Private pension increase from 55 in 2028?

lisyloo

I don’t remember the move from 50-55 being contencious.
Was there a similar move in final salary schemes?
Very few people actually retired at 50. If you were lucky enough (say policeman) to have such an arrangement, people tended to carry on working perhaps as a contractor or consultant or part time.

I think the move from 55-57 will be more contencious.

Silvertabby

lisyloo wrote: »

I don’t remember the move from 50-55 being contencious.
Was there a similar move in final salary schemes?
Very few people actually retired at 50. If you were lucky enough (say policeman) to have such an arrangement, people tended to carry on working perhaps as a contractor or consultant or part time.

I think the move from 55-57 will be more contencious.

Don't you believe it. In the case of public sector schemes, those who were over 50 when they were made redundant had immediate access to their (unreduced for early payment) final salary pension benefits.

I had my ears well chewed on several occasions by LGPS members who were being made redundant post 6 April 2010, and had banked on being able to draw their pensions on redundancy terms - but couldn't because they were under 55.

Funny old thing, but the public sector unions didn't seem to have a problem with this change - and I did wonder if it was because it had been brought in by a Labour government (in the 2004 Finance Act), and so must have been deemed 'the right thing to do'.

Snakey

It's only that the original condoc had a footnote to the effect that this one would be tapered in, and although it hasn't been repeated since, nobody official has since said "no, we aren't doing that bit". Anyone of around mine and Username's age can't finalise our early retirement plans until somebody says for certain, just in case.

It's surely, she says with fingers crossed, far less hassle to just do it overnight on 6 April 2028 rather than faff around with a table like the one posted earlier. Especially given that they've got "form" for doing it with no transition. (Is there a massive financial difference for the government of the day that I'm not appreciating? It's not as if the money we're accessing is coming from the taxpayer, unlike the State pension changes.)

Paul_Herring

Is there a massive financial difference for the government of the day that I'm not appreciating? It's not as if the money we're accessing is coming from the taxpayer, unlike the State pension changes.

There's a potential financial difference for the government, depending on how many people they expect to start withdrawing the taxable parts of their pension as soon as they can...

(Though I'd expect such sums to be a drop in the bucket of all sources of governmental income.)

lisyloo

Paul_Herring wrote: »

There's a potential financial difference for the government, depending on how many people they expect to start withdrawing the taxable parts of their pension as soon as they can...

Isn’t it being moved so people don’t run out of money (or are less likely to) and then fall on the mercy of the state?
End of life care can be expensive.

Paul_Herring

Isn’t it being moved so people don’t run out of money (or are less likely to) and then fall on the mercy of the state?

Who knows. It may be the excuse they're using, but it's unlikely to be the actual reason. They were previously complaining that 55 yr olds would be going out to splash their cash on Lamborghinis, and that didn't happen.

Probably because the people who were thrifty and managed to save sufficient amounts to be able to do so, were unlikely to change their thrifty habits just because they turned 55.

And I don't foresee delaying the ability to withdraw said money by 2-3 (or however many) years is going to change the likelihood of any particular person ending up relying on the tender mercies of the state (i.e. if they were going to end up splurging their pension if they can access it at 55, delaying the onset to 58 isn't actually going to make it less likely to happen, it'll only potentially delay it. Naturally, on the other side of that fence, anyone likely to make their pension last is being forced to make it last over fewer years, so they can actually withdraw more per year and remain solvent.)

Snakey

That sounds like an excuse to me. The last people who are going to be running out of money around here are the ones who can afford to retire at 55 (however they've managed it, it will generally come hand-in-hand with a mortgage-free house). And they're surely also the last people who might need to have their financial options restricted for their own good.

Aside from anything, anyone who's got all the way to 55 and still thinks it's a cunning wheeze to take out every penny of their pension and spend it all as fast as possible before going to the State with their hand held out and a smirk on their face because they've got one over on The Man, is still going to think the same at 57.

Of course in a time and place where many people will be lucky to retire in their sixties, nobody's going to be looking too hard into whether these arguments make any logical sense. Get your tiny violins out for the poor souls who might have to keep going until 53 instead of 51 to make sure their non-pension savings will stretch to pension access age. Perhaps all the people working twelve-hour night shifts in warehouses will have a whip-round for us.

Snakey

Jinx!


(and extra characters to make the minimum)

Aletank

Article on today's Mail https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/pensions/article-7856699/When-does-minimum-age-cash-pension-rise-55-57.html

Paul_Herring

Aletank wrote: »

Article on today's Mail https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/pensions/article-7856699/When-does-minimum-age-cash-pension-rise-55-57.html

.. with, sadly, no new information. Still speculation, based on the 2014 consultation.