State pension age increase to 68 brought forward 7 years to 2037

_AB

So why raise the State Pension Age to 68 when according to Prof Sir Michael Marmot life expectancy has almost "ground to a halt"! Who do you believe the Government or the Professor????

atush

mjfp509 wrote: »

Maybe £8k is not a lot for you, but for most people, me included, it's a decent pot of money to not get.

Sure it is a lot of money. bt given there are 20 years, during which you could cut back one poncy coffee or pint a week and put that into S&S isa or pension then yu can more than make up for it?

I was one hard done by (as well as my OH) by the last lot of (last min) changes and i am not whining. Just have to save the money and get one with it.

Muscle750

If we didnt have so many taking their gold plate Public sector pensions at 55 /60 and put in place the earliest they can take them is 60 and still taking a hit than if they left it to 65 then there would be more money enabling everyone both in the private sector and the public sector to get their State pension at 65 end of. Your own private pensions are a different kettle of fish and as youve personally funded it then this should remain at 55. With it now moved 3 years since they started meddling some are going take a £25k hit as previously stated. Its those who are taking the hit that are in effect funding those who have took the money and run at 55 and as we know many financially better off taking this option in the public sector than if they had carried on working. Which is impossible with private sector pensions.

Silvertabby

Muscle - haven't we had this conversation before? If you think I'm going to apologise for Mr S's and my 50+ years Armed Forces pensions - then don't hold your breath.

Muscle750

Silvertabby wrote: »

Muscle - haven't we had this conversation before? If you think I'm going to apologise for Mr S's and my 50+ years Armed Forces pensions - then don't hold your breath.

Dont expect you to but you dont join the army to polish yer rifle.

Muscle750

Silvertabby wrote: »

Muscle - haven't we had this conversation before? If you think I'm going to apologise for Mr S's and my 50+ years Armed Forces pensions - then don't hold your breath.

So are you saying that because you wanted to go and play tanks or boats etc that your entitled to a prolific pension that indirectly means that many will now take a hit of £25k by not getting access to their OAP till they are 68 even thou they have worked all their life?

tempus_fugit

Muscle750 wrote: »

If we didnt have so many taking their gold plate Public sector pensions at 55 /60 and put in place the earliest they can take them is 60 and still taking a hit than if they left it to 65 then there would be more money enabling everyone both in the private sector and the public sector to get their State pension at 65 end of. Your own private pensions are a different kettle of fish and as youve personally funded it then this should remain at 55. With it now moved 3 years since they started meddling some are going take a £25k hit as previously stated. Its those who are taking the hit that are in effect funding those who have took the money and run at 55 and as we know many financially better off taking this option in the public sector than if they had carried on working. Which is impossible with private sector pensions.

Many of them are already only able to be taken at 60. My OH's LGPS pension says she can't get it before she is 60 (despite qualifying for full payout at age 62), except in exceptional circumstances. Basically unless she was at death's door she won't get it before age 60.

tempus_fugit

Malthusian wrote: »

The Government proposed in 2014 that the minimum pension age would increase to 57 in 2028 and from then on would be State Pension Age minus ten years. They have not yet actually made it law but then they have another 10 years in which to do so. There has been no suggestion that the plan has been dropped, nor has either political party said in their manifesto that they will drop the plan.

Indeed, and in fact companies are already stating in their literature that the minimum pension age will be 57 from 6th April 2028. I have had letters already that include a statement to this effect.

Number75

Could someone please explain the reasoning behind shifting the 55 access age for private pensions to state minus ten years?

Is it because it's assumed there's a fair chance people will retire at 55, get to 65 and run out of money, be unemployable due to age and break from work - and then cost the state in terms of JSA type payments?

I understand that the tax break is there to get people to save for retirement, so access before 55 would be counter productive.

But I don't see the problem with access at 55 still as the pension age increases - and it's less of a vote loser, surely?

bigadaj

_ab wrote: »

totally agree! How can a person plan for their retirement when the government keep "moving the goal posts". The state pension age was first 65, then 67 and now 68...it's very sad reflection on government failures. Where will it end...will i every get my state pension or are we all just paying in to get nothing back?


Can i encourage everyone under the 47 years old (not just those who in the ages ranges highlighted yesterday) to start pestering the prime minister, david gauke (sec of state for work and pensions) and their own mp's.


Martin lewis, we need your support on this!!!!!!!!!!

....waspmi?