Recommended changes to the state pension age.
Discussion
When I started my current job (1998, aged 24 - first proper job after a string of s
t ones) one of the main attractions was the DB scheme, which meant retiring at 60 was realistic.
The DB scheme was changed to not be accessible until 65 after 5 years, and got rid of completely after 10. My DB pension value is pretty insignificant now despite 10 years of contributions (and what will be 30-40 years of growth). When the state pension age changed to 67 I had been working for 14 years - i.e. my retirement age had increased by 6 months for every year I had been in work!
Despite being in a pretty reasonable job, and cranking a lot of my income into my pension, I'm not sure I will ever be able to fully retire. Current thinking is late 50s I will hopefully be able to downshift. Smaller property near the water and a more tinkery income source, looking after boats, or something along those lines.
t ones) one of the main attractions was the DB scheme, which meant retiring at 60 was realistic.The DB scheme was changed to not be accessible until 65 after 5 years, and got rid of completely after 10. My DB pension value is pretty insignificant now despite 10 years of contributions (and what will be 30-40 years of growth). When the state pension age changed to 67 I had been working for 14 years - i.e. my retirement age had increased by 6 months for every year I had been in work!
Despite being in a pretty reasonable job, and cranking a lot of my income into my pension, I'm not sure I will ever be able to fully retire. Current thinking is late 50s I will hopefully be able to downshift. Smaller property near the water and a more tinkery income source, looking after boats, or something along those lines.
The 1900's will be seen as a time of euphoria as those born in the 1930's and 1940's having the best lifestyle in history.
Plenty of jobs post WW2, growth in consumer good and mobility, affordable housing with interior plumbing, bank manages able to make decisions on loans, massive growth in property and share values, worthwhile interest rates on any savings as well as generous untaxed private pension schemes including final salary schemes all created that euphoria.
It was a utopian world. But it was also an unaffordable world as well.
We are still seeing the remnants of this era. UK hotels full of geriatrics enjoying their index linked pensions. Garden centres full to the brim of pensioners spending their grey £.
This will not continue.
I am almost 60 and do not expect to fully retire until I am 75ish. I am self employed and do not work a 'normal' full time week. I work when I need to and not when I don't.
My business is likely to be passed on to my children when I retire with my wife and I receiving a 'pension' payment from the business.
Man has existed for thousands of years and the notion of being able to live for 20 to 30 years at the end of your life and not contribute to producing anything to enable mankind to eat, keep warm, provide shelter (basic human needs) which today would translate to doing something useful for your needs that are being provided for.
Sitting around leaching off the younger generation and saying 'well I paid in so it is my entitlement' is not going to cut it! You never paid money in you are going to get back. You paid money in to provide the payments being made at the time to people on pensions then. There is not a vast pot of cash sitting there that you paid in, growing from investments, waiting for you to retire. It is purely on paper (and not paper printed by the Bank of England). It does not exist in reality.
In history your children provided your 'pension'. They looked after the elderly, and those elderly did what they could to assist in the provision of food, fuel, etc. for the family.
We will head back to this form of family/community over the next 50 years. Children can't afford housing equivalent to their parents so may end up living in the family home, once married and with their children, and they will care for their parents.
It has happened for hundreds of generations and will return before children born now die as 'the elderly' of their generation.
Plenty of jobs post WW2, growth in consumer good and mobility, affordable housing with interior plumbing, bank manages able to make decisions on loans, massive growth in property and share values, worthwhile interest rates on any savings as well as generous untaxed private pension schemes including final salary schemes all created that euphoria.
It was a utopian world. But it was also an unaffordable world as well.
We are still seeing the remnants of this era. UK hotels full of geriatrics enjoying their index linked pensions. Garden centres full to the brim of pensioners spending their grey £.
This will not continue.
I am almost 60 and do not expect to fully retire until I am 75ish. I am self employed and do not work a 'normal' full time week. I work when I need to and not when I don't.
My business is likely to be passed on to my children when I retire with my wife and I receiving a 'pension' payment from the business.
Man has existed for thousands of years and the notion of being able to live for 20 to 30 years at the end of your life and not contribute to producing anything to enable mankind to eat, keep warm, provide shelter (basic human needs) which today would translate to doing something useful for your needs that are being provided for.
Sitting around leaching off the younger generation and saying 'well I paid in so it is my entitlement' is not going to cut it! You never paid money in you are going to get back. You paid money in to provide the payments being made at the time to people on pensions then. There is not a vast pot of cash sitting there that you paid in, growing from investments, waiting for you to retire. It is purely on paper (and not paper printed by the Bank of England). It does not exist in reality.
In history your children provided your 'pension'. They looked after the elderly, and those elderly did what they could to assist in the provision of food, fuel, etc. for the family.
We will head back to this form of family/community over the next 50 years. Children can't afford housing equivalent to their parents so may end up living in the family home, once married and with their children, and they will care for their parents.
It has happened for hundreds of generations and will return before children born now die as 'the elderly' of their generation.
wormus said:
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.
lol-classic film,i do wonder if some government body has already discussed this.....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.
likely state pension will end when autoenrolment in full swing but very annoying they keep changing goalposts so even if saved money etc now hitting lifetime allowance as unable to stop working as pension age etc has been moved
p1doc said:
lol-classic film,i do wonder if some government body has already discussed this.....
likely state pension will end when autoenrolment in full swing but very annoying they keep changing goalposts so even if saved money etc now hitting lifetime allowance as unable to stop working as pension age etc has been moved
Two words: Jenny Agutter. likely state pension will end when autoenrolment in full swing but very annoying they keep changing goalposts so even if saved money etc now hitting lifetime allowance as unable to stop working as pension age etc has been moved
I think it's more likely and easier to restrict health care. It's too expensive, accessible and people are living too long. It's not just people working longer, we need younger people who can have children who themselves can grow up, go to work etc. It's what makes the economy work - a strong, young, educated workforce. Introduce compulsory medical insurance instead.
The Leaper said:
alock
Bet you 're looking forward to reaching State retirement age and having your driving license cancelled..not! I detect yellow mist.
R.
I'm assuming I will be means tested out of a state pension and won't retire until well into my 70s anyway.Bet you 're looking forward to reaching State retirement age and having your driving license cancelled..not! I detect yellow mist.
R.
This is sort of my point. There are 3 states >65
1. Working.
2. Retired and self sufficient.
3. Retired and living off the state.
We need to shrink the size of group 3. We need to encourage people to stay in group 1 or acknowledge they are in group 2 and don't need a state pension. The driving license is one option.
Who can argue that a person who needs state money to survive because they are too old to work can safely operate a machine at 70mph?
sidicks said:
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.
Your stats about average age at death are more relevant and show a less dramatic increase than your earlier life expectancy stats, that's all I was trying to suggest, but didn't have figs to hand, which you've now provided.
alock said:
I'm assuming I will be means tested out of a state pension and won't retire until well into my 70s anyway.
This is sort of my point. There are 3 states >65
1. Working.
2. Retired and self sufficient.
3. Retired and living off the state.
We need to shrink the size of group 3. We need to encourage people to stay in group 1 or acknowledge they are in group 2 and don't need a state pension. The driving license is one option.
Who can argue that a person who needs state money to survive because they are too old to work can safely operate a machine at 70mph?
problem I can see is that people who are paying into pension now have been told they cannot retire until years after their original expected retirement age or face severe financial penalties so either work longer handing government more money and not getting as much as expected eg compulsory change of NHS pension scheme or retire early losing up to 25% of pensionThis is sort of my point. There are 3 states >65
1. Working.
2. Retired and self sufficient.
3. Retired and living off the state.
We need to shrink the size of group 3. We need to encourage people to stay in group 1 or acknowledge they are in group 2 and don't need a state pension. The driving license is one option.
Who can argue that a person who needs state money to survive because they are too old to work can safely operate a machine at 70mph?
NHS pension scheme has changed 3 times sine I qualified from good 1995 scheme to voluntary 2008 scheme-work 5 yrs longer for no extra money so not taken up to 2015 compulsory scheme=state pension age
This is happening in most developed economies as people are living longer and have fewer children. It is not realistic to retire at 65 and expect that a pension will cover you. In any case working is for me an essential part of my life for my mental health. The other shoe is health care. I think it will continue to deteriorate as the whole boomer generation ages out and puts more demands on the system. Best strategy is to assume pension is a good supplement to your older years but not to depend on it.
but ginge see it from their point of view promised free bus etc for years and suddenly goalposts moved-not your fault obviously but government seems intent to f*ck over pensions by making you work longer for less income and because you have worked so long you exceed the lifetime allowance so we will tax you on that as well despite telling you to pay into your pension!
I am pretty sure if IFA gave advice like the government they would not be working as an IFA anymore
if like me age 43 I am stuck in pension scheme where rules have changed re annual allowance lifetime allowance and pension age so how can you plan for that=ISA time
I am pretty sure if IFA gave advice like the government they would not be working as an IFA anymore
if like me age 43 I am stuck in pension scheme where rules have changed re annual allowance lifetime allowance and pension age so how can you plan for that=ISA time
p1doc said:
ouch-shafted by the government again not really a surprise
Exactly; each generation pays for the one before, worked great for the baby boomers, but the younger generations will probably be royally done over, paying taxes to pay for a generous benefit many will never receive themselves.It would be fairer if they started putting the retirement age immediately, but Politian's can only see to the next election...
My bet is they will move to heavy means testing (probably too late, and I wonder why they started Auto-enrolment...), and a significantly higher retirement age (again too late). It will get interesting if they link it to life expectancy, will they adopt a gender-neutral policy when males die younger? Will people in different parts of the country receive different state pensions as the life expectancy varies. Will life long residents of Kensington start buying second homes in Govan, and flip properties to get a better state pension.
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.
If someone of 30 does the same, why should they not be allowed to take it as the same age as I will? There is zero cost to the government for me to draw my private pensions, in fact the sooner I start drawing on them, the sooner the government starts taxing me on it. I will have also left the workforce freeing up a job for the next generation.
98elise said:
Agreed. I've saved pretty hard towards my pension, and its in a healthy state. I am able to retire at 55 (51 now)and have a pretty good retirement, and still leave a fair whack to my kids.
If someone of 30 does the same, why should they not be allowed to take it as the same age as I will? There is zero cost to the government for me to draw my private pensions, in fact the sooner I start drawing on them, the sooner the government starts taxing me on it. I will have also left the workforce freeing up a job for the next generation.
The only reason I can think of is that they plan on means testing the state pension. If you can draw your private pension early enough then you could taper the value of that pension to be under the threshold for the state pension by the time you are eligible for the state pension. If someone of 30 does the same, why should they not be allowed to take it as the same age as I will? There is zero cost to the government for me to draw my private pensions, in fact the sooner I start drawing on them, the sooner the government starts taxing me on it. I will have also left the workforce freeing up a job for the next generation.
Behemoth said:
bad company said:
Is it the government's fault that we're living longer?
Broadly speaking, yes. If you look at mortality worldwide, it's advanced western economies with high quality social protection and healthcare that win the day. Good government has a great deal to do with that.bad company said:
Behemoth said:
bad company said:
Is it the government's fault that we're living longer?
Broadly speaking, yes. If you look at mortality worldwide, it's advanced western economies with high quality social protection and healthcare that win the day. Good government has a great deal to do with that.Gassing Station | Finance | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff