MSE News: Pension age to rise earlier than planned

bexster1975

Proxy

You are welcome. If you want to pay £300 per month into a public sector pension that once you have worked in teaching till you are 68 will be worth practically nothing - join the service! They are always looking for new mugs..ahem.. recruits.

jamesd

bexter1975, that's one of the best work pension deals in the country, so not participating doesn't seem like a good idea. There's nothing wrong with wanting to retire earlier and using your own independent pension that can be taken from age 55 (under current rules) and/or stocks and shares ISA investing to finance it. Doing both would be a good move.

Captain_Moonshine

Proxy wrote: »

In other thoughts, why not introduce a phased state pension? Half the current amount from 65-70 and then full whack? Rather than push the whole lot to 68?

Still doesn't solve the problem that there are not enough jobs to go round. Best solution in my opinion would be to scrap the fixed retirement age altogether and let anyone retire when they have made enough contributions to qualify for a pension. I am 60 now, so the raising of the pension age won't affect me. I have made enough contributions to qualify for a pension already, I don't particularly like my job, and by the time I reach 65 my first grandchild will be old enough to work. I want her to be able to get a job if she wants to.

artha

jamesd wrote: »

bexter1975, that's one of the best work pension deals in the country, so not participating doesn't seem like a good idea. There's nothing wrong with wanting to retire earlier and using your own independent pension that can be taken from age 55 (under current rules) and/or stocks and shares ISA investing to finance it. Doing both would be a good move.

If its the teachers pension scheme then, whilst it is a final salary scheme(at the moment), it's an 80ths scheme isn't it? It's never been a patch on many private sector schemes including the one I belonged to in the chemical industry and which now pays my pension. Still it's better than nothing

jamesd

artha, you may well have a better deal. This one is still pretty good by comparison with most, though. Not a lot of final salary schemes left open to new or even existing members in the private sector these days. I suppose that eventually the government sector will follow that trend.

artha

jamesd wrote: »

artha, you may well have a better deal. This one is still pretty good by comparison with most, though. Not a lot of final salary schemes left open to new or even existing members in the private sector these days. I suppose that eventually the government sector will follow that trend.

Yes I'm very fortunate in relation to current younger generations but not relative to my peers in the private sector pension field. (Just in case it came across wrongly I wasn't bragging in any way)

The scheme was, until very recently, a non-contributory 60ths plan and typical of those in the chemical/heavy industries where I worked. In recent years it's been downgraded slightly like many final salary schemes and closed to new members.

Anyone of my generation who was in the teachers pension scheme has probably got much poorer benefits than in many industries. I just think it's a bit of a myth that public sector pensions like the TPS are "overgenerous" and "gold plated". Perhaps that is true of some civil service areas and would of course seem that way to the many people who do not have occupational pensions.

I think, as you rightly advised, that the scheme is not to be sniffed at but I don't think(historically) it's that good in the broader scheme of things. My wife is now in the teachers scheme and is now currently trying to buy back years of rights that she was incorrectly excluded from.

Proxy

bexster1975 wrote: »

Proxy

You are welcome. If you want to pay £300 per month into a public sector pension that once you have worked in teaching till you are 68 will be worth practically nothing - join the service! They are always looking for new mugs..ahem.. recruits.

Sounds good.

I pay roughly that into my private sector pension and know full well the benefits will not be anywhere near as good. Will public sector pensions look the same in forty years? Probably not- but you'll still have preserved benefits from what you acrue now.

SilasMarner

I applaud the concept of taking charge of your own retirement at a youg age, if it were only so simple. 40 years ago Final Salary pension scheme were deemed to be guaranteed - clearly they are not. At the age of 17 I was told a state pension was available at 65. It isn't. In the 70's building societies and banks were cast iron. They are not. Sadly nothing in the Western financial system is guaranteed. Maybe history tells us they never were. Now in my fifties, my advice ? Buy your own house, pay for it as fast as possible and "live" in it.

[Deleted User]

When state pensions were introduced, they were meant to be a small cushion to meet life's necessities for the average 7 years before one met the grim reaper. A man retiring in 1946 at the age of 65 had a general expectancy of living until he was 71-73. State pensions were not meant to pay for cars, holidays and other so-called necessary stuff we have today (so says my ex nan-in-law who remembers them being introduced)

Fast forward 60 years and the same situation isn't occurring. A man of 65 today generally will have 20+ years to look forward to. People are generally healthier at 65 than they used to be thanks to pollution control, cleaner jobs, drop in smoking rates and better medical care and screening.

People chose to have smaller families from the 60's onwards. You can't have it both ways - there are now more over 60's than children in this country. Do people of, or nearing, retirement age want crippling levels of taxes levied on a smaller workforce to pay for their pension at 65, or could they work a year or two more before claiming their state pension? Could they take a lower pension and retire at 65 or take a slightly higher one and claim it later?

The fact is that people have to face the figures, and the demographics and perhaps the baby-boomer generation will have to make a few sacrifices for the sake of their following generations - just as their parents and grandparents did for them!

bendix

joolzred wrote: »

When state pensions were introduced, they were meant to be a small cushion to meet life's necessities for the average 7 years before one met the grim reaper. A man retiring in 1946 at the age of 65 had a general expectancy of living until he was 71-73. State pensions were not meant to pay for cars, holidays and other so-called necessary stuff we have today (so says my ex nan-in-law who remembers them being introduced)!

Absolutely spot on. A perfect description of the gap between what they were introduced for, and out ridiculous 'because I'm worth it' expectation today.

The answer to those griping about waiting another year to get a state pension is simple. Save more. Sacrifice some stuff, and take control of your own lives, rather than whining about government not taking care of you or changing the goalposts.

I've already decided I'm not even going to bother taking my state pension when it's due. Don't need it, don't want it, and don't want any sense of entitlement.

I'm a man. I'm an adult. I'll look after myself, thank you very much.