MSE News: Tory Conference: State pension age could rise early

Former_MSE_Guy

This is the discussion thread for the following MSE News Story:

"The Conservatives have confirmed they will bring forward the planned rise in the retirement age, if elected. It will mean many who thought they may start receiving their State Pension at ..."

Read the full story:
Tory Conference: State pension age could rise early




ps - This thread began before the news story was published so we have merged the two discussions to prevent duplication. Thanks to amcluesent for the original post.

amcluesent

Well, 12 years of Labour borrow'n'bungle have to be paid for somehow!

Shadow chancellor George Osborne will raise the state pension age from 65 to 66 from 2016 if the Tories win the next election, to help tackle UK debts.

bumpoowee

What worries me most is that I've read this may apply to men only - why exactly is this? If anything women should retire later as they can expect to live an extra 5 years or so.

I do agree in principle with raising the state pension age though, as somebody who fell just within the 'retire at 68' proposed date it seemed very much a case of the baby boomers again saying 'our pensions need paying for - but not by us'. So the increased date in retirement should be brought forward, 2016 sounds reasonable.

asandwhen

And so they should I think - Im 30 and already know I will be atleast 68 before I get my state pension.

The people this will affect will be in the 50's now and alot have had the benefit of seeing there house prices rise - They are all alot better off than I will be at there age let me tell you.

nearlyrich

asandwhen wrote: »

And so they should I think - Im 30 and already know I will be atleast 68 before I get my state pension.

The people this will affect will be in the 50's now and alot have had the benefit of seeing there house prices rise - They are all alot better off than I will be at there age let me tell you.

Are you sure everyone who will be affected by this will have a house? and how will that fund that extra year? In my world your house price is only relevant if you are selling it and don't need anywhere else to live which at 65/66 is a bit unrealistic.

asandwhen

nearlyrich wrote: »

Are you sure everyone who will be affected by this will have a house? and how will that fund that extra year? In my world your house price is only relevant if you are selling it and don't need anywhere else to live which at 65/66 is a bit unrealistic.

No which is why I said alot of people and not everyone - Many many many people who retire also downsize in order to release equity on there house to assist with there pensions - we (age 40 and under) wont have that luxury (well not to the same extent)

bumpoowee

nearlyrich wrote: »

Are you sure everyone who will be affected by this will have a house? and how will that fund that extra year? In my world your house price is only relevant if you are selling it and don't need anywhere else to live which at 65/66 is a bit unrealistic.

Ignoring the values of somebodys property assets is a nonsense. You can't sit in a house worth hundreds of thousands (when probably paid a fraction of that for it) and plead poverty - like the guy on the programme on c4 last night whinging he couldnt afford to retire despite living in a £700k house.

I believe there are equity release schemes for people who own homes when they retire, if they make no other provision (which is their own fault) this is an option for them.

ceridwen

:eek: I do hope not - I've lost thousands and thousands of £s already of my retirement income - what with having my State Pension Age raised AND having to spend years not getting my OAP Tax Allowance that I expected.

I do hope - at the very least - there is phasing-in for people in their 50s and older.

It has to be borne in mind that many people in their 50s are already retired - whether voluntarily or otherwise. Certainly those in their 50s without a job who are unemployed (rather than early retired) know that their chances of ever getting a job again are extremely low.

So - my message to the incoming Government is "please accept that people in their 50s and older are too old to be hit by any raising in the age at which they get their State Pension/Serps on the one hand or receive their OAP Tax Allowance on the other hand." Many/many people in this agegroup have already retired (some forcibly) and shouldnt be forced to try and find jobs again - and those who havent retired yet have very likely got extensive plans made and well in hand already for retirement.

We are too near the end to be forced to change our plans or find ways to finance further loss of retirement income in the few years left to us.

Oldernotwiser

ceridwen wrote: »

:AND having to spend years not getting my OAP Tax Allowance that I expected.

.

What changes have there been to the over 65s' tax allowances? Have I missed something?

bendix

I don't know what all the fuss is about. We are not sheep, forced to comply live our lives under the shadow of changing policies.

Quit whining. If you want to retire when YOU want to retire, take control of your life and make your own provision. It's not rocket science.

ceridwen

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

What changes have there been to the over 65s' tax allowances? Have I missed something?

None at present - its the case though that the age one receives the OAP Tax Allowance is the same as THE state pension age - hence a lot of older women were due to receive their OAP Tax Allowance at 60 (ie the womens retirement age) - but will, as things stand at present, not receive it until 65 (ie THE State Pension Age) - as I understand it (even if their own personal State Pension Age is between 60 and 65).

Hence - if THE State Pension Age was raised to 66 - then it would follow that one wouldnt receive the OAP Tax Allowance until 66 (ie a delay of one year/or one further year as the case may be) in getting it.