Early-retirement wannabe

AlwaysLearnin

atush wrote: »

Can they can something on the day like that, or dont they have to honor the old terms for those like you who already put in for retirement? Worth looking into the law here.

My thoughts exactly. I would have thought that there had to be some form of consultation/notice period, particularily for terms that will be detrimental to people in the plan, surely?!

... and you didn't fill out your assessment lol!

That made me chuckle (sorry ML)

Thrugelmir

Marine_life wrote: »

Of course I should have known this was coming - its a very generous pension scheme and non-contributory so it really is free money.

While the news may be disappointing. Take a step back. On a higher level at least this may make the scheme sustainable in the longer term. Human nature is inevitably looking at the jam today rather the longer term rewards of bread and butter.

Marine_life

Thanks for the thoughts :-)

I am not sure of the legality to be honest as I have a contract with the scheme detailed. However, I suspect I will shortly find a contract amendment schedule in front of me and will be invited to sign. I will be asking a colleague who is a pension expert exactly what my options are. However the likelihood is that I will accept is as even though I expect to leave, I will be asking for some fairly generous exit terms ;-) Lets see.

I also know I am a far better position than many, many other so don't shed too many tears ;-)

Marine_life

Thrugelmir wrote: »

While the news may be disappointing. Take a step back. On a higher level at least this may make the scheme sustainable in the longer term. Human nature is inevitably looking at the jam today rather the longer term rewards of bread and butter.

Yes, thats absolutely right and looking at the costs its clear that its not sustainable. Never nice when it drops right on your doormat though.

Karmacat

Marine_life wrote: »

Never nice when it drops right on your doormat though.

Absolutely right: its happened to me twice with the state pension. Under the old system, I'd be getting my state pension in a couple of months - then they upped the women's pensionable age gradually, and for me that age became 64 years and 9 months (because they raised it in quarters). This is maybe 15 years ago now? I always thought it was equitable, because after all, women live longer than men, but retired earlier. Doesn't seem fair. It *wasn't* fair (to men).

And then, just a few years ago, my state pension age was raised *again*. To 66. Women my age, and around 9 months either side, got stomped on with that, quite unexpectedly. I do think that they could have had the grace to not have imposed *two* changes.

Thrugelmir

Karmacat wrote: »

Absolutely right: its happened to me twice with the state pension. Under the old system, I'd be getting my state pension in a couple of months - then they upped the women's pensionable age gradually, and for me that age became 64 years and 9 months (because they raised it in quarters). This is maybe 15 years ago now? I always thought it was equitable, because after all, women live longer than men, but retired earlier. Doesn't seem fair. It *wasn't* fair (to men).

And then, just a few years ago, my state pension age was raised *again*. To 66. Women my age, and around 9 months either side, got stomped on with that, quite unexpectedly. I do think that they could have had the grace to not have imposed *two* changes.

Even now is questionable whether the state pension is sustainable. As people live to older and older ages thanks to developments in health care.

Marine_life

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Even now is questionable whether the state pension is sustainable. As people live to older and older ages thanks to developments in health care.

Without getting into politics I think that is true.

I suspect that the western world is in a state of transition where actually we will on average become less wealthy (global wealth will increase but overall wealth will gradually transfer from Western to Asian economies). Combine that with the problem of a declining tax base (number of people paying taxes is falling) and the mass of unskilled jobs that are disppearing and its difficult to see how the economy can continue to fund increasing pension and health costs as the population ages.

I wonder whether we need to do away with party politics in order to have some collaboration on economic thinking without the pressure of having to be reelected? In addition, we need to start thinking about radical retirement solutions (moving to Thailand? or Vietnam where you can enjoy a much higher relative standard of living).

This is potentially the subject of a very long thread...

kidmugsy

Karmacat wrote: »

Under the old system, I'd be getting my state pension in a couple of months - then they upped the women's pensionable age gradually, and for me that age became 64 years and 9 months (because they raised it in quarters). This is maybe 15 years ago now? .

Depends what you mean by "old". When the Old Age Pension was introduced, it was at age 70. That was more than a century ago, of course.

atush

Money is going east, but it went west to the americas before while britain's place in the world economy fell. Didn't mean the economy would not still grow.

It just means shifts which can be accounted for and predicted.

with an independent central bank, can't see us taking the same decisions as a more isolationist Japan.

Marine_life

atush wrote: »

Can they can something on the day like that, or dont they have to honor the old terms for those like you who already put in for retirement? Worth looking into the law here.

The problem is I have not actually put in for retirement yet. The plan was always to wait until 50 and then take my two month holiday and then do so after that. I'm just unfortunate....or very fortunate in other ways :-)

Anyway, my plan at the moment which was always to live of savings until my pensions kick in was always intended to leave a fairly substantial pot of cash at the end of it. If i now retire then I could possibly then use that remaining pot to top up any shortfall.

Plus my retirement plans are based on zero income.

So I've no doubt I can still retire as planned but actually what worries me is more that my planned retirement plans could be withdrawn before I get there (probably more difficult legally once I am retired but in todays economy you never know).