Age at which you can access tax free lump Sum

Paul_Herring

Snakey wrote: »

I'm grumpily planning for 57, and hoping that it won't be that late. (I was secretly hoping for Pension ISAs to come in, in the hope that they might only peg those to a higher retirement age and quietly leave the current funds alone. One advantage us early-40s people do have is that we're about the same age as the average MP.)

But your average MP has a gold-plated final salary pension paid for by all taxpayers. The only taxpayer funding your pension is you.


And there's nothing stopping you implementing your own "Pension ISA" - simply pay into an ISA as well as your pension and use that to fund the gap between when you want to retire and when you can get your hands on your pension fund.

bigadaj wrote: »

Why wasn't there a campaign?

A debate in Parliament perhaps?

A pressure group called something along the lines of What A Stupid Pension Increase could have been formed, possibly proposing to push the increase back to 2020 for example, thus saving all those people born in the 1960s such as me.

Sounds familiar - hasn't something like that been done recently? Can't quite put my finger on it....

jamesd

bigadaj wrote: »

A pressure group called something along the lines of What A Stupid Pension Increase could have been formed, possibly proposing to push the increase back to 2020 for example, thus saving all those people born in the 1960s such as me.

Why should men get the benefit? Only women can have hysterectomies so only women deserve to be able to get the money younger.

westv

jamesd wrote: »

Why should men get the benefit? Only women can have hysterectomies so only women deserve to be able to get the money younger.

But this can't happen to a woman. :eek:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/35801847/rugby-players-penis-almost-torn-off-in-tackle

bigadaj

jamesd wrote: »

Why should men get the benefit? Only women can have hysterectomies so only women deserve to be able to get the money younger.

Well I'm trying for compensation on the basis that I've been denied the opportunity to have a hysterectomy which is patently unfair.

Paul_Herring

westv wrote: »

But this can't happen to a woman. :eek:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/35801847/rugby-players-penis-almost-torn-off-in-tackle

Tell that to Caitlyn Jenner...

Snakey

Paul_Herring wrote: »

And there's nothing stopping you implementing your own "Pension ISA" - simply pay into an ISA as well as your pension and use that to fund the gap between when you want to retire and when you can get your hands on your pension fund.

True, but pensions are so much better - but risky, in the sense that while ISAs can be spent after pension-accessing age, pensions can't be spent before pension-accessing age. (I know you know this, but just for completeness.)

As it happens I can fully fund both at the moment, but who knows how long that happy state of affairs might last? It'd be really helpful to know for sure that if I retire at (say) 50 it's going to be x years of ISA funding and y years of pension funding. I almost don't care what x and y are, just please please tell me and then don't change it, so that I can plan properly!

mgdavid

Snakey wrote: »

......if I retire at (say) 50 it's going to be x years of ISA funding and y years of pension funding. I almost don't care what x and y are, just please please tell me and then don't change it, so that I can plan properly!

OK, we can help on that basis; but first, exactly when do you plan to die?

kam1977

I am sure my company pension age is 10 years before state retirement age. According to govuk my state retirement age is when I am 67 3 months and 5 days, so I can retire when I am 57, chances are your brothers scheme works on a similar basis, which is why they are so vague

Snakey

mgdavid wrote: »

OK, we can help on that basis; but first, exactly when do you plan to die?

OK, OK, y will be a balancing figure. Apparently if you take a 3% withdrawal rate you can live forever and not run out, so let's aim for that.

Paul_Herring

Snakey wrote: »

True, but pensions are so much better - but risky, in the sense that while ISAs can be spent after pension-accessing age, pensions can't be spent before pension-accessing age. (I know you know this, but just for completeness.

"So much better, except in the way that was mentioned specifically."

And better how? With the exception of the PCLS (which can't be accessed in the period the ISA would be funding so that point is moot) and any potential arbitrage in tax rates pre/post retirement (ditto,) there's little difference between them.