How old will you be when you can retire?

N1AK

michaels wrote: »

Isn't that what they are doing by uprating the basic state pension to the minimum income guarantee level?

They're moving in that direction fortunately. However given the mess that income assessed benefits, local government support etc are it still won't always be the case.

It's the main reason why I am in favour of universal benefits. If everyone receives it and it is paid for out of general taxation then earning more will always mean being better off.

Maybe the wealthy wouldn't mind paying 40% tax from £250 lower (£100 per year in tax for every person earning it) if that meant that they got free prescriptions and dental care? Then providing the services get cheaper because we don't need to check for entitlement and have all the admin that goes with handling the process and payments as well.

kabayiri

This thread came to mind during a Skype conversation last night.

Unlike many on here, I can't claim that my personal pension is ripping up any trees. Somewhat lacklustre really.

However, diversity has been a friend of the family. We were discussing with sis about offloading one of the properties in Canada. They have been through a similar property boom to ours, and you always did get more for your money over there.

I think retirement planning should look at a broader range of assets than just a pension plan. What about all those people with BTLs as their pension plan? You shouldn't force people into traditional schemes.

SailorSam

bryanb wrote: »

I don't think men 60 -64 get a State pension or pension credit

Are you sure ?
Can I claim Pension Credit?

• The minimum age to qualify for Guarantee Credit is gradually rising from age 60 to 66. It is currently 61 years and six months. The current minimum age for Savings Credit is 65.
• Pension Credit is means-tested so your income and savings are taken into account when it is worked out.

wotsthat

grizzly1911 wrote: »

I know you don't care about these people but they are often the ones who have tried rather than those who have p*ssed it up the wall who will do significantly better than them.

I'm not sure how you'd know that but until there's a decent metric that separates the unlucky from the undeserving I'd rather not pay for either.

The state has decided that a safety net is a good thing both morally and economically (it allows risk to be taken safe in the knowledge that starvation won't be a consequence of failure). Can't help thinking maybe it's gone too far - society would benefit from people taking more responsibility for themselves in different aspects of life.

wotsthat

N1AK wrote: »

If we're going to wind up responsible for people then we might as well make it harder for them to be irresponsible (and easier for them to be responsible). We could for example mandate that employers pay £0.25 per hour into pension schemes on behalf of employees rather than simply upping the minimum wage or some such. £500pa isn't exactly going to set the world on fire in retirement but it'll provide ~£1,500pa+ to someone in retirement. Anyone already in a scheme employers contribute to would already be receiving more than that.

As much as I begrudge paying for free loaders I'm not advocating that they be starved.

It just seems peculiar to me that the state will effectively turn a blind eye but is happy to interfere in much more inconsequential aspects of people's lives.

Loughton_Monkey

N1AK wrote: »

.......

2/ People who have no alternative plan or pension and are spending everything now rather than saving for the future.

The 2nd group are going to require additional help in retirement and I (plus the country as a whole) am not willing to simply leave them destitute. I am however perfectly happy to force them to do something they should be doing anyway

A very interesting statement. This country has not done "destitute" for many years. Basic State Pension is certainly enough to avoid being "destitute" [by my definition anyway].

But I sense you have a more generous view of destitution, and that someone who "should" have had (say) pension of £7,000 basic plus £5,000 accrued from enrollment at minimum level in NEST - but who deliberately chooses to opt out and spend it - would get some form of extra benefits in your book?

You are happy to force.
The government, in its wisdom, has chosen not to force.
So some oik chooses and acts to unenrol.
And you would recompense by extra benefits?

Against a background like this, surely nobody in their right mind would stay in! They'd all opt out.

That's a bit like saying the fine for not paying road tax is £100.
If you are on benefits, the taxpayer will pay any fines for you.

Who, on benefits, is ever going to pay road tax?

grizzly1911

wotsthat wrote: »

I'm not sure how you'd know that but until there's a decent metric that separates the unlucky from the undeserving I'd rather not pay for either.

You are paying for both and I doubt that will change any time soon.

I personally know a few pensioners who fall into precisely that camp.No doubt in proportion to those that get everything they are a lower number.

bryanb

SailorSam wrote: »

Are you sure ?
Can I claim Pension Credit?

• The minimum age to qualify for Guarantee Credit is gradually rising from age 60 to 66. It is currently 61 years and six months. The current minimum age for Savings Credit is 65.
• Pension Credit is means-tested so your income and savings are taken into account when it is worked out.

Yep, I'm 99% sure. The ages below 65 apply to women only.

Moby

wotsthat wrote: »

I'm not sure how you'd know that but until there's a decent metric that separates the unlucky from the undeserving I'd rather not pay for either.

The state has decided that a safety net is a good thing both morally and economically (it allows risk to be taken safe in the knowledge that starvation won't be a consequence of failure). Can't help thinking maybe it's gone too far - society would benefit from people taking more responsibility for themselves in different aspects of life.

'The 'State' is the democratically elected will of the majority. Of course many people should take more responsibility for their lives......but to say this is simply trite. Remember also that our consumerist, market driven economy encourages people to spend what they don't have. Look at the Xmas adverts! You are to buy this or that because you deserve it!.....The adverts don't say you have to wait until you've grafted like the youthful gadget mind! Credit allows you to have it all now. I find it hard to understand how its always the more right wing people who feel free to comment on the laziness etc of others when it is their free market values that create the problems in the first place. Advertising, marketing, consumerism etc affect everybody....perhaps the disadvantaged and educationally challenged most of all. That's the world we've created!

Loughton_Monkey

Moby wrote: »

'The 'State' is the democratically elected will of the majority. Of course many people should take more responsibility for their lives......but to say this is simply trite. Remember also that our consumerist, market driven economy encourages people to spend what they don't have. Look at the Xmas adverts! You are to buy this or that because you deserve it!.....The adverts don't say you have to wait until you've grafted like the youthful gadget mind! Credit allows you to have it all now. I find it hard to understand how its always the more right wing people who feel free to comment on the laziness etc of others when it is their free market values that create the problems in the first place. Advertising, marketing, consumerism etc affect everybody....perhaps the disadvantaged and educationally challenged most of all. That's the world we've created!

Ah!

The old "blame the advertiser not the consumer" defense!

I get bombarded by TV adverts. Shop around for Car Insurance. Get a Lloyds Bank ISA. Scottish Widows for pensions.....

I do use ISA's, I do have pensions and ISA's. Who do I thank for that? The advertisers, or my own common sense?

Then I get bombarded with other Adverts. Wonga loans. Samsung Galaxy 4 Phones. Sky subscriptions. Bingo sites.

I don't use any of these. Are they relatively poor adverts? Or is something inside me making me resistant to them?

Since you are so sure that adverts are so persuasive, I have just thought of a great idea. I'm going to write to Theresa May suggesting she sends round posters on vans asking all illegal immigrants to go home!

Phew! We'd be rid of every one of them before Christmas!

... large gin & tonics all round... :rotfl: