New pensions freedom under attack before they start

gadgetmind

See here -

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/pensions/11460094/Block-savers-from-accessing-pensions-until-age-60-urge-MPs.html

"Savers should be prevented from accessing private pensions until age 60 to ensure the money lasts through retirement, a committee of MPs has said."

So, it used to be 50, then 55 and now they want age 60! Access to our money, which we have diligently saved, seems to be receding into the distance. What's next? Can't have it until you're dead?

Here is the "list of shame" showing the idiots behind this.

Member Party Dame Anne Begg (Chair) Labour Debbie Abrahams Labour Graham Evans Conservative Sheila Gilmore Labour Glenda Jackson Labour Kwasi Kwarteng Conservative Paul Maynard Conservative Nigel Mills Conservative Anne Marie Morris Conservative Teresa Pearce Labour Mr Mike Thornton Liberal Democrat
If any of them are your MP, then please write to them to tell them exactly what you think about these threats.

Orwell

Why not just go back to having a minimum secure income (e.g. £15,000) to allow flexible drawdown?

gadgetmind

Why not just leave alone and treat us like adults?

Orwell

It's not me you have to convince, it's the nannies out there. I was happy with the original flexible drawdown rules though.

gadgetmind

I think those with some DB pension generally were happy, whereas those needing to blow a huge chunk of their DC on an annuity perhaps less so.

Dunnit

I wrote to Ann Begg this morning pointing out that not only do women tend to be younger than their spouses but that those in their fifties also have had to make up a further 7 years of pension compared to those who have just turned 60. Any financial constraints on the 10 year rule are likely to effect women more as many had used the new freedoms to fill the 7 year gap in their pensions. There had been no previous way of doing this through a pension for relatively low earners.

atush

Well we wont have to be worried about the pipsqueeks mentioned, as Labour (plus the SNP I assume) will be rolling back the whole thing and putting restrictions back in place- so they say.

Which I am amazed at, as I would assume that is a big vote loser. I guess they are going with the new opt in crowd who have only just started pensions, dont understand them, and dont care as much?

nearlyrich

I have been planning to retire at 55 since I started my pension planning at 28 I am 54 this year. The new freedom makes me happy as I can decide how much to take from my pension pot rather than some arbitrary amount from an annuity. I am going to spend more at 55 than 85 on holidays etc but I don't see why a group of MPs who probably all have gold plated pension provision should be able to tell me what I can do. I have always planned and saved I am not going to blow it on a Ferrari ..

Orwell

The irony is that people probably most need to drawdown before the State pension kicks in to bridge the gap if forced to retire before 66 or whenever.

hugheskevi

The irony is that people probably most need to drawdown before the State pension kicks in to bridge the gap if forced to retire before 66 or whenever.

Totally agree - my plans are to have roughly about the level of income I need from State Pension age (including State Pension, with rest from DB pension).

Between age 55 (or SPA minus 10 if the rules are changed without protection) and State Pension age I intend to fully exhaust a pretty decent personal pension. Partly to live on, partly to move into an ISA.

If I couldn't access my personal and other pensions until about age 63 I am already in the position of having more than I need in a pension,despite only being 37.

Looks like we already need another Pension Commission and A-Day simplification due to all the tinkering It makes even medium term planning very difficult, let alone long-term.

kidmugsy

I don't agree with the people who airily asset that virtually nobody will withdraw their pensions, blew the lot, and then fall back to freeloading on the taxpayer. (Not least because plenty of people behaved like that when we lived in Australia.) But nonetheless it seems to me obvious that the reforms should be given a good run of years before being revisited. Don't these dullard MPs realise that every time they advocate tightening the rules they just put more people off contributing to pensions?

Increasing the pension age from 50 to 55 with virtually no notice was a dastardly act by Brown. Giving lots of notice of a change from 55 to 57 was far better from the Coalition. And now 60? Dolts!