We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum. This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are - or become - political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
MSE News: Pension age rise bought forward
Former_MSE_Helen
Posts: 2,382 Forumite
This is the discussion thread for the following MSE News Story:
"The Government is to bring forward an increase in the state pension age to 67, says the pensions minister ..."
"The Government is to bring forward an increase in the state pension age to 67, says the pensions minister ..."
0
Comments
-
I posted about this yesterday. This government is always moving the goalposts while not allowing people enough time to plan ahead. There are many ways to reduce state pension costs without having to increase the age at which you receive the state pension - reducing, and in some cases, removing, the payout to the very well off would be one way of doing this. It is ridiculous that someone like Richard Branson can look forward to claiming the state pension in a few years! Likewise, people with £1M+ pension funds should not receive any state pension - they don't need it. The government's approach is shortsighted and unimaginative, like most of their policies.0
-
How will denying a few people the pension they have paid for via NI and tax possibly help us address a pension hole that affects tens of millions of people? Petty and vindictive knee-jerk reactions rarely solve anything.Likewise, people with £1M+ pension funds should not receive any state pension - they don't need it.
How do you know? A £1m pension pot will only pay out £36kpa, and that's before they have to pay more tax than they'll get in pension, so give them a break!
How we about we start rewarding success and prudent saving rather than always trying to punish it?I am not a financial adviser and neither do I play one on television. I might occasionally give bad advice but at least it's free.
Like all religions, the Faith of the Invisible Pink Unicorns is based upon both logic and faith. We have faith that they are pink; we logically know that they are invisible because we can't see them.0 -
This problem has been put off for far too long in my opinion. It must have been obvious for many years that we have an ever increasing elderly population due to advances in healthcare and, for whatever reason, the politicians have chosen to put off addressing this issue until now. As we all know, putting things off until tomorrow usually invites a bigger problem down the line.
So I welcome the current government 'grasping the nettle' so to speak, but I agree the speed at which the changes are being proposed will inevitably result in inequality for people in their 50s who for many years have been working on the assumption of a state pension at 65 and suddenly the goalposts have moved to 66 or 67.
When, not so very long ago, universal state pensions were introduced, not a high proportion of people lived long enough to receive it and if they did, it was not for long. Now, most people live to 65 and a much larger percentage of people will draw the pension for 20 or 30 years.
Although 'people are living longer' is usally trotted out as the main reason for the changes, I think this does not hold true across the board and there will be many areas where life expectancy is probably not much higher than it was 50 years ago.
This is well known in the insurance industry when assessing annuity rates and people in areas with high mortality get better pensions for the same pot of money than people from more affluent areas.
I wonder if the government may be missing a trick (although surely they must have looked at it) and instead of increasing the pension age to 67 so quickly, instead they could introduce a postcode system for the state pension. Maybe the admin costs would outweigh the savings but if it works for private pensions and annuities, surely it would be worth a look and it might be more equitable to everyone. Just a thought?0 -
This government is always moving the goalposts while not allowing people enough time to plan ahead.
It wouldn't have to if the previous Government didnt make such a mess of things.It is ridiculous that someone like Richard Branson can look forward to claiming the state pension in a few years!
Why?Likewise, people with £1M+ pension funds should not receive any state pension - they don't need it.
Why?
You really have a bee in your bonnet about people who work hard and generate wealth for the country. If you keep penalising the wealth generators and the large taxpayers (who already pay more than their fair share) then they will move away and pay their tax in other countries. Who will pay the tax needed then?I am an Independent Financial Adviser (IFA). The comments I make are just my opinion and are for discussion purposes only. They are not financial advice and you should not treat them as such. If you feel an area discussed may be relevant to you, then please seek advice from an Independent Financial Adviser local to you.0 -
gadgetmind wrote: »How will denying a few people the pension they have paid for via NI and tax possibly help us address a pension hole that affects tens of millions of people? Petty and vindictive knee-jerk reactions rarely solve anything.
Increasing the pension age is a petty and vindictive knee-jerk reaction. Denying the rich the state pension would hurt nobody except a small minority who use the state pension as loose change.gadgetmind wrote: »How do you know? A £1m pension pot will only pay out £36kpa, and that's before they have to pay more tax than they'll get in pension, so give them a break!
How we about we start rewarding success and prudent saving rather than always trying to punish it?
£36k is a lavish pension - most people in full time employment earn less than that, and still have to pay NI contributions which pensioners do not pay. Give them a break? Are you kidding? When there is limited money to around, this should be targeted to help the most needy, not the wealthy. Your comment about rewarding success is political rhetoric, not logic.0 -
The rise in the state pension age makes sense given the remarkable increases in life expectancy. Time for it to be linked automatically.
Obviously people still have the choice of retiring earlier if they make their own provision - I'm certainly not going to be relying on the state.MFW 2015 #41 = £20,515/£20,515
MFW 2014 #41 = £26,100/£25,000
MFW 2013 #41 = £10,000/£10,000
Original MF date = May 2036 - MF achieved on 15 June 20150 -
You really have a bee in your bonnet about people who work hard and generate wealth for the country. If you keep penalising the wealth generators and the large taxpayers (who already pay more than their fair share) then they will move away and pay their tax in other countries. Who will pay the tax needed then?
Nonsense. I have no bees in my bonnet - this is about how to use limited funds more effectively. The so-called 'weath generators' can easily afford not accept state pensions which are less than what they would spend on a meal for two at the Dorchester. If the rich wish to move away, then so be it - they can do that now anyway, so nothing would change. In reality, most wealthy people cannot move due to family commitments etc, so this is just a myth perpetuated by the plutocratic press.0 -
Gracchus_Babeuf wrote: »this is about how to use limited funds more effectively.
Problem: People aren't saving enough for retirement.
Proposed Solution: Penalise those who do.
Genius!I am not a financial adviser and neither do I play one on television. I might occasionally give bad advice but at least it's free.
Like all religions, the Faith of the Invisible Pink Unicorns is based upon both logic and faith. We have faith that they are pink; we logically know that they are invisible because we can't see them.0 -
Gracchus_Babeuf wrote: ȣ36k is a lavish pension - most people in full time employment earn less than that,
Maybe £36k is lavish by most standards, but that is nothing to do with the state pension. It is clearly commensurate with the person's earnings and lifestyle when working.I am not a cat (But my friend is)0 -
If they are so worried about people living longer, why don't they give us a worse health care system for our money? That would finish us off more quickly.
Oh hang on, they're doing that as well.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 347.8K Banking & Borrowing
- 251.9K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 452.2K Spending & Discounts
- 240.1K Work, Benefits & Business
- 616.2K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 175.3K Life & Family
- 253.4K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards