New pensions freedom under attack before they start

Teaandscones

Those people who may want to take their pension in their late fifties could include:
1. Those that have been saving seriously over 30+ years with early retirement in mind. Not necessarily rich but just serious about it.
2. Those who are rich anyway.
3. Those who become unemployed in their 50's and can't easily find another job or at least one with similar pay and use their pension to manage the gap until SPA.
4. Those that take on caring responsibilities for an elderly parent and thus save their family (and probably the state) large care home fees.
5. Those that want to blow their inadequate pension on a flash car and need nannying.

It seems that the the works and pensions committee don't understand that pensions are a long term commitment and that people's personal circumstances are very different. Just because some people (probably a small minority) may make poor choices, it doesn't mean that we need nannying MP's to decide what is good for me or anyone else. I can understand investment risk, it is political risk that worries me more at the moment.

atush

chiefie wrote: »

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 !

Well Torry Q would

atush

Torry_Quine wrote: »

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.

And who are you to determine the appropriate age for everyone?

have you ever saved a penny?

Do you think that penny is yours?

Torry_Quine

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.

I have said that if health is poor then that is the exception to not being able to take a pension early.

atush wrote: »

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?

I certainly don't agree that everything should be taken down to the lowest common denominator.

That's not at all the same though and many people who are very accomplished and educated will never earn much above minimum wage so who is blinkered in their world-view now.

scoobydoo66

Torry_Quine wrote: »

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.

I've been out of work since I was 50, I've lived off savings for years, those savings are reducing dramatically, I have a pension pot of hundreds of thousands of pounds. Do you really think I should try to live on state benefits for five years plus ?

Torry_Quine

atush wrote: »

Well Torry Q would

Of course I wouldn't.

atush wrote: »

And who are you to determine the appropriate age for everyone?

have you ever saved a penny?

Do you think that penny is yours?

It's not for me to decide but well before state retirement age makes little sense to me unless you have a very large amount of money to last for decades.

I have always saved and think it is a good thing to do.

I accept though that depending on how I save there will be conditions attached to get a better deal. Pensions are tax efficient ways to save which is very helpful but that means they can't be treated in the same way as other savings accounts.

If people want to save without restrictions on access there are other ways to do it.

Torry_Quine

scoobydoo66 wrote: »

I've been out of work since I was 50, I've lived off savings for years, those savings are reducing dramatically, I have a pension pot of hundreds of thousands of pounds. Do you really think I should try to live on state benefits for five years plus ?

As a general response - if poor health is why you can't work then early release of funds should be available. If not then you may live for some time yet and as you've obviously been in well-paid employment in the past why not look for work now.

My husband has had long periods of unemployment and we have used savings to live on which of course is what they are for.

scoobydoo66

Torry_Quine wrote: »

As a general response - if poor health is why you can't work then early release of funds should be available. If not then you may live for some time yet and as you've obviously been in well-paid employment in the past why not look for work now.

My husband has had long periods of unemployment and we have used savings to live on which of course is what they are for.

My health is OK, thankyou.
The point is I have saved and planned to not go to work, I dont want to work, and there arent many jobs around. I can access my pension and live on what I saved for my later years, but you are suggesting that although I can manage quite easily without working, I should be prevented from accessing MY money, forced to look for work and possibly exist on state benefits.

nearlyrich

Teaandscones wrote: »

Those people who may want to take their pension in their late fifties could include:
1. Those that have been saving seriously over 30+ years with early retirement in mind. Not necessarily rich but just serious about it.
2. Those who are rich anyway.
3. Those who become unemployed in their 50's and can't easily find another job or at least one with similar pay and use their pension to manage the gap until SPA.
4. Those that take on caring responsibilities for an elderly parent and thus save their family (and probably the state) large care home fees.
5. Those that want to blow their inadequate pension on a flash car and need nannying.

It seems that the the works and pensions committee don't understand that pensions are a long term commitment and that people's personal circumstances are very different. Just because some people (probably a small minority) may make poor choices, it doesn't mean that we need nannying MP's to decide what is good for me or anyone else. I can understand investment risk, it is political risk that worries me more at the moment.

I fit into Category 1 on your list my username implies I am not rich, true but compared to my parents I am.. I have a very tough job it pays well but it is getting harder to find the enthusiasm to get up and at 'em on a Monday. I have Rheumatoid Arthritis and Fibromyalgia so some days are extra hard, I could probably get benefits but I prefer to use the money I have saved in my pensions over the years so no-one can make me jump through hoops.

Torry_Quine

scoobydoo66 wrote: »

My health is OK, thankyou.
The point is I have saved and planned to not go to work, I dont want to work, and there arent many jobs around. I can access my pension and live on what I saved for my later years, but you are suggesting that although I can manage quite easily without working, I should be prevented from accessing MY money, forced to look for work and possibly exist on state benefits.

Pleased that it's not health reasons preventing you from working.

When you decided no longer to work (which in itself at 50 seems a strange thing to do to me) you knew that accessing your pension wasn't available for some time and that legislation could change. You have hopefully many good years ahead of you when your pension funds will be needed.