Recommended changes to the state pension age.
Discussion
The Leaper said:
I should feel relieved that I started work at age 16 and started to receive my State pension 49 years later...that's 49 years of paying my taxes, and NICs, and on the way paying for my own private defined benefits pension for 45 years, son's private education and also for our family's private healthcare which none of us has claimed, yet! I do feel I'm a fully paid up pensioner and have paid for every State benefit I can get.
No doubt I can expect some wrath from some PHers for being so "lucky".
R.
When you say "paying for your own DB pension scheme", do you actually mean "paying towards your own DB pension scheme"?!No doubt I can expect some wrath from some PHers for being so "lucky".
R.
red_slr said:
What annoys me the most is that we have been told to save into pensions for the last few years. So I have.
It was always the plan to access the pension at 55 for both my wife and myself but now its looking like we will be into 60 or maybe older. That is unfair IMHO. We should be able to access our personal pension at 55 or even 50. Its our money and I see no reason why they are to keep it 10 years behind SPA.
STATE pension age doesn't affect when you draw your PRIVATE pension.It was always the plan to access the pension at 55 for both my wife and myself but now its looking like we will be into 60 or maybe older. That is unfair IMHO. We should be able to access our personal pension at 55 or even 50. Its our money and I see no reason why they are to keep it 10 years behind SPA.
sidicks,
Of course I paid what was required of me (7%) and my employer the balance. I had no choice either: employment meant membership was compulsory and I think it was a great shame when Thatcher changed everything in the 1980s. It is also a shame that DB plans are no longer generally available and those people who press for more flexibility with what they consider to be "their money" are a large part of the reason: why should employers finance DB plans when their employees fail to recognise their real value. I could go further but here is not the place.
R.
Of course I paid what was required of me (7%) and my employer the balance. I had no choice either: employment meant membership was compulsory and I think it was a great shame when Thatcher changed everything in the 1980s. It is also a shame that DB plans are no longer generally available and those people who press for more flexibility with what they consider to be "their money" are a large part of the reason: why should employers finance DB plans when their employees fail to recognise their real value. I could go further but here is not the place.
R.
The Leaper said:
sidicks,
Of course I paid what was required of me (7%) and my employer the balance. I had no choice either: employment meant membership was compulsory and I think it was a great shame when Thatcher changed everything in the 1980s. It is also a shame that DB plans are no longer generally available and those people who press for more flexibility with what they consider to be "their money" are a large part of the reason: why should employers finance DB plans when their employees fail to recognise their real value. I could go further but here is not the place.
R.
That's exactly why you were lucky - you probably paid between 1/2 and 1/3 of the total cost of the DB pension. That option simply isn't available to people now!!Of course I paid what was required of me (7%) and my employer the balance. I had no choice either: employment meant membership was compulsory and I think it was a great shame when Thatcher changed everything in the 1980s. It is also a shame that DB plans are no longer generally available and those people who press for more flexibility with what they consider to be "their money" are a large part of the reason: why should employers finance DB plans when their employees fail to recognise their real value. I could go further but here is not the place.
R.
TooMany2cvs said:
red_slr said:
What annoys me the most is that we have been told to save into pensions for the last few years. So I have.
It was always the plan to access the pension at 55 for both my wife and myself but now its looking like we will be into 60 or maybe older. That is unfair IMHO. We should be able to access our personal pension at 55 or even 50. Its our money and I see no reason why they are to keep it 10 years behind SPA.
STATE pension age doesn't affect when you draw your PRIVATE pension.It was always the plan to access the pension at 55 for both my wife and myself but now its looking like we will be into 60 or maybe older. That is unfair IMHO. We should be able to access our personal pension at 55 or even 50. Its our money and I see no reason why they are to keep it 10 years behind SPA.
red_slr said:
TooMany2cvs said:
red_slr said:
What annoys me the most is that we have been told to save into pensions for the last few years. So I have.
It was always the plan to access the pension at 55 for both my wife and myself but now its looking like we will be into 60 or maybe older. That is unfair IMHO. We should be able to access our personal pension at 55 or even 50. Its our money and I see no reason why they are to keep it 10 years behind SPA.
STATE pension age doesn't affect when you draw your PRIVATE pension.It was always the plan to access the pension at 55 for both my wife and myself but now its looking like we will be into 60 or maybe older. That is unfair IMHO. We should be able to access our personal pension at 55 or even 50. Its our money and I see no reason why they are to keep it 10 years behind SPA.
RichS said:
This is what annoys me- I've saved for it, what's it got to do with anyone when I take it?
Presumably their unspoken thought process is that if you take it too early you could burn through it all & outlive your ability to pay for yourself, leaving the Government to pick up your tab. Push it back and they force you to keep supporting yourself whilst you're more likely to be able to.
Not saying that I agree with it in any way, of course.
The average value of an average state pension, is, what.. £250,000? Given that most workers and employers will only contribute something like a tenth of that in the course of a working lifetime's NIC, where's the money going to come from? We live in a low growth, low interest world, have done for a number of years, and will continue to do so, and with more and more workers paying less and less in PAYE.
And I see bond yields have tumbled again..
And I see bond yields have tumbled again..
Venturist said:
Presumably their unspoken thought process is that if you take it too early you could burn through it all & outlive your ability to pay for yourself, leaving the Government to pick up your tab.
Push it back and they force you to keep supporting yourself whilst you're more likely to be able to.
Not saying that I agree with it in any way, of course.
Which implies that they plan on means testing the state pension at some point in the future, otherwise I can't see them caring if you have any private pension left. Push it back and they force you to keep supporting yourself whilst you're more likely to be able to.
Not saying that I agree with it in any way, of course.
If they did bring in means testing I could see a large percentage of those deliberately tapering their pension payouts so they were under the threshold for state means testing by 70 or whatever age you will be allowed to draw the state pension.
sidicks,
You use the word "lucky", not me. The only part of my post that I may consider lucky is that membership of the DB plan was compulsory under my employment contract, and that set me on the road of being in such a plan for all the following years, producing what I consider to be a reasonable retirement income from my occupational source. Whether or not I would have joined the plan, especially at my age at the time, if membership was not compulsory is, of course, not known.
R.
You use the word "lucky", not me. The only part of my post that I may consider lucky is that membership of the DB plan was compulsory under my employment contract, and that set me on the road of being in such a plan for all the following years, producing what I consider to be a reasonable retirement income from my occupational source. Whether or not I would have joined the plan, especially at my age at the time, if membership was not compulsory is, of course, not known.
R.
sidicks said:
TooMany2cvs said:
The state pension started off at age 70, in 1908.
It was reduced to 65 in 1925.
The women's age was reduced to 60 in 1940.
In 1995, the women's age returning to parity with men was announced.
In 2007, the increases to 68 were announced.
In 1910, the average life expectancy was 53.
In 1925, the average life expectancy was 55.
In 1960, the average life expectancy was 71.
In 2000, the average life expectancy was 78.
In 2014, the average life expectancy was 81.
Further increase in the pension age, to 70, really shouldn't be a surprise to anybody - even before you consider the shape of the population by age.
Remember it's life expectancy at retirement that most relevant, not simply average life expectancy!It was reduced to 65 in 1925.
The women's age was reduced to 60 in 1940.
In 1995, the women's age returning to parity with men was announced.
In 2007, the increases to 68 were announced.
In 1910, the average life expectancy was 53.
In 1925, the average life expectancy was 55.
In 1960, the average life expectancy was 71.
In 2000, the average life expectancy was 78.
In 2014, the average life expectancy was 81.
Further increase in the pension age, to 70, really shouldn't be a surprise to anybody - even before you consider the shape of the population by age.
Don't forget that those very low averages of a century ago were heavily influenced by high rates of infant mortality. If you made it to your 2nd or 3rd birthday unscathed you had a decent chance of making it well past 70.
There's no doubt life expectancy is increasing, but life expectancy in retirement isn't increasing anything like as much as those average figs suggest.
RichS said:
red_slr said:
TooMany2cvs said:
red_slr said:
What annoys me the most is that we have been told to save into pensions for the last few years. So I have.
It was always the plan to access the pension at 55 for both my wife and myself but now its looking like we will be into 60 or maybe older. That is unfair IMHO. We should be able to access our personal pension at 55 or even 50. Its our money and I see no reason why they are to keep it 10 years behind SPA.
STATE pension age doesn't affect when you draw your PRIVATE pension.It was always the plan to access the pension at 55 for both my wife and myself but now its looking like we will be into 60 or maybe older. That is unfair IMHO. We should be able to access our personal pension at 55 or even 50. Its our money and I see no reason why they are to keep it 10 years behind SPA.
The Leaper said:
sidicks,
You use the word "lucky", not me. The only part of my post that I may consider lucky is that membership of the DB plan was compulsory under my employment contract, and that set me on the road of being in such a plan for all the following years, producing what I consider to be a reasonable retirement income from my occupational source. Whether or not I would have joined the plan, especially at my age at the time, if membership was not compulsory is, of course, not known.
R.
I used the word 'lucky' in response to your previous post:You use the word "lucky", not me. The only part of my post that I may consider lucky is that membership of the DB plan was compulsory under my employment contract, and that set me on the road of being in such a plan for all the following years, producing what I consider to be a reasonable retirement income from my occupational source. Whether or not I would have joined the plan, especially at my age at the time, if membership was not compulsory is, of course, not known.
R.
The Leaper said:
No doubt I can expect some wrath from some PHers for being so "lucky".
R.
Where the implication was that you weren't lucky at all...!R.
mccrackenj said:
Average life expectancy figs can be very misleading.
Which is exactly the point I was making!mccracken said:
Don't forget that those very low averages of a century ago were heavily influenced by high rates of infant mortality. If you made it to your 2nd or 3rd birthday unscathed you had a decent chance of making it well past 70.
There's no doubt life expectancy is increasing, but life expectancy in retirement isn't increasing anything like as much as those average figs suggest.
The average age at death has increased from around 77 in the 1970s to around 84 now and projected to be 86 in 2040.There's no doubt life expectancy is increasing, but life expectancy in retirement isn't increasing anything like as much as those average figs suggest.
This is based on population mortality, the numbers for a select pensioner cohort are a few years higher.
sidicks said:
The Leaper said:
sidicks,
You use the word "lucky", not me. The only part of my post that I may consider lucky is that membership of the DB plan was compulsory under my employment contract, and that set me on the road of being in such a plan for all the following years, producing what I consider to be a reasonable retirement income from my occupational source. Whether or not I would have joined the plan, especially at my age at the time, if membership was not compulsory is, of course, not known.
R.
I used the word 'lucky' in response to your previous post:You use the word "lucky", not me. The only part of my post that I may consider lucky is that membership of the DB plan was compulsory under my employment contract, and that set me on the road of being in such a plan for all the following years, producing what I consider to be a reasonable retirement income from my occupational source. Whether or not I would have joined the plan, especially at my age at the time, if membership was not compulsory is, of course, not known.
R.
The Leaper said:
No doubt I can expect some wrath from some PHers for being so "lucky".
R.
Where the implication was that you weren't lucky at all...!R.
Seems quite the opposite from where I'm sitting!
Yes. Young people often are often entitled for a lot of things, but many older people feel since they have contributed some money towards their pension they should be allowed to work for 40-50 years, and then take a pension for 30-40 years after. They certainly didn't contribute enough money to cover that length of time sitting around relaxing after work. Not to mention their luck from being born at the right time of house price growth.
If you're too old to sit at a computer or serve some customers in a shop then you are too old to drive safely.
State pension should optionally be available from 70, and when you start claiming your driving license should be cancelled.
Should encourage a few people to make the choice to keep working or live off their private pension.
State pension should optionally be available from 70, and when you start claiming your driving license should be cancelled.
Should encourage a few people to make the choice to keep working or live off their private pension.
If you strip out London, Britain is actually quite a poor country and it simply cannot afford big, early pensions. With competition from Asia and elsewhere rising, Britain is likely to get even poorer in the future. That all means later pensions and smaller pensions. Everyone really should plan for a retirement age of at least 75 and annual income well under £20k in today's money.
Trouble is the job market hasn't caught up on the idea that we are expected to work into our 70s, instead opting for cheaper, younger Millennial types to lounge about all day and leave dirty cereal bowls in the kitchen sink.
I'm led to believe competing in the market into your 50s is difficult enough, cannot imagine what it would be like into my 60s. We can't all work in B&Q and if older people are going to keep their jobs then, like houses, where are all the young going to work/live?
We need to introduce a Logan's Run - type system.
I'm led to believe competing in the market into your 50s is difficult enough, cannot imagine what it would be like into my 60s. We can't all work in B&Q and if older people are going to keep their jobs then, like houses, where are all the young going to work/live?
We need to introduce a Logan's Run - type system.
Gassing Station | Finance | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff