Pension age worries

[tspill]

Originally Posted by FamilyGWales

Agree wholeheartedly. Unfortunately quite a few pensions are tied to the state pension age, so even if you plan on your current pension being say 67, if the state pension changes so does my other one.

See more...

But pensions are only one vehicle to save. People need t be saving for their own futures using other options - savings and investments and using tax efficient wrappers like ISAs and Pensions.

[tspill]

Originally Posted by fizzypop

But if we are all in work until we are 75, where are the jobs for the young ones to start building up their pension pots?

See more...

There are loads of jobs where young people can start. But most dont want to do these jobs.

[tspill]

Originally Posted by Tinkerbell 1

Exactly this, retirement is now more like 30 years instead of 10 and the numbers just don’t stack up.

People really need to focus on their private provision, I’m in my early forties and I have no expectation of a state pension, anything I get will be a bonus.

I should probably grab my tin hat right now but I don’t think anyone on this site can moan about having to work in to their 70s if they’ve prioritised Florida holidays over their pension provision.

See more...

Exactly!
People need to take responsibility for their own choices.
£1000 per month into a holiday or into financial provision. That £1000 is actually £1250 if a tax payer puts it into a pension. Free money.
Can I share your tin hat?

[tspill]

Originally Posted by dubletrub

The problem is not everybody is educated and lots of people work in minimum wage jobs and just manage to live. They can't afford to pay lots extra into pension pots that will allow them to retire early.

See more...

But they still have their expensive iPhones which they replace exam 18 months. Still enjoy nice clothes. Enjoy £3.50 coffees. etc. etc.
I am not saying this is everyone, but it is a big %age.
It is a state of attitude as much as a money thing. Spend now or save for the future and working out the balance

[tspill]

Originally Posted by FamilyGWales

A number of public service pensions which were subject to the reforms in 2015 have the new pension age tied to the age of the state pension. I don't know if the NHS one is part of that. I would have thought so possibly.

See more...

But the pre-reform retirement ages were grandfathered in (at least the Teachers PS anyway).
The tie to the new pension age is only for the post reform part.

[dubletrub]

Originally Posted by tspill

Exactly!
People need to take responsibility for their own choices.
£1000 per month into a holiday or into financial provision. That £1000 is actually £1250 if a tax payer puts it into a pension. Free money.
Can I share your tin hat?

See more...

You see this is where we totally differ, £1000 a month into a holiday ! Savings ! Most people I know are living off just over that a month after taxes. They don't have designer clothes or top of the range phones.
I live in one of the most deprived areas in England so maybe see a totally different way of life to most dibbers.
Working class people on minimum wage or even the slightly higher living wage will never have that sort of disposable income and these are the people that will be working into their old age.

[Loftus]

Originally Posted by dubletrub

You see this is where we totally differ, £1000 a month into a holiday ! Savings ! Most people I know are living off just over that a month after taxes. They don't have designer clothes or top of the range phones.
I live in one of the most deprived areas in England so maybe see a totally different way of life to most dibbers.
Working class people on minimum wage or even the slightly higher living wage will never have that sort of disposable income and these are the people that will be working into their old age.

See more...

The demographic of the Dibb is skewed in a particular direction (not everyone obviously but definitely a large percentage) and I think there is a tendency to forget that not everyone is as fortunate.

[DreamDisney]

State pension was never designed to provide for as long as it currently does. See below from the ONS site:

In 1908 when the State Pension was first introduced for those aged 70 and over, a woman of this age was expected to live on average an additional 9.3 years, and a man 8.4 years (1901), meaning pensions needed to last around 9 years. However, compare this to the latest figures and we see how pensions need to last longer. The current state pension age for men is 65 and for women it will reach 65 by November 2018. In 2011 men and women at this age were expected to live for approximately 20 more years, meaning we need to make our pensions last more than twice as long as when they were first introduced.

A little out of date, but you get the gist. It's also important to note that whilst the average life expectancies in 1908, for a 70 year old, were approx. 9 years, the life expectancy at birth was far lower and most people were not expected to even reach the state retirement age.

Now, we not only have far more people attaining state pension age, they are also living far longer than was originally accounted for. So, sadly, it is just not sustainable as successive governments have failed to address the issue for decades now.

My personal take is that the intention is not to do away with it entirely, but rather to increase the age to such a point that it mirrors the original intention. ie, most people won't reach that age, and those that do will only have a life expectancy of circa 9 years. They have to do this gradually, as otherwise people will be woefully unprepared financially and will end up claiming additional benefits etc anyway.

It's also why they've coupled it with auto enrolment and minimum mandatory contributions from both employer and employee. I don't think they really want everyone working until such a late age (as rightly pointed out, it causes problems elsewhere), but rather they want people to have sufficient personal pension provision that they can afford to retire on their personal pensions alone somewhere between 60 and 65 anyway.

At least, that is my view.

[tspill]

Originally Posted by dubletrub

You see this is where we totally differ, £1000 a month into a holiday ! Savings ! Most people I know are living off just over that a month after taxes. They don't have designer clothes or top of the range phones.
I live in one of the most deprived areas in England so maybe see a totally different way of life to most dibbers.
Working class people on minimum wage or even the slightly higher living wage will never have that sort of disposable income and these are the people that will be working into their old age.

See more...

I guess my number was chosen based on this being a Florida holiday forum where a holiday can cost £10k+ for a family of four. So I was just using that as a comparison number that was a relevant to that demographic.

[Nimbus]

Originally Posted by tspill

Exactly!
People need to take responsibility for their own choices.
£1000 per month into a holiday or into financial provision. That £1000 is actually £1250 if a tax payer puts it into a pension. Free money.
Can I share your tin hat?

See more...

Blimey, £1000 per month into a holiday? I'm clearly in the wrong job!

More like about a quarter of that, if I'm lucky.

Unfortunately £250 a month into a pension won't get me much of a pension at 67. Which is why I'm putting more than that into the pension in addition to saving a little for a Florida holiday every few years. It may not seem like it, but most of us don't actually go to Florida every year.