Under current legislation, the pension age for men and women would have risen to 66 in 2024 – and then to 68 by 2046. But the new Government is proposing that men retire at 66 in 2016, and women by 2020.

If, as expected, these proposals become law, it will particularly affect men aged between 50 and 58 and women aged between 50 and 54. This is because those older than this will have retired before the age is raised – and those younger already faced a later retirement date, though many of them may not have realised it.

Remember, women’s pension age is already rising from 60. Over the next decade it will be increased gradually until by 2020 it is in line with men – who by then are likely to retire at 66, rather than 65.

But younger workers in their 30s and 40s need not assume this won’t affect them. Raising the state pension age to 66 is just the starting point. It seems a racing certainty that the date at which it is raised to 68 will also be brought forward, and potentially raised even higher, affecting many younger workers today.

It is not hard to understand why: we are living longer and drawing our pensions for longer, increasing government costs.

For each year the Government delays paying pensions it can save an estimated £13bn. So this is one simple way to manage the soaring pension bill.

When the state pension was introduced, a quarter of working people died before they even reached retirement, and those who did get this benefit drew it, on average, for just five years.

Today men can expect to live until 78 and women until 82. If the state pension age had increased in line with life expectancy, we would not be drawing it until our 75th birthday.

But while few would deny the logic of increasing the retirement age, those caught at the sharp end of this reform may feel aggrieved that it is their retirement plans that are being sacrificed to help get the economy back on an even keel.

But there are steps that those affected can take to help safeguard their pension plans and protect their “holiday of a lifetime”.

Laith Khalaf of Hargreaves Lansdown, the financial adviser, explained: “It is still possible to retire at 65, or even younger, but those who are fast approaching their retirement need to get their savings skates on.”

Those closer to retirement will have to save more because they have fewer years in which to make up the shortfall. A man now aged 59 needs to put aside an extra £63 a month – £756 a year – to bridge the gap.

Women aged 55 need to salt away a further £35 a month (or £420 a year) to replace a year’s lost state pension. A 50-year-old would not have to save quite so much, needing to put aside just an extra £21 a month (£252 a year). All these figures assume inflation of 2pc a year and that savings enjoy annual average growth of 6pc.

Financial advisers do not recommend that people necessarily put these extra funds into a pension. Mr Khalaf said: “People should of course be making their own private pension savings. The proposals mooted this week hammer home the fact that none of us can rely on the state any more for a decent pension.”

But, he says, if people are looking to replace the money they would have received from the state pension for one year, an Isa may be more appropriate. The problem with a pension is that it is designed to produce an income for life, not for one year only. By contrast, if you save enough in an Isa, you can run down the account over a year when you hit 65.

Mr Khalaf added: “The pensions revolution is coming and workers and employers need to prepare for it. Automatically enrolling workers into workplace pensions will be the keystone of reform, but it is likely to be accompanied by a rise in the state pension age and longer working lives.”

Employees have been warned that changes to the state pension could also have a knock-on effect on many company schemes.

Actuarial consultants point out that if the state pension age is changed, company pension schemes may also alter the age at which members can draw benefits, although such changes would apply only to pensions promised in future, not to benefits accrued to date.

They reckon that savers in defined contribution (or money purchase) schemes may have to change their investment strategy to reflect a later retirement date, or save more to avoid the change.

The upside of this is that delaying taking a private or company pension can boost its value significantly. Figures calculated by Standard Life show that a 45-year-old man saving £200 a month could increase his private pension by almost 10pc if he chose to retire at 66 rather than 65.

John Lawson of Standard Life said: “Delaying taking your private pension by just a year can significantly boost your income.” He added that people needed to be saving at least 12pc of their income each month to ensure they had a comfortable retirement.

There are also plans to abolish the “default” retirement age, which effectively allowed companies to sack staff once they hit 65 (or 60 for women). If people are allowed to work longer, they can continue saving into their pension, which will give them an even bigger pot when they do retire.

Ian Naismith of Scottish Widows said: “Employers may need to consider late retirement provisions under pension schemes, with more staff likely to work beyond the schemes’ normal retirement ages.”

But while many will welcome the right to continue working, others will not find themselves in such a fortunate position.

Dave Prentis, the head of Unison, the trade union, said: “It may be a choice for the fit and healthy to keep going for another year at work, but, for some, work takes a terrible toll on their health. Many workers across the public and private sector do very physically demanding jobs where carrying on until 66 is not a safe or practical option.”

There have also been concerns that many who find it difficult to find work in their 50s will now be forced to stay on lower unemployment benefits for an extra year, rather than getting the pension to which they’ve contributed.

We might well feel aggrieved that we are being asked to wait until we are 66 to clock off for good. But unless substantial numbers of fifty-something workers take to the streets, it seems inevitable that we will all be working longer.