Can't trust government with pensions

kidmugsy

Pushing the minimum vesting age (for almost everybody) up from 50 to 55 with only six years notice was maybe a bit harsh.  But most of the changes in the last 20 years have been great improvements.

Nebulous2

barnstar2077 said:

Notepad_Phil said:

Barry_Bear said:

There are reports that the government may target private pensions to raise taxes.

It seems to me that when it comes to pension reporting "There are reports" basically means "We've no idea but we'll say it anyway"

I doubt that most people have any idea as to what a change to the LTA would actually mean so there's likely to be little difference even if the LTA is reduced.

barnstar2077 said:

Personally, when I started work I thought it was on the understanding that I would be able to claim my state pension at 65, it felt like a kind of contract.  They should have increased it earlier for people who had not started work yet in my opinion.

Expecting a 40 to 50 year delay before any state pension claim age increase can be made is expecting a bit too much.

When I first started work I was well aware that governments changed the rules all the time. I was quite happy to see income taxes etc fall so I can't complain when state pension claim age increases.

I'm not saying it would be easy, but I think they could have made some effort at projections.  As if no one saw this coming.

The problem in politics is trying to fit long-term decisions into a short-term (5 year max) timescale. 

Any party which suggested cuts to pensions 50 years ago would have been out of power for a generation. We were all confidently expecting pensions / retirement age to improve, not deteriorate.

nigelbb

barnstar2077 said:

Personally, when I started work I thought it was on the understanding that I would be able to claim my state pension at 65, it felt like a kind of contract.  They should have increased it earlier for people who had not started work yet in my opinion.

Waiting an extra couple of years for your state pension needs to be balanced against increased life expectancy. Additionally fifty years ago the absolute level of state pension was considerably lower. You will be drawing an increased pension for a longer period of time (something lost on the WASPI women).

Ibrahim5

I am sure they said on "tomorrow's world" that there wouldn't be any work for people to do in the future.

kidmugsy

Ibrahim5 said:

I am sure they said on "tomorrow's world" that there wouldn't be any work for people to do in the future.

Yes, there would be no need because all the energy from fusion power would be so cheap that electrified robots would do all the work.

green_man

Although I suspect these latest rumours are just that rather than anything more concrete, I do agree with the OP that it’s important that workers can trust that the rules and tax treatment are going to remain broadly constant.   

Every time these are changed (or even changes are touted in the press as now) it erodes the confidence and commitment of those that need to putting their money in.   I’ve had several colleagues use the fiddling  chancellor as an excuse for not putting more in their pension schemes.

Anonymous101

To my mind its about remaining towards the upper end of the masses.
The government may well change the rules in future to raise taxes but any of these changes are likely to be targeted at those that are seen to be wealthy enough to stand them.

So long as you are spreading your risk over multiple investment vehicles (Pensions and ISA's in the main) and you're not seen to be "Rich" then you may end up paying more tax in future but its unlikely to be anything unmanageable and certainly the unknown future rule changes aren't a reason not to use these vehicles. UK Pension and ISA allowances are among the most generous investment vehicles available in any country.

resk

green_man said:

Every time these are changed (or even changes are touted in the press as now) it erodes the confidence and commitment of those that need to putting their money in.   I’ve had several colleagues use the fiddling  chancellor as an excuse for not putting more in their pension schemes.

Turning down a great tax break because of some imagined future rule change is a bit mad!  Also, I hate the Tories as much as the next Scot, but it's a bit harsh to blame the government for some made up story in the papers.  

atush

Barry_Bear said:

There are reports that the government may target private pensions to raise taxes.

The lifetime allowance has been reduced before and could be yet again!

How can you expect people to save for the future when they can see our governments have a track record of moving the goal posts and a financial crisis means our governments tend to target those who have saved into pensions?

Who can you trust with your pension?  AS above, who else would you trust?

Yes, tax regimes can change, but sometimes they need to.  Who else is going to pay for the pandemic but companies, the govt, and individuals?

sheslookinhot

atush said:

Barry_Bear said:

There are reports that the government may target private pensions to raise taxes.

The lifetime allowance has been reduced before and could be yet again!

How can you expect people to save for the future when they can see our governments have a track record of moving the goal posts and a financial crisis means our governments tend to target those who have saved into pensions?

Who can you trust with your pension?  AS above, who else would you trust?

Yes, tax regimes can change, but sometimes they need to.  Who else is going to pay for the pandemic but companies, the govt, and individuals?

The Government can pay for the effects of the pandemic by amongst others, cancelling HS rail link, nuclear weapons and the  proposed “ royal” boat.