soon cover women.
Last month, Paternoster, a pensions company that buys annuities, estimated that today's 30-year-olds are likely to reach 100 years of age. And according to recent estimates from the Office of National Statistics, centenarians are the fastest-growing section of the population.
For most of us, extra years on the planet are to be welcomed, but our improving longevity poses a tricky question for savers: how best to pay for even longer in retirement?
While the Pensions Institute report calculates the bill to government and life companies for a man's extra dozen years (based on a pensioner earning £13,364 annually from private and state pensions) to be £160,368 per person, the more pressing cost for individuals is that of building a pot in the first place that can generate a comfortable sum in retirement.
For decades, the pension, whether occupational or personal, has been championed for most workers as the crux of their financial planning for old age, with generous tax relief on contributions and up to 25% allowed to be taken out free of tax before drawing an income. Although many working Britons have begged to differ and ploughed their money into buy-to-let property instead, the pension's tax benefits wedded to a guaranteed payout (in the shape of either a final salary or annuity, a monthly income for life) until death have long ensured that it remains embedded in our psyche as the main tool to fund our old age.
However, that pre-eminence has recently been subject to a bout of criticism by financial advisers who suggest that drawing an income from an individual savings account (Isa) is, in fact, a better choice, since it has similar tax breaks but doesn't lock away your money for years, and can be more easily passed to your family when you die.
"The Isa is the most flexible and cheap savings and investment scheme there has ever been. Most people will be better-off with money in Isas because it'll be tax-free forever," says Chris Gilchrist, director of independent financial adviser Churchill Investments, and head of the everyinvestor.co.uk financial advice website.
Hefty tax penalties of up to 82% for passing a pension on to heirs, the potential hit on qualification for means-testing, and monthly tax on your eventual pension payments are poor incentives to save, he adds, dismissing concerns that savers may be tempted to dip into their pension savings before they retire.
He recommends savers consider a "self-select" Isa that lets you spread your investments across a mix of funds and shares to balance different types of attitude to risk.
Concern at this sentiment has prompted fellow IFA firm Hargreaves Lansdown to leap to the defence of the humble pension. It has produced new calculations that highlight growing longevity to stress the benefits of pensions compared to drawing income in retirement from an Isa.
"In the context of financial planning, living too long is a very real possibility with potentially catastrophic consequences," warns Tom McPhail, head of pensions at Hargreaves Lansdown. "For most people, the risk of their income stopping is unacceptable. The question that investors need to ask themselves is: how much additional income will an Isa pay me, compared to a pension, as compensation for the possibility that I could run out of money?"
His firm's figures - which take into account the new 20% (instead of 22%) tax relief on pension contributions from April 2008 for basic rate taxpayers - use the example of £1,000 left in an Isa and a personal pension for ten years, and compare the money paid out (in the shape of income and an annuity, respectively) until death in 20 years' time. In most scenarios a pension clearly beats an Isa, the research found. For higher and middle earners, a pension - even allowing for the 25% taken tax-free at retirement - beats an Isa by up to 25.5%.
But the research highlights how for lower earners, the benefits are much less pronounced and, in one scenario, favour an Isa over a pension where savers earn 20% tax relief on their contributions and end up paying 20% tax in retirement. That could mean that workers who fit this bill could do better by choosing an Isa and managing it carefully.
However, it remains the risky option, argues McPhail, because rising longevity could see your Isa income wiped out if you live "just one extra year of life" longer than the standard life expectancy.
You can only invest £7,000 in an Isa each year, adds Patrick Connolly at IFA Towry Law, whereas you can currently invest up to £225,000 (rising by £10,000 next year) into a pension in a year. However, he says: "The choice between products should not be seen as a contest."