Turner Report

gallygirl

Does anyone have a decent summary of this????

As a 'girlie' who has already seen her retirement age rise from 60 to 65 :mad: what are my options - turn 65 in August 2026......_pale_

Can't find a proper summary anywhere....

YorkshireBoy

ali007 wrote:

Can't find a proper summary anywhere....

Executive summary here...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/30_11_05_exec_summ.pdf

Full report and appendices here...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4482460.stm

MrChips

Hi, this link is to the bbc website http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4484226.stm

From here you can download the whole thing (many hundreds of pages) or just the executive summary (a much more manageable 40 pages).

Milarky

ali007 wrote:

Does anyone have a decent summary of this????

As a 'girlie' who has already seen her retirement age rise from 60 to 65 :mad: what are my options - turn 65 in August 2026......_pale_

Can't find a proper summary anywhere....

They are only 'proposals' at this stage - nothing written in the Report is certain to happen. Keep that in mind at all times.

But if accepted by the government it would mean

You would probably get your state pension at 66 rather than 65...

It will be between £82 and £109 in 'earnings equivalent' terms by then [since it will not have completed the planned increase to £109 earnings equivalent but will have started to be indexed up from £82 after 2010 if Turner has his way]

You might be paying a higher rate of National Insurance after 2010 to help finance it?

From 2010 you can open a 'Britsaver' account where you don't already have a private [or employer provided] pension of you own running. for the first time employees will be entitled to a matching employer's contribution in whatever scheme they have [Britsaver or private pension alternative]. The Britsaver is still a pension however in that you must buy an income with most of it, but it is assumed that 25% of the fund is available as cash also. the Britsaver will offer very low charges and will offer meaningful investment choice - if you like to have hands on control of your savings. Significantly employers will have to 'auto enroll' new staff into this scheme [or their own equivalent pension I assume] and staff must opt out for themselves or pay the minimum 4% which is then matched by the state and employer contributions.

The state second pension [S2P] would be 'capped' at the upper earnings limit level [for 2010?]. This would eventually lead to S2P becoming a 'flat rate' addition to the [now earnings indexed] basic state pension. This will be a gradual process. It is likely that you will recieve less S2P as a result but that really depends on how soon your earnings rise to the capped UEL and it could be you will receive almost as much S2P anyway..

YorkshireBoy

Milarky wrote:

You would probably get your state pension at 66 rather than 65...

OP, like myself at a similar age, would still be able to take the state pension at 65, according to the report's executive summary...

If the rise in SPA after 2020 was in proportion to rising life expectancy, it would rise to about 66 in 2030 and about 67 by 2050...

...unless I'm missing something?

margaretclare

Milarky

This is a really useful summary of the situation.

From what I've read in AgeConcern and sites like that, there has been a hope that some kind of reform would come in time to be of use to pensioners now, especially women, the ones who are, and will be, living in poverty for the foreseeable future.

This isn't going to be the case. Turner has called for a 'mature debate' probably in the spring. Even if accepted, as Milarky says, there is a long projected timescale for this. None of us who are retired now are going to see any of the changes. Most people in the later years of their working lives won't see them either.

I think most of the proposals are good ones and it really is time for a change, a revolution if you like, to take into account the different lifestyles and expectations for both men and women, since this system was first postulated back in the 1940s.

Just one small point: I have read in a few places that the increase in life expectancy may not continue. Reason: those of us born in the mid-1930s are what's called a 'golden cohort' as far as life expectancy is concerned. We lived healthy lives in our growing-up years - had enough to eat (thanks to rationing) but not in excess, no fast-foods etc. We were also forced to exercise, walking, cycling everywhere, rather than being driven to school and sitting down in the evenings.

Aunty Margaret

worried_and_confused

This is already under discussion over at Discussion Time