Pension access age changing from 55 to 57?

The governments response to the Cridland report was due to be published on 7th May. It has now been shelved until after the general election.


Perhaps their response will be adjusted depending on the size of their majority if they win lol

Snakey wrote: »

That's the reason they gave in the condoc - a benevolent government trying to protect us from ourselves.Thing is, pot size isn't solely a function of age.

Minimum age is arbitrary I agree, but rather than having to justify each change SRP age less 10 years seems a simple way of doing things as they suggested.

If the issue is truly that they're worried we might run out before we die, access permission should be based on a formula, of which current age would only be one factor. However, since it's impossible to reconcile the rules for pension freedoms with this apparent concern, I call BS on the reasoning in the condoc.

I agree there is a case for saying that there should be no minimum age just criteria for access. I think the problem is that we have no evidence of the impact of these pension freedoms. A significant but unknown number of people will get good advice and make sensible decisions. But I am sure that 30 years from now we will see an increasing number of people who are complaining that the age expectancy forecasts were wrong, the advice was poor etc and it will become the PPI of its era. Similarly there will be people who simply spent their pot too quickly or unwisely. That could have significant implications that affects pensioner poverty and reliance on state benefits. It may not be a problem but at present do we really know? That of itself may justify a minimum age.

I've already had the tax relief - that's banked, it's in the past, it won't change if you raise the access age. And since the taxpayer won't be subsidising me in the years when the pension pays out, the date I start to collect surely makes no difference to anything.

In individual cases this is probably true. Some people will reach their life expectancy date with 50% of the funds left, others will have spent it all before that date. The trouble is that failing to have any controls relies on everyone doing the sensible thing, whereas any regulation is state interference. The way I look at it is that the Government is granting us pension freedoms in return for some restrictions (min age, TFLS %) they set, but that these may change over time.

For example if people start spending the pots too quickly they might reduce the size of future TFLSs or set limits on how quickly you can reduce the size of the pot.

I certainly hope to - but you have failed to convince me that it "makes no sense" to keep the private pension access age at 55 despite the State pension age going up. Paying State pensions hits the taxpayers of that year in the pocket i.e. costs real people real money right now, in a way that allowing access to private pensions just doesn't.

Interesting discussion. I hope you have some time to reply over the weekend.

I am not trying to convince you just say why I think there is a minimum age. Personal pensions are different, but we also need to remember that if someone has an adequate pension pot inflated by tax advantages, there should be an expectation that they endeavour to make it last their lifetime. But if it does not last the future taxpayer will face increased costs.

Note the proposal has been suggested to be that it is 10 years before SPA and of course SPA is now going to rise to 68 in 2037 so could it be increased to 58 in 2027?

Last time (the change from 50 to 55) it was the start of the new tax year. If you were born on 5th April 1960 you could draw your pension at 50 (although you only had a single day on which you could do it), if you were born on 6th April 1960 you had to wait until 55.