New pensions freedom under attack before they start

Torry_Quine

Dunnit wrote: »

Most jobs do not have a retirement age.

I cannot think of any relative who gave up work at the same time as they drew their state pension.

Women in particular are likely to be tied to their husbands because the husband is likely to have bigger pensions through better pay, longer contributions through no breaks for children and women being caught by restarting work in newer later paying schemes.

I can't think of any who could have afforded to retire early and some had to work even after the state retirement age for financial needs.

Orwell wrote: »

Frankly, I will be fairly happy if I can keep my job until 60, I cannot imagine working beyond that age in my particular occupation which is fairly stressful and doesn't have that many "oldies" in it (since so many of the jobs have been transferred to India).

There's no rule that says you need to stay in the same role/job though.

nearlyrich wrote: »

Some of us have been planning and saving rather than dreaming my DH is retired and I want to spend some quality time with him.

With the best will in the world if you are on a low wage then no way could you ever save enough to retire early. Just read the posts on here from people who don't even have any savings far less a pension.

gadgetmind

Torry_Quine wrote: »

As the state pension age continues to rise it makes sense for the age at which you access a private pension to also rise.

I disagree,so perhaps you can explain why you think that?

But not there are already suggestions that as SPA rises to 67, then the age the access private pensions should perhaps rise to 57. However, what's being outlined now is a massive acceleration of this, plus many years added on top.

Personally I think this applies only to those who are rich enough to retire early

Again, explain your reasoning. Many people of modest means do manage to save enough to retire early.

kangoora

Torry_Quine wrote: »

Even 60 is very young to retire these days so yes you would need to have a lot of money to live comfortably from that age allowing for life expectancy. I sincerely hope that your divorce comment is hyperbole. Many people can only dream of retiring when they reach state retirement age.

The fact that many people can only dream of retiring at SP age has no bearing on whether people who have the means should be prevented from retiring early by changing existing legislation. That's like the government saying that Fred, on £70k/year, can't go and buy a BMW X5 because Joe, on £25k/year, can't afford one.

Having had 2 months off with stress 2 years ago I seriously started saving towards an early retirement at that point. I've since through conversations, talked to at least 4-5 people in my peer group who've also had time off with stress.

As I am in my, ideally, last 5-6 working years, if I was barred from accessing my pension early all my future planning would be completely messed up if they moved the goalposts now or in the near future. My intention is to retire as early as possible, commensurate with maintaining a 'nice' standard of living (in our opinion anyway - we won't be buying any Lamborghini's ).

This will only be possible in my case via drawing down pension pots/savings from 55 onwards to provide a smooth, inflation adjusted, income in retirement until various pensions (DB and SP) kick in when I am 60, 67 & 74. I originally targeted 58-59 and it may be possible to get that down to somewhere between 55-57 depending on how things go.

My dad died of Alzheimer's at 69 years old about 16 years ago. If I wait until my state retirement age of 67 I could, potentially, be going into a nursing home and getting ready to die the day I finish work.

Another reason why I am determined to finish work as early as possible and enjoy a, hopefully, long retirement.

atush

zagfles wrote: »

Have they actually announced that or is it speculation?

I am not on the labor party mailing list, although I am on the Democratic party mailing list so am not really a rabid conservative. So dont know how official it is when the BBC announces labour policy on TV? Not like they do the conservatives any favors I can see?

What I do know is that i saw Ed say it on the BBC. His lips were moving lol

kangoora

atush wrote: »

I am not on the labor party mailing list, although I am on the Democratic party mailing list so am not really a rabid conservative. So dont know how official it is when the BBC announces labour policy on TV? Not like they do the conservatives any favors I can see?

What I do know is that i saw Ed say it on the BBC. His lips were moving lol

Q. How can you tell a politician is lying.

A. Their lips are moving

bmm78

Even if retirement more than 5 years before SPA is the preserve of the "rich" (which I would strongly dispute), I'm not sure why the aspirations of the wealthy should be dismissed. Having strong incentives in the system to encourage private pension saving is surely important to reduce the potential burden to the state. The amount someone chooses to save into a pension is an emotional as well as a financial decision.

It's not just about the so-called wealthy jaunting off on luxury cruises either. Many people have earmarked the tax free lump sum (or a portion of it) for a specific purpose such as helping children on the property ladder, university fees, etc (without actually retiring).

zagfles wrote: »

Have they actually announced that or is it speculation?

The last that I heard they were pledging to "go with the grain" of the reforms http://www.ftadviser.com/2014/10/29/pensions/labour-dispels-fears-of-unwinding-pension-changes-kiKJYqDPV5t22JlTBNyBDI/article.html. I think they realise that it would be political suicide in the short-term to oppose the widely-popular changes, so they have been focusing on other areas such as the shortcomings in the guidance guarantee and the lack of commitment to test the impact of the reforms. The latter may be an attempt to gather "evidence" that the reforms are not in people's best interests, in order to challenge them from a stronger position down the line.

Personally, I think the toothpaste is well and truly out of the tube, and barring a social catastrophe it will be a while if ever before we return to "quasi-compulsory annuitisation" (or whatever we called the old system). Incidentally, the report in question refers to removing the requirement to buying an annuity, which is bad enough for a Daily Mail article, never mind an official parliamentary report...

There were several proposals in the report. While the new government will no doubt take on board any reports by the committee, it is just one of many recommendations at this point, and there is no compulsion for any to be acted upon.

atush

Torry_Quine wrote: »

I can't think of any who could have afforded to retire early and some had to work even after the state retirement age for financial needs.



There's no rule that says you need to stay in the same role/job though.



With the best will in the world if you are on a low wage then no way could you ever save enough to retire early. Just read the posts on here from people who don't even have any savings far less a pension.

Perhaps you need to widen your acquaintance? I know those who can afford to retire early and those who cannot?

And I dont think, like reading lists for schools, we should base tax and retirement policy on the lowest common denominator like you do?

Why should everything be based on the lowest paid, the ones who would not take advantage of their free education to earn above the min wage? Or who were left in a place where they cannot afford to save, why penalise those who can? After all, savings are taxed just like income?

It is like telling those who read novels to read picture books. Because others dont want to/cant?

chiefie

kangoora wrote: »

The fact that many people can only dream of retiring at SP age has no bearing on whether people who have the means should be prevented from retiring early by changing existing legislation. That's like the government saying that Fred, on £70k/year, can't go and buy a BMW X5 because Joe, on £25k/year, can't afford one.

Having had 2 months off with stress 2 years ago I seriously started saving towards an early retirement at that point. I've since through conversations, talked to at least 4-5 people in my peer group who've also had time off with stress.

As I am in my, ideally, last 5-6 working years, if I was barred from accessing my pension early all my future planning would be completely messed up if they moved the goalposts now or in the near future. My intention is to retire as early as possible, commensurate with maintaining a 'nice' standard of living (in our opinion anyway - we won't be buying any Lamborghini's ).

This will only be possible in my case via drawing down pension pots/savings from 55 onwards to provide a smooth, inflation adjusted, income in retirement until various pensions (DB and SP) kick in when I am 60, 67 & 74. I originally targeted 58-59 and it may be possible to get that down to somewhere between 55-57 depending on how things go.

My dad died of Alzheimer's at 69 years old about 16 years ago. If I wait until my state retirement age of 67 I could, potentially, be going into a nursing home and getting ready to die the day I finish work.

Another reason why I am determined to finish work as early as possible and enjoy a, hopefully, long retirement.

Ditto to all that but reason for doing the same is that Mrs chiefie is older than me and I want to bring our retirement ages together by drawing from a SIPP from 55-60 and then kicking in DB pensions.

I suppose my answer to them is :shhh:

chiefie

I can see the next thing they will suggest is that people who receive pensions from public service jobs should give up their state pension for the greater good !

Torry_Quine

gadgetmind wrote: »

I disagree,so perhaps you can explain why you think that?

But not there are already suggestions that as SPA rises to 67, then the age the access private pensions should perhaps rise to 57. However, what's being outlined now is a massive acceleration of this, plus many years added on top.



Again, explain your reasoning. Many people of modest means do manage to save enough to retire early.

If someone wants the advantages of putting money into a pension scheme then it makes sense that you cannot access it until what is considered a more standard age than the very early ages suggested by many here.

I see no reason other than health why someone should be able to access a pension within 5 years of the state pension age without penalty.

Depends on what you would say are modest means.