New pensions freedom under attack before they start

kidmugsy

Moby wrote: »

When does the change to 57 kick in, didn't know about this:(

Budget 2014: "The normal minimum pension age (the earliest age you can normally access your pension pot) will increase from age 55 to age 57 in 2028. It will increase at the same rate as the increase in the State Pension age from then on. This means that the minimum pension age will remain ten years below State Pension age."


Fourteen years notice seems decent enough to me.

redux

OldBeanz wrote: »

People did not believe the Pension would deliver enough to live on during the eighties during the early Thatcher years so, if they have no money now then so be it.

Conversely, when some of them were told by personal pension scheme salesmen that £15 or 20 a month could give them a fund over £2 million, maybe they believed it, and didn't put in much more until some years later.

redux

TCA wrote: »

Osborne on the Andrew Marr Show this morning:

In what is seen as an attempt to woo older voters, the chancellor is expected to extend pension changes from April 2016, to allow existing pensioners to swap their annuity for a fixed lump sum. It follows reforms announced last year that allow working people to cash in all or part of their defined contribution pension when they retire, rather than buy an annuity that guarantees an income for life. Pensioners had been required to buy annuities under the old rules.

Mr Osborne told the programme it was about "trusting those people who have worked hard and saved all their lives" and said it was "patronising " to suggest people might blow the money on an expensive sports car then come back for more when they ran out of cash.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-31892518

If this is so brilliant, and he's that confident about people's motives and abilities, maybe he should consider offering to do it with the state pension as well.

Dunnit

1. He is not doing it for any unfunded state pensions.

2. He is increasing the state pension for those without a DB pension (in the short term DB's will not now opt out) and the self employed which is there to ensure everyone should have a feasible minimum income.

kidmugsy

redux wrote: »

If this is so brilliant, and he's that confident about people's motives and abilities, maybe he should consider offering to do it with the state pension as well.

I'd happily see him offer it on the part of any state pension above the personal allowance for income tax.

MoneyGeoff

kidmugsy wrote: »

Budget 2014: "The normal minimum pension age (the earliest age you can normally access your pension pot) will increase from age 55 to age 57 in 2028.

Is this still going ahead? Some reports say it's not:

Pension age increase axed

hugheskevi

Is this still going ahead? Some reports say it's not:

Very poor quality journalism, but quite surprised Tom McPhail didn't recall the previous annoucements. The Freedom and Choice consultation response clearly says:

2.41 Recognising that there are further issues to explore in designing an increase to the minimum pension age, subject to the will of Parliament the government will legislate for these changes in the next Parliament.

So where the journalist got the idea that:

This change was expected to be included in the Taxation of Pensions Act, which has just received Royal Assent - but it’s not there.

is a mystery.

redbuzzard

MoneyGeoff wrote: »

Is this still going ahead? Some reports say it's not:

Pension age increase axed

I hadn't seen that.

To push it too high would be silly; as the SPA rises, "gap-bridging" will be a more and more typical use of pension savings. There are many occupations that cannot easily be followed beyond 60. I was made redundant at 59 from a management job and I lasted longer than many. There are a lot of people in their 50s, let alone 60s, who are unable to find suitable work and are not in the unemployment stats because they claim no benefits.

However, the concern that some will "waste" their pots and throw themselves on the state is justified. Australia is proposing to unwind freedoms because too many are blowing their superann.

There was something to be said for capped drawdown and qualified flexible drawdown - that could have been tweaked.

I didn't mind the redundancy, because I had aimed for no later than 60 anyway.

Unless you really enjoy working and have no desire to follow hobbies or spend time with the peope who matter to you, best to give up when you have enough to be secure. My father worked to 64 years and 10 months, then died suddenly. The time he expected to spend with grandchildren etc., he never had. If you know what you wnat to do in retirement, and you have enough, pack the job in and do it.

A few more people packing it in when they can afford it would be good for everybody, including the unemployed 18-25s. The idea that one "should" work until SPA is irrational, and for many impractical

gadgetmind

If I work much beyond 55, I'll probably get hammered by the ever-shrinking LTA. :-(

rpc

gadgetmind wrote: »

If I work much beyond 55, I'll probably get hammered by the ever-shrinking LTA. :-(

You should stop investing in diversified cheap trackers. A few hedge funds will fix your problem.