Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.

Pension: Retirement age

Okay, I appreciate that people live longer,( albeit that men do not live as long as woman) and now we have a proposal that retirement is to be 66, brought in within 5 years.

Woman will have a little longer, although an exact date is apparently not available. Having worked for an employeer for several years that had a retirement age of 60, pensions and financial planning!
was based on that now hopeless assumption. In fact you had no right to work past 60 where I worked. Although the coalition have some vague idea of a non retirement date qualification, benefits, and pensions are based on an exact qualifying date. Having one pension frozen for already 25 years, until I reach state pension age ...... now 66ish!. I noted that Nick Cleggg did not rule out a retirement age of 70 plus in the future!

I have nothing against people who wish to go on beyond retirement age, or work part time etc. Providing of course it is not compulsory!.

My wife has already had over 4 years added on to her retirement age!, such was the 'wheeze' the treasury thought it would give parity to woman to retire at 65.
How anybody plans to retire with any sort of confidence, unless they have a very, very good private pension is becoming beyond the reach of most people!

Years ago, I thought I would retire at 50!, in fact Iremember at school( yes my memory is that good) about how we would spend 'all this leisure time'.
Before anybody rushes in to say the country is 'potless', we already have one of the lowest state pensions in Europe and the French as well as others retire at 60! ( although that is subject to change).

So it is work till you drop, eh!...... Why not have a pension plus scheme where you could add to your pension by working longer, and less if you go earlier!...... if of course you have a job in the first place.

One thing I did notice at my last company was the lack of over 55s anyway, unless they were heads of department's/directors ironically who had very nice pension arrangements in place.
«1

Comments

  • I think in the mid nineteenth century women and men had a very similar life expectancy, but things have changed in the last 150 years or so, and now men tend to die five years earlier than women. I am also pretty sure that when they set retirement ages at 60 for women and 65 for men, it was because the majority of married couples were in a situation where the husband was five years older than the wife, and it was felt they should retire at the same time, and get their pension at the same time...which is also why there is a different amount for single pensioners compared with married couples.
  • Ken, you can retire when you want if you've got the cash to do so. So the thing that you're suggesting is in place now. Basically with the amount of time that people are living and the cost of looking after the elderly, the amount that the state can pay for them is limited. I think in future if anyone is relying purely on state money it's going to be pretty bleak. Horrible reality, but not sure what else can be done. Previous generations didn't put enough money in the pot and took too much out, really. It all makes you wonder what the point is though. Graft until 70 firing most of your earnings into the tax pool and then, if you're lucky you get a few years being frail on a pittance.
  • Yes Mortimerican, you are free to retire at 21 if you can afford it..... but and it is a big BUT, the state will not let you retire until you are 65, now to be 66, which is why I posted that I expected to retire at 50!

    Like any prudent, or even half sensible person, to rely on the state in old age has been for a number of years unrealistic!. This has really been an issue for well over 20 years, in fact I remember an article that i illustrated in the investors chronicle ( part of the FT) in the late 70's predicting this. The fact is no political party has had the guts to own up to this simple economic fact.

    As you state, it is a pittance!. What is even more dreadful is the situation that older generations going into a home, have to sell there house to finance this. Not that it was in any political party manefesto!......

    People like me will alway's get by, that is not the issue, I was hoping to retire and do voluntary work, which hopefully someone might benefit from.

    As I posted in the early 70s and possibly before that companies had compulsory pension schemes you could NOT opt out, it was a condition of service. Both the BBC, and IPC ( the largest UK pblishing group at the time) made this a condition of employment. This later changed when challenged in court! ( that is why you can now opt out).

    You could with a certain 'discretion' retire at say mid fifties on health grounds. You still are in thoery, but in reality few companies will not allow this unless it is a terminal illness, or you cannot do 'any work', whatever that means. Lord Turner the last person to look at the retirement age a few years ago, dismissed the idea of raising the retirement age, in fairness soon after he seemed to change his mind!

    From the craddle to the grave was the proud boast of the welfare state!, it seems the only final resting place of certainty these days is this policy/ commitment!. ( seen the cost of a burial lately)

    The claim that we should all share in the pain, is a noteable and fair point of argument. But are the Banks really sharing in this pain!. A 2 billion possible tax as the chairman of the finance select commitee called this morning' loose change' does not to me, pay the wreckless, gambling that these self regulated organisations have put us all in, hardly a level playing field is it!.

    There used to be a phrase...... that you did not win anything if you did not buy a ticket, now it appears you have to pay for the gambler who did and lost!
  • THis move to retiring at 66 in 2016 and probably 67 by 2022 is effecting those people in there early mid fifties worse. Most people can not afford to rely on their personal or company pension only, so having to wait longer for the state pension to kick in is a blow, for example if a was retiring to day then my company pension would give me £11000 to£12000 per year so the state pension would be an important part of my over all income. Being made to wait for it sfter being force to retire from workat 65 would be very difficult foe many people.
    So now will have to look to work until we drop, but of course employers are not interested in employing people ove 50 0or 55 let alone 65 so for most old people it will down to the supermarket to see if they can get a job collecting trolleys.
  • Should be higher, as long as the public sector get's anywhere near that. Mind you the amount of people on sick leave in the public sector racking up pension contributions for dealing with 'stress' is another joke. Teachers and police et al, need to stop early retirement for them. No matter what they believe their job is and how stressful it is they remain in the same marketplace as us, but expect a standard of employment that is all too easily abused. Shame that a large minority of lazy buggers ruined it but that's the way it is.

    And whilst those that work will looking at late 60's retirement, the welfare state can't be supporting absolute lazy arsed scum sitting around on retirement for most of their adult life. Basic housing and basic healthcare is all they deserve.
  • Yes somerton, agree with most of this, the issue is that the DOWP have directed companies not to pay /allow people to 'retire early' even if they wish to at a reduced, often harsh penalty.

    Certainly been the case with myself, and I do not think my pension provider is any worse! or being particularly awkward. As I stated back in the 60s/70s and before these pensions were compulsory, so my money has been tied up for 29 years so far, and I still have to wait another 6 years!. Seems one hell of a sentance to me!. Looks like they are gonna give me some more by the looks of it!.

    What is so devisive is that the 50s plus have had really no time to make arrangements, or as I stated could opt out. A panic measure, like most that is not properly thought out, like most panic measures!. I wish my pension was anywhere like yours!. Good luck to you.

    Of course there is the 'disability card' i.e. bad back, stress, depressed, route....... but why should you have to do that!. What others do is up to them, that is not for me, which makes me sound pious, proud, and superior!
    Which I probably am. Get them trolley's ready!........
  • [cite]Posted By: ColinTat[/cite]Should be higher, as long as the public sector get's anywhere near that. Mind you the amount of people on sick leave in the public sector racking up pension contributions for dealing with 'stress' is another joke. Teachers and police et al, need to stop early retirement for them. No matter what they believe their job is and how stressful it is they remain in the same marketplace as us, but expect a standard of employment that is all too easily abused. Shame that a large minority of lazy buggers ruined it but that's the way it is.

    And whilst those that work will looking at late 60's retirement, the welfare state can't be supporting absolute lazy arsed scum sitting around on retirement for most of their adult life. Basic housing and basic healthcare is all they deserve.

    utter tosh
  • If we got out of the EU we would solve a lot of our financial problems but I'm probably not allowed to suggest that as we cross over into politics!

    Quote ColinTat......."And whilst those that work will looking at late 60's retirement, the welfare state can't be supporting absolute lazy arsed scum sitting around on retirement for most of their adult life. Basic housing and basic healthcare is all they deserve. ".......

    Those of us that work have paid taxes and National Insurance for many, many years (35 and counting in my case) and, through no fault of our own, are paying for the excesses of bloated government bureaucracy, the climate change scam etc, etc.

    We hardly merit the description "lazy arsed scum" thank you very much for wishing to spend a little time at the end of our lives doing what wE want rather than being forced to continue as cogs in an unappreciative wheel.
  • Ken - I'm surprised you can't take your work pensions now (if you can't), as usually if you have already reached age 50, you can take them at 50 or after (obviously at a much reduced rate).

    If you were not age 50 by 6/4/2010, you will have to wait until you're 55
  • Sponsored links:


  • I tried to make this an issue before the election it was tucked away inj the tories manifesto. I wrote to every paper, forum, polictal party , contacted Tv & radio and was totally ignored. I too am going to have to work till I''m 66 in 2017. The male members in my family have a life expectancy of 67. There is no male member of my fathers family who have lived to 70. So I'll be working till I drop.
  • [cite]Posted By: ken from bexley[/cite]Yes Mortimerican, you are free to retire at 21 if you can afford it..... but and it is a big BUT, the state will not let you retire until you are 65, now to be 66, which is why I posted that I expected to retire at 50!

    Like any prudent, or even half sensible person, to rely on the state in old age has been for a number of years unrealistic!. This has really been an issue for well over 20 years, in fact I remember an article that i illustrated in the investors chronicle ( part of the FT) in the late 70's predicting this. The fact is no political party has had the guts to own up to this simple economic fact.

    As you state, it is a pittance!. What is even more dreadful is the situation that older generations going into a home, have to sell there house to finance this. Not that it was in any political party manefesto!......

    People like me will alway's get by, that is not the issue, I was hoping to retire and do voluntary work, which hopefully someone might benefit from.

    Sorry Ken, I don't understand. I think we're agreed that you can retire when you like, if you've got the cash (or have made provisions for yourself) and that the state pension is barely worth having. So how is the government not allowing you to retire? You can simply stop work. You don't get the pittance until you're 66 or whatever, but that shouldn't matter. Genuine point I just don't understand.

    People - normal people - wanted the company schemes to be non-compulsory so they could have more readies. We are all free to max out on our pension and save on tax, but many wanted to blow the cash and wait for the pension - which if you're sensible you know you shouldn't be relying on. That's not the fault of the governments or the Banks, it's the fault of people. It's also the fault - as I said before - of past generations putting in very little (financially I might add) and taking out a lot. We were always going to have to pay for that. If the whole banking SNAFU hadn't happened (and a lot of that was also caused by normal salt of the earth men in the street not paying what they owed), we'd still have this whole retirement timebomb, I think. It's not like Lloyds and RBS just pay back the loan and Cameron's going to say right great news you can all knock of at 45 and live the life of Riley (which has basically been the Greek model).
  • [cite]Posted By: ColinTat[/cite]Should be higher, as long as the public sector get's anywhere near that. Mind you the amount of people on sick leave in the public sector racking up pension contributions for dealing with 'stress' is another joke. Teachers and police et al, need to stop early retirement for them. No matter what they believe their job is and how stressful it is they remain in the same marketplace as us, but expect a standard of employment that is all too easily abused. Shame that a large minority of lazy buggers ruined it but that's the way it is.

    And whilst those that work will looking at late 60's retirement, the welfare state can't be supporting absolute lazy arsed scum sitting around on retirement for most of their adult life. Basic housing and basic healthcare is all they deserve.
    I agree with the sentiments to be honest. If you went off with stress you'd not be paid. The reality of the situation is that people don't want to pay more tax for luxuriant pensions, so you have the option to pay into your own funds. If you don't do that then it's not going to be great in the future. Not everyone in that board are lazy, but the reality is that the future's not going to be a series of cruises.
  • Mortimerican Wrote

    "People - normal people - wanted the company schemes to be non-compulsory so they could have more readies. We are all free to max out on our pension and save on tax, but many wanted to blow the cash and wait for the pension - which if you're sensible you know you shouldn't be relying on. That's not the fault of the governments or the Banks, it's the fault of people. It's also the fault - as I said before - of past generations putting in very little (financially I might add) and taking out a lot. We were always going to have to pay for that. If the whole banking SNAFU hadn't happened (and a lot of that was also caused by normal salt of the earth men in the street not paying what they owed), we'd still have this whole retirement timebomb, I think. It's not like Lloyds and RBS just pay back the loan and Cameron's going to say right great news you can all knock of at 45 and live the life of Riley (which has basically been the Greek model). "

    I am self employed I've paid into my private pension for over 25 years Gordon brown robbed the fund with his tax grab. I would have more money if I'd put in a bag under the bed. When it matures I'll be lucky to get £40 per week. Also despite having paid over 10k a year tax & NI for the last 10 years if I get ill I'm entilted to nothing. People wonder why I'm Miffed. God I wished I'd had the life of Riley
  • National strike in France over this today.
  • Sorry Ken, I don't understand. I think we're agreed that you can retire when you like, if you've got the cash (or have made provisions for yourself) and that the state pension is barely worth having. So how is the government not allowing you to retire? You can simply stop work. You don't get the pittance until you're 66 or whatever, but that shouldn't matter. Genuine point I just don't understand......

    I am 58, applied for early retirement as I knew my job at the bbc was coming to an end (Made compulsory redundant) internal re-orginisation. As I stated I applied for my main pension, frozen in a compulsory scheme (ex IPC) and was told twice I could retire, but not have the pension till 65, now 66, the retirement age as defined by the DOWP. Two exceptions 1 terminally ill, or if I was 'unable to do any job '. When I asked for a definition, they claimed it was a case by case basis, but as I had walked in from the street, as I had...... I probably would not qualify!. So free to retire, but no private pension!. I could not transfer the pension as I was under redundancy. Essentially, trustees have tightened up on this due to the shortfall in most schemes I was advised. Yes I can appeal, and who knows I may do that!. It even say's in the original policy you can normally retire after 50 if you wish, with the consent of the trustees...... Trouble is the trustees in large make there own rules, which the Pensions advisory service probably unless on a point of law will uphold!. Still we may well see!

    DPFC: Sorry to hear your position ,good luck mate!
  • I feel worn out having spent nearly 40 years chasing the dollar.


    Time to find myself a rich widow, me thinks!
  • I'm seriously hoping that by the time I get into my 60's (another 20 years or so) we will be able to chose our time of departure as it were. Not for everyone of course but the thought of scraping by on some sort of subsistance living frightens the life out of me. Let me retire when I chose to and give me my 'pot' to do with as I like then when that's gone...we'll so am I.
  • My Father tried to sell his business and pack in aged 65. For various reasons he didn't and eventually he died aged 80 still running his business. Right up to the last few weeks he enjoyed it.

    My take is that there should be a minimum retirement age 65 seems high enough but that if people want to carry on, they shouldn't be forced out and the pension system should cater for this. If I were a coal miner, and somebody said to me you need to work another year or more, I would be very unhappy. On the other hand some less physically demanding jobs and the sense of purpose they bring helps to keep people young and less dependant. The key though is ensuring that unemployment is low and that jobs are available and the start or and the end of a persons working like.
  • Various circumstances lead to me being effectively unemployed at the moment - I have been attending interviews and got very close on two occasions - although it is supposed to be illegal, I feel my failure to get those jobs was down to my age... but how do you prove that and what's the point? It's all very well the government raising the retirement age, but for a lot of people all that does is increase the period at the end of their lives when they can't get a job other than chasing supermarket trolleys for minimum wage.

    Throughout my working life I have been very lucky to have a job which I enjoyed doing. However, I think the office environment has changed in recent years to one where bullying is rife - I am not sure I want to work in that environment and it's another thing that is supposed to be illegal.

    I am trying to help myself, by setting up my own business, but it's slow going, which is no surprise, given the general economic situation.

    I've spent my whole working life worrying about whether or not I would have a job in 6 months/a year/18 months and I was rather hopng that coming towards the end of my working life I wouild not have so many worries, yet it's looking increasingly like I will go to my grave worrying about whether or not I will have enough money to see me through the next 6 months/a year/18 months. Although my father never earned anything like the money I have done, either he hid it well, or he didn't have those kind of worries - he spent 25 years in his first job and only had 2 or 3 jobs after that. He then had a comfortable, relaxed retirement - playing golf, taking good holidays and central heating in the winter.

    Actually, I feel like I've been a mug - we're being told by out leaders (the government) that we've been living beyond our means - my mistake is that I didn't - I have used very little credit, apart from the mortgage, which has always been well within my means. So now I have to pay for other peoples' 110% mortgages and Mercs bought on credit!
  • Sponsored links:


  • Interesting and not dissimiliar feelings Saga......I have no issues with people wanting to carry on till whenever they feel comfortable to work, the downside is what happens in a society where you have high unemployment especially at graduate/youth level!. It also depends on the profession that you are in, with me being the media it is a young persons game, so you have to be realistic. There seems little point in trying to compete on the bottom line aspect, i.e. i will do it cheaper, as there will always be someone who will do it cheaper!.

    Companies need and should try and combine a range of skill mixs and experience. Having worked freelance I have worked for for a variety of companies, the day of a job for life or even a career for life is probably over for most of us. See this morning that the 'goverment want people to be able to move from council houses from one area to another'. there you go assuming all people are living in council houses up North on a life of benefits! if you are unemployed.....

    It is the people down south in there own houses, paying mortgages that are probably having the most difficulty guys!. Thankfully, this is beyond me now, but wishful thinking and panic measure policies to 'do something' need to be though out better than this, was it not the week before that the goverment were bleating that it was not worth people on benefits having to give up them up as it was similar to an 80 per cent tax level......

    In dealing with pensions you need a period of adjustment and introduction. By rushing in changes you will get inequality and unjust situations where people will not be able to plan there affairs!.

    The country may well be in the smelly stuff, but this situation was well known decades ago!. The current proposals seem a panic measure, not properly thought through.
  • I was a pensions director for Coca Cola for 4 years and met loads of people who understood this more than me then and still do the one thing that stuck in my mind forever was the comment from the head of AON saying that if we as no paid directors run the Coca Cola pension scheme in the same way as the labour government in charge of this countries state pension scheme we will all be put in jail.


    I dont see how this proposal is a panic measure, I am 35 now and i have been in my pension scheme since i was 18 anyone who has not honestly looked and listened to the news and state of our last 2 governments this one has not been in long enough to be judged so the tory and labour government of the past must have like me noticed that our elderly were very poorly recompensed financially and that the state pension gave your next to nothing.


    now i still do know very little on politics but i have always had my eyes and ears open to what is going on around me.

    The Average age of people is getting older not younger

    There are more people dependant on state pensions now due to them being ill informed or under prepared for the reality of finishing work

    The 30 to 40 somethings now are more prepared and there are more people with private pensons in that age group.


    If you chose not to make provisions for yourself then that was your choice the extra 100 pound a month that you take home now and throughout your working life in comparison to those that chose to save it in a pension fund means that you have enjoyed your pension throughout your working life.

    If i wish to retire at 55 like i currently do then i will because i have saved for it. yes i will be penalised in my final amount for leaving at 55 but the pot i and my wife have accumaleted will be sufficent to have a decent standard of living, we have sacrificed alot to ensure that this happens not having holidays every year or new cars every few years.

    To me the decision is the right one the age needed to be increased and it has been done in the right way, we knew there was some tough financial decisons to be made by this government and this is just one of them
  • Did anyone under 40 seriously think there would be a set retirement age by they tme they got there? I am in the 30-40 age bracket and have watched the pension age slowly increase over my working life. I am not surprised by this latest increase. I am fully aware that by the time I am looking to retire the only way to get the state pension will be to be medically retired. This means if I am fit I wil be working a 90, if I am lucky enough to lose my marbles when my Gran did I will be able to live out my life dribble on a state pension at 70.

    Or I can spend my life scaping by to be able to pay for myself to enjoy some of my later years. Enjpoy your money now or enjoy it later. Frankly it is time some people learnt you can't spend all you have and expect someone else to pay for you later.

    I am not happy about this, but there are a great many "facts" in life which I am not happy about, but being unhappy wont change it. It just means I can plan for it.
  • the trouble is with mortgages etc not many people can afford to put money into a pension now.
  • I've always put into a pension scheme and about 5 years ago I was told I had one of the best pension portflio's my financial adviser had ever seen and that I need not make any more contributions if I didn't want to. I had a financial review in October last year and told my financial adviser I would prefer not to work again - his reaction was a stoney silence! How times have changed - my portfolio is worth a lot less now and will take years to recover, if it ever does. He advised me to get a job and put those thoughts out of my head. So, if you are 35 nth london and intend to retire at 55, good luck to you, but there are no guarantees in life.
  • I suspect I will be dead long before I ever get to claim a pension, which is probably just as well because having done the "right" thing and paid into a pension ever since I started work, it would probably only be worth the square route of f*ck all anyway (leaving aside my few years as a civil servant - that might buy me a ferrari the way things stand!).

    Might be better of going down Crayford Dogs with my "pot" and taking my chances there.
  • edited June 2010
    The sensible answer to me is to have a pension qualifying age rather than a set retirement age and the longer you work the higher your pension when you eventually do stop.

    For example retire at 65 and get (say) £100 a week, 66 £110, 67, £120, 68 £130, 69 £140, 70 £150. Indexed linked to wages.

    The figures are hypothetical (although probably not too far removed from reality) to illustrate the point.

    However that way those who can afford it or have simply had enough can retire earlier. Those who enjoy their work or want a bit more each week when they eventually stop can carry on.
  • I'm under no illusions, I'm pretty good with money (when I have any after being rinsed for mortgage, bills etc) and pay into a work pension and stash money away where I can. I don't intend grafting beyond 60 and expect there not to be a state pension as such when it comes to my time.

    I don't see how someone who has not paid into a tax pot for their entire life is entitled to the same as someone who has worked they're bollocks off for 40 plus years!

    Madness
  • [cite]Posted By: Saga Lout[/cite]I've always put into a pension scheme and about 5 years ago I was told I had one of the best pension portflio's my financial adviser had ever seen and that I need not make any more contributions if I didn't want to. I had a financial review in October last year and told my financial adviser I would prefer not to work again - his reaction was a stoney silence! How times have changed - my portfolio is worth a lot less now and will take years to recover, if it ever does. He advised me to get a job and put those thoughts out of my head. So, if you are 35 nth london and intend to retire at 55, good luck to you, but there are no guarantees in life.


    i agree saga whole heartedly if i can stay in work for then ext 20 years hopefully with coke then i will be sorted i have 17 years of final salary pension, they have changed it now so those 17 years are secured, then if i can see out the remaining 20 in the defined scheme then i will be secure the mortgage will be paid off at 50.


    Steve i agree on the mortgage side of things also but everyone has a lifetime to sort out pensions and the decision is live for today financially or plan for tomorrow i chose the latter and we only go away on holiday every 3 or 4 years because of that, the rest of the time we holiday in a tent over here
  • Do not disagree with Len re the varaible retirement age, always been in favour of that type of scheme, the earlier you retire the less you are able to take.....
    Trouble with the latest proposals North London are that they penalise people who cannot really do anything about it. At late 50s you have no chance, as I posted earlier mine is locked away till I am 66 now, a compulsory scheme from IPC, part of what was the largest UK publishing empire. It could have been worse, and I could have transfered my pension to the Maxwell group, so a close shave there!.......

    You are an exception being in a pension scheme since 18, and in a single job, a job probably that you would need to be at least a graduate for now a day's with a first class degree probably...... so with that you would have a nice student debt and a pension might not be the top of your list of choices. With a 10-20 percent mortgage down payment for a half decent rate, and other demands, even a well paid graduate might be a little squeezed these days! My lads are nearly 22 and not one of there freinds is in a pension scheme to my knowledge!.....too busy trying to scrap a mortgage deposit together.

    You are also in a final salary scheme, which is a rarity these day's so not such a straight choice as it once was. My ex company the BBC scrapped that 3 years ago.

    I agree that the pensions issue needs adressing but, as I say this is ill considered and will probably get challenged in court anyway......
Sign In or Register to comment.

Roland Out!