Raising the pension age in order to pay for pensions

Loughton_Monkey

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

I read the drawdown, not as drawing down £20k each year, but you can only drawdown to a level where you are obtaining a secured pension of £20k

Essentially you will need a "current value" fund of approx £260k, before your allowed to draw down.

So your fund need to exceed this with any "splash the cash" retirement enjoyment fund.

Yes. I'm fully aware that the £20K is secured income. That can include state pension. Some of us tend to have a FS scheme well into that so all our other free pension pots can go into flexible drawdown. I still bung in my £3,600 a year, despite drawing out on others. Never look a gift horse and all that.....

Sun having gone down, time for a large gin & tonic while I study how much better off Gideon has made me!

grizzly1911

CLAPTON wrote: »

The demographic forecasts include the assumption that present levels of immigration continue.

Even with these assumptions, the forecast show that the percentage of people of working age will fall in relation to total population.

The conclusion is that the country, per capita, will get poorer.

Thought you said:-

"I consider it is perfectly feasible that we will get richer and enjoy a good life."


https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4839077

grizzly1911

Listening to the statement in the car I believe Employer NI relief is being introduced for employees under 21 ~ 1.5 millionjobs.

Why keep an "oldie" when you bring a "newie" in and save something like £500 p,a, for someone on full time NMW?

CLAPTON

grizzly1911 wrote: »

Thought you said:-

"I consider it is perfectly feasible that we will get richer and enjoy a good life."


https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4839077

Indeed it is my belief (and hope) that we will continue to get richer.

I think that the assumption of the OBR etc about demographic change are too pessimistic as I think that technology improvement and people's ability and willingness to work later will be sufficient to improve per capita GDP.

Also of course, immigration may well increase above projections.

Thrugelmir

Road_Hog wrote: »

Because the idea is that you will die before you get to take it.

Two of grand parents died at 62 and 63 respectively. My ex mil at 59. A close colleague some years ago at the age of 38.

None of these benefited in any true sense from the state pension scheme.

Times have moved on since the concept was introduced. Like many things people assume it now to be a right. State pension should be a supplement not the mainstay of retirement years.

With 1 in 6 people born today expected to live until they are 100. there has to be a balance as to what the state provides.

Scrootum

Might be best to advertise and subsidise smoking.

mystic_trev

Thrugelmir wrote: »

With 1 in 6 people born today expected to live until they are 100. there has to be a balance as to what the state provides.

Which is why the Government will keep moving the Goalposts!

I doubt they'll be a 'State Pension' in 20 or 30 years time. They'll be some 'means tested' equivalent.

grizzly1911

Scrootum wrote: »

Might be best to advertise and subsidise smoking.

Interesting that many defensive equity funds often have both tobacco companies and pharma/health companies in the portfolio top ten.

cells

Graham_Devon wrote: »

George Osbourne is today likely to announce the raising of the pension age to 69/70.

It was stated last night on Newsnight that it's likely that 30 years olds today will face a pension age of around 74 based on projections.

Anyone born today could see the pension age rise to 78+.

Which is all interesting. They say this is because people are living longer. Which is true. But that doesn't avoid the fact that disease such as arthritis etc still takes hold at the same point in life that it always has done.

So, in terms of the pension age, how are builders, plumbers etc supposed to work until they are 70? I can understand a desk job will probably be viable, but plumbers won't suddenly be taken on as desk clerks when they hit 60. Plus it means less jobs for everyone else.

So is this pension age viable? Or do we need to start acknowleding the elephant in the room and look at increasing taxation?

I would like to avoid the argument over saving for personal pensions if possible as that always leads to a generational type argument, and focus on the state pension.

My personal opinion, looking at my own dad who has not reached 70, is that he would be in dire circumstances now, unable to work, no experience of anything other than the building industy, riddled with arthritis. If these are the sort of people Osbourne is expecting to work until 70, I just don't see it as possible for many people.

It is probably unnessairly high.

Around 1950 the uk entered the eletricity age and fifty years on relative to then we live in abundance.

I believe the same is going to happen with the smart software revolution we are juat entering. In 50 years time so say 2065 we willhave software driven vehicles software teachers software diagnostics software entertainment and care software farming siftqare manufacturing and a whole lot more we can't even imagine

grizzly1911

cells wrote: »

It is probably unnessairly high.

Around 1950 the uk entered the eletricity age and fifty years on relative to then we live in abundance.

I believe the same is going to happen with the smart software revolution we are juat entering. In 50 years time so say 2065 we willhave software driven vehicles software teachers software diagnostics software entertainment and care software farming siftqare manufacturing and a whole lot more we can't even imagine

And even more unemployed people reliant on charitable and state hand outs to survive.

The same sentiment was made when they invented steam shovels and computers.