New pensions freedom under attack before they start

rpc

atush wrote: »

Occam's razor

Someone should go an cut a politician with it.

115K

Torry_Quine wrote: »

I find it odd that someone would stop working voluntarily at the age of 50

I find it odd that you would think that is odd.:p

rpc wrote: »

You don't need to be rich to retire early. You need enough wealth to sustain your lifestyle. For some people, that is relatively little and they would rather live frugally but without the need to work than to have to work just to pay for luxuries.

Yes, exactly. I want my husband to retire early but we aren't amazingly rich, we just live a fairly frugal lifestyle.

Radiantsoul

When I heard the budget I did feel it was a fraudster paradise, and we are going to see a lot of pensioners being persuaded to load up on wine, car parking spaces in Dubai, rare earth metals, university pods, forests in the amazon, gem mines in Africa, etc, etc.
I am not sure increasing the age of access will address this though.

atush

Once the money is not subject to pension rules, why would people invest in stupid things?

Many do so now WITHIN a pension, having been scammed into doing so as they feel their money is restricted within the pension. The number of stupid people wont just increase, and they will have more legitimate options.

I am more worried about gamblers and spendthrifts myself.

struggler

atush wrote: »

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?

Labour have broadly agreed to the pension reforms I believe, and much too late for any committee to change things now.

Orwell

Torry_Quine wrote: »

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

True - but not many companies want 60 year old (at that point) trainees. The high number of people over 60 out of work speaks volumes. It's the attitude of employers more than anything else.

However it someone has a large pension pot just waiting to be used - why not let them take it and leave the job for someone else?

jamesd

struggler wrote: »

Labour have broadly agreed to the pension reforms I believe, and much too late for any committee to change things now.

Not too late for a Labour committee chair to scare off potential Labour voters, though.

Torry_Quine

TCA wrote: »

Possibly the oddest statement I've ever seen on this board. You're obviously someone that "lives to work", while the vast majority "work to live".

Actually my poor health meant I had to stop working which is not something I'd wish on anyone.

Bootsox wrote: »

There nothing "physiologically normal" about the retirement age, it has been arbitrarily set by politicians.

Do you always do what you are told to without question?

No I don't always do what I'm told.:p

kangoora wrote: »

I find it odd that anyone would want to work past the point where they become financially independent and no longer are required to work to pay the bills - whatever age that happens to be. Early retirement frees up a job in the labour market for someone who needs that job.

If I'm restricted from taking my pension until I'm 62 I'd be in the ludicrous situation of having to blow money just to waste it, give it away to my sons or something similar or my pension in late retirement would be far in excess of my forecasted needs.

PS We still intend to leave the kids a decent amount of inheritance, just not over IHT threshold if we can avoid it

If you are in the situation of spending money so as not to be in the IHT threshold then you are well off.

Torry_Quine

rpc wrote: »

So, to parallel another thread, you believe that front line firefighters, police and the armed forces should continue to work until state pension age?

You don't need to be rich to retire early. You need enough wealth to sustain your lifestyle. For some people, that is relatively little and they would rather live frugally but without the need to work than to have to work just to pay for luxuries.

My dad was diagnosed with cancer two years ago. It will eventually kill him unless he gets "hit by a bus." Both he and my mum have chosen to retire 'early' [1] so that they can enjoy retirement together (and their grandchildren) before he becomes too sick. But you would deny them that because they are both fit to work? I'm afraid an honest expression of my views would probably get me PPR'd.


[1] My mum is actually over SPA but hasn't yet reached NRA for her pension so has taken an actuarial reduction. My dad is not yet at SPA or NRA but his pension is big enough for them to afford to do it.

Actually I said that firefighters etc could have other roles such as fire-safety checks. It seems ludicrous the very early age that they can retire!

Orwell wrote: »

True - but not many companies want 60 year old (at that point) trainees. The high number of people over 60 out of work speaks volumes. It's the attitude of employers more than anything else.

However it someone has a large pension pot just waiting to be used - why not let them take it and leave the job for someone else?

Who said anything about trainees, other than the most physically demanding jobs people could surely stay in the same job.

atush

If you are in the situation of spending money so as not to be in the IHT threshold then you are well off.

Not if you bought a family home in london decades ago? Some people are rich in assets but not money.

People in 3/4 bed homes, which are modest for larger families, are now caught in the IHT trap.

You really need an attitude adjustment about what is wealthy these days? Sure people need lots of money to buy in london now, but they didn't decades ago.