Mind the 'age' gap: retirement planning

Good question and it has been touted around before.


Given that we can "defer for more", it would seem only logical to be able to "advance for less".

However I suspect it all comes down to cost and cash-flow - like a bank, if too many people want their money early then it all goes pear shaped, and it would be politically challenging (and a whole load more work) to introduce a system which limited the numbers able to do it.


I does raise other questions and potential issues too though....


What if someone takes the state pension early at a reduced rate, but then runs down their private pension, so that by, say 70, they only have the reduced state pension to live on....the govt may then be in a position of having to then pay them benefits to bring them back up to a level deemed enough to exist on.
I suppose there are checks and balances you could put in, but it'd all add up to load more work, and probably a new govt department to administer it..... and so on.


I'm sure there are a load of other practical issues too which I haven't thought of off the top of my head!

Cottage_Economy wrote: »

Say there were checks and balances in place, I wonder how many people would take it early?

There must be people out there still working up to 67 because their occupational pensions aren't enough to live on.

I know lots of people that feel they have to work until they're 67 because they don't have private or occupational pensions that could support them.

If fact I know several people that don't have any pension savings other than the government one.

Cottage_Economy wrote: »

my BIL has nothing saved, nothing at all. I don't know how he's Just the state pension will not be enough.

I imagine he expects to sponge off other people.

Anonymous101 wrote: »

I know lots of people that feel they have to work until they're 67 because they don't have private or occupational pensions that could support them.

If fact I know several people that don't have any pension savings other than the government one.

This is really common! I know/ have met many who could save as a supplement for their state pension but don't or often won't, I get told often "I won't live that long" or even worse "well I'll get benefits to top it up!".


This forum is really a tiny fraction of people who've thought about it and decided to either learn more about options or to do something more about it.


Also there is really poor understanding of both pensions and life expectancy, many who are auto-enrolled in the workplace really do think that their monthly 3% will make for a comfortable retirement, when in fact they'll get a pittance. I think a financial lesson or two aimed at those in secondary education should be compulsory on an annual basis!


The trouble is financial planning, debt and a have it today culture pushed by star struck populations and media don't bode well together, and don't sell papers or gain viewing figures for the TV.


The cynic in me thinks auto-enrolment is a means for future governments to reduce pensioner benefits, the pittance pushing future pensioners over the income level to get them, not addressing the issue of making people save a decent amount to make a real difference to their retirement.