State pension goalposts moved again
Discussion
PurpleMoonlight said:
I assumed eliot was referring to people who had no disposable income to save into a pension scheme or otherwise.
A large proportion of society appear to spend every penny they earn.
They will have social housing - kind of makes it bloody unfair frankly to those who work all their lives to save up buy a house and hen pay into benefits so those who don't work can have a home all their lives and a wage for nothing. A large proportion of society appear to spend every penny they earn.
eliot said:
CoolHands said:
f
k me that's good eh? My pension age has just changed from 67 to 68.
s
I've just been made to work an extra year byk me that's good eh? My pension age has just changed from 67 to 68.sonly 9 days!
It you are going to rely on the state pension to support you it's going to be a pretty poor retirement.
. 98elise said:
Bear in mind this is when you receive state pension, it's not the age you can retire. That hasn't changed (yet). You can retire from 55 if you have a good enough private pension, or earlier if you have enough cash or investments.
It you are going to rely on the state pension to support you it's going to be a pretty poor retirement.
You can currently access private and occupational pensions at age 55, but that is due to increase as the SPA increases. It is intended to always be 10 years before SPA.It you are going to rely on the state pension to support you it's going to be a pretty poor retirement.
Dazed and Confused said:
Not the end of the world. Always thought 65 was quite young to have to give up work.
I suspect you aren't an industrial pipefitter, or contract floor layer. Neither of whom are likely to have much left of their knees or backs by 70 yrs old.We need to think about the people who will genuinely be physically worn out at 65+
What will they do for the remainder?
PurpleMoonlight said:
You can currently access private and occupational pensions at age 55, but that is due to increase as the SPA increases. It is intended to always be 10 years before SPA.
So the promises made in final salary pensions which include those lucky public sector pensions cannot be drawn until 68 now hmm. If that's the case this moving it back 1 year has cost me personally £8.5k state pension plus all my other private pensions incl a number of final salary pensions.
For a Tory govt thats exceptionally left leaning taking from the middle classes again by he boat load.
Welshbeef said:
PurpleMoonlight said:
You can currently access private and occupational pensions at age 55, but that is due to increase as the SPA increases. It is intended to always be 10 years before SPA.
So the promises made in final salary pensions which include those lucky public sector pensions cannot be drawn until 68 now hmm. One of the reasons for going early might be the suspicion that alongside age limt changes, the tax-free lump sum will soon disappear.
Cotty said:
Does this mean the company pensions will be moved to match. So the earliest you can take your company pension will move from 55 to 58?
Part of the recent review the report recommended linking the retirement age to a maximum of ten years before your eligibility to the state pension. This hasn't been implemented yet but I would expect it to occur if they plan on means testing the state pension as it would prevent people from retiring really early and running down their private pension before the means testing applied to them. I think means testing will happen at some point, things like auto enrollment in company pensions seem to be early indicators of it.I'm in favour of the change to the state pension but we need this change now not in 20 years time. Increase the retirement age and start means testing the state pension for existing pensioners and we'd save a large chunk of Government spending just as one of the largest sections of the current population is due to hit retirement.
tankplanker said:
art of the recent review the report recommended linking the retirement age to a maximum of ten years before your eligibility to the state pension. This hasn't been implemented yet but I would expect it to occur if they plan on means testing the state pension as it would prevent people from retiring really early and running down their private pension before the means testing applied to them. I think means testing will happen at some point, things like auto enrollment in company pensions seem to be early indicators of it.
[b]I'm in favour of the change to the state pension but we need this change now not in 20 years time[.b]. Increase the retirement age and start means testing the state pension for existing pensioners and we'd save a large chunk of Government spending just as one of the largest sections of the current population is due to hit retirement.
No, we needed this change 20 years ago, with 20 years' notice.[b]I'm in favour of the change to the state pension but we need this change now not in 20 years time[.b]. Increase the retirement age and start means testing the state pension for existing pensioners and we'd save a large chunk of Government spending just as one of the largest sections of the current population is due to hit retirement.
However, if you are going to move the goalposts, and it's certainly quite reasonable to do so in this case, you have to give people a reasonable time frame to adjust.
sidicks said:
No, we needed this change 20 years ago, with 20 years' notice.
However, if you are going to move the goalposts, and it's certainly quite reasonable to do so in this case, you have to give people a reasonable time frame to adjust.
I completely agree that this, and ideally more aggressive changes should have been made a long time ago.However, if you are going to move the goalposts, and it's certainly quite reasonable to do so in this case, you have to give people a reasonable time frame to adjust.
However I completely disagree about having to give a decades notice (as the Government have now formally decided is required in the latest report) before changes to the state pension. When the Government started means testing child benefit or means testing the personal allowance did they have a phased introduction period of twenty years or did they just implement those the next tax year? The special treatment to the current batch of soon to be pensioners smacks of purchasing votes.
I'm not suggesting that the state pension be scrapped for those with inadequate private pension provision just that it be removed for those who do not really need it. Also that those who are close to retirement age could afford to wait a couple years more if we are expecting those in twenty years time a few more years as well.
tankplanker said:
completely agree that this, and ideally more aggressive changes should have been made a long time ago.
However I completely disagree about having to give a decades notice (as the Government have now formally decided is required in the latest report) before changes to the state pension. When the Government started means testing child benefit or means testing the personal allowance did they have a phased introduction period of twenty years or did they just implement those the next tax year? The special treatment to the current batch of soon to be pensioners smacks of purchasing votes.
I think these are entirely different things.However I completely disagree about having to give a decades notice (as the Government have now formally decided is required in the latest report) before changes to the state pension. When the Government started means testing child benefit or means testing the personal allowance did they have a phased introduction period of twenty years or did they just implement those the next tax year? The special treatment to the current batch of soon to be pensioners smacks of purchasing votes.
tankplanker said:
I'm not suggesting that the state pension be scrapped for those with inadequate private pension provision just that it be removed for those who do not really need it. Also that those who are close to retirement age could afford to wait a couple years more if we are expecting those in twenty years time a few more years as well.
I don't agree!And if you are removing the state pension from the minority that already subsidise the majority, then that raises some significant issues.
sidicks said:
I think these are entirely different things.
I don't agree!
And if you are removing the state pension from the minority that already subsidise the majority, then that raises some significant issues.
My question to the first two is why? I don't agree!
And if you are removing the state pension from the minority that already subsidise the majority, then that raises some significant issues.
The third smacks of they are getting theirs and I'm not getting mine, which leads into what sort of society do we want to be, one who helps the poor or one that does not.
tankplanker said:
y question to the first two is why?
The third smacks of they are getting theirs and I'm not getting mine, which leads into what sort of society do we want to be, one who helps the poor or one that does not.
We need to be a sustainable society, the 'rich' can't pay for everything!The third smacks of they are getting theirs and I'm not getting mine, which leads into what sort of society do we want to be, one who helps the poor or one that does not.
PurpleMoonlight said:
You can currently access private and occupational pensions at age 55, but that is due to increase as the SPA increases. It is intended to always be 10 years before SPA.
Thanks- I wasn't aware of this. Do you have some documentation to support this? (Alternatively I'll do a little digging for myself.)Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff