Jump to content
DOSBODS
  • Welcome to DOSBODS

     

    DOSBODS is free of any advertising.

    Ads are annoying, and - increasingly - advertising companies limit free speech online. DOSBODS Forums are completely free to use. Please create a free account to be able to access all the features of the DOSBODS community. It only takes 20 seconds!

     

Pension access age changes


Recommended Posts

10 minutes ago, MrXxxx said:

If you are considering accessing your pension early in the next few years you may want to read this FT article.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.ft.com/content/26b91aac-8c73-44cc-b8d7-1aae371ab951

Lying Cunts - smell the double speak:-

But there are fears scammers are preying on savers accessing pensions from age 55, and it's something the Work and Pensions Committee launched an inquiry into earlier this year.

There has also been widespread concern that people are spending their savings too quickly and will run out of money to live on.

In a written ministerial statement Mr Glen said: "In 2014 the government announced it would increase the minimum pension age to 57 from 2028, reflecting trends in longevity and encouraging individuals to remain in work, while also helping to ensure pension savings provide for later life.

So get the excuse in first, then lump everyone in the same boat, reinforce it with fecklessness and top it off with you are all living longer (lie) but don't mention all the extra tax they are after as you are being forced to be more prudent.

So how much Pension money have I lost to the Coronavirus scammers this year, so far 1 years worth of contributions, which is half the proposed age extension.

Funny old world.

Cunts.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/money/12573921/private-pension-age-rise/

Edited by Chewing Grass
working class link
Link to post
Share on other sites

I have just read this.

Sneaky sods.

Shit hole Britain. The issue is not even a front runner on the news.

And life spans increasing argument?

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/society/2019/jun/23/why-is-life-expectancy-falling

Thats why the BBC banned " that tune"  with the lyrics of we will never be slaves..might wake us up. Wouldn't want that now would we.

Edited by The Grey Man
Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Shamone said:

This has been general knowledge for years now, surely? No more “news” than state pension age being 67+

They propose it in 2014 but didn't follow it through with legislation, so it made many wonder (like most of their ideas) if it was actually going to happen...they are now going to make it law, so now its for sure...

...and as for the rest of you abve, you're a cynical bunch!...I thought Boris et al were paternalistic and just looking after my best interests...well, he`s (the whole bloody front bench) though he's my Dad the last six months the way he's been talking down to me...good job I'm an unruly `teenager` like Perry (below) and been completely ignoring him!

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Chewing Grass said:

Lying Cunts - smell the double speak:-

But there are fears scammers are preying on savers accessing pensions from age 55, and it's something the Work and Pensions Committee launched an inquiry into earlier this year.

There has also been widespread concern that people are spending their savings too quickly and will run out of money to live on.

In a written ministerial statement Mr Glen said: "In 2014 the government announced it would increase the minimum pension age to 57 from 2028, reflecting trends in longevity and encouraging individuals to remain in work, while also helping to ensure pension savings provide for later life.

So get the excuse in first, then lump everyone in the same boat, reinforce it with fecklessness and top it off with you are all living longer (lie) but don't mention all the extra tax they are after as you are being forced to be more prudent.

So how much Pension money have I lost to the Coronavirus scammers this year, so far 1 years worth of contributions, which is half the proposed age extension.

Funny old world.

Cunts.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/money/12573921/private-pension-age-rise/

The old people living longer lie.  Pension age should actually be dropping.  If we only had proper journalists to rip this excuse apart.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, montecristo said:

he old people living longer lie.  Pension age should actually be dropping.  If we only had proper journalists to rip this excuse apart

Well that depends on what they are reporting about, if its Coronavirus we don't have any old people anymore as they are all `Dropping like flies`

Link to post
Share on other sites

Mail take on it:

Quote

 

Anyone hoping for an early retirement has suffered a blow after ministers said they will press ahead with raising the minimum pension age from 55 to 57 in 2028.

It means those currently aged 47 and under will not be able to access any of the money they have saved into pensions for an extra two years.

 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8696309/Private-pension-age-rise-57-Hopes-early-retirement-dashed-ministers-plan-raise-minimum-age.html#comments

Top rated comment:

Quote

 

liveandletlive5, Scotland, United Kingdom, 8 hours ago

Why should the government dictate the terms of someone's private pension. It's not their cash.

 

 

The only person I know who recently retired early, at about 56 I think, took a big hit on their pensions for doing so.

However they were being very badly affected by work which was leaving them stressed and anxious and barely sleeping.  She'd done the job perfectly well for ages, it hadn't changed and she was good at it, but something had clicked in her head the last few years and she was now routinely waking up at 4am and logging in to start work and had become steadily more anxious about driving - same route, same time, never drove anywhere else.

It was making her ill and getting worse and everyone agreed with her decision.  She knew it was going to cost her substantial income but she had to do it.  And as the comments said: it was her money.

I don't see why the government has to make things worse for people.  Now if you're born 1973 or on then your retirement conditions are worse than anyone born before that.  Add on house prices / rental costs, state pension increases, and student loans and it begins to look like a near-impossible struggle for a 21 year old to look forward to owning a decent house and retiring before they're too old to enjoy retirement.

This is why you get the "boomer" taunt but those calling it now will be finding it thrown at them in a few years time as successive governments continue to conspire to make a comfortable middle class life a thing of the past and young workers simply beasts of burden for the old and the benefits spongers. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would also be concerned, in addition to the rise in the age of access, about the potential for increased rules over accessing private pensions, especially SIPPs even when old enough.  They may make you jump through hoops (e.g. use an Financial Advisor to confirm you meet new rules) to ensure you're not accessing too much too soon.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Harley said:

I would also be concerned, in addition to the rise in the age of access, about the potential for increased rules over accessing private pensions, especially SIPPs even when old enough.  They may make you jump through hoops (e.g. use an Financial Advisor to confirm you meet new rules) to ensure you're not accessing too much too soon.

Yes.

Already there is a low limit on what you can take from a SIPP each year unless you can demonstrate decent income from other pensions.

I can't quote the figures because I'm sure that they will have changed by the time that I come to do it.

The aim is reasonable - don't let people burn through their pension in a couple of years - but I also think it will come with paying an IFA £500 for ticking a box.

This has however already mucked up what I was intending to do: take the SIPP first and, whilst continuing to avoid tax, empty it into the ISA at £20k a year and some PMs until it's gone; then empty the DCs into it and repeat, and only then take the DB pensions because I can see that course of action would now breach the rules.

That said and with all the mucking about I think the higher rate relief on contributions and the usually generous company contributions still make them worth doing.  Cut the higher rate relief and for most people the tax they save on contributing will be paid back to the government when they draw. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Frank Hovis said:

Yes.

Already there is a low limit on what you can take from a SIPP each year unless you can demonstrate decent income from other pensions.

I can't quote the figures because I'm sure that they will have changed by the time that I come to do it.

The aim is reasonable - don't let people burn through their pension in a couple of years - but I also think it will come with paying an IFA £500 for ticking a box.

This has however already mucked up what I was intending to do: take the SIPP first and, whilst continuing to avoid tax, empty it into the ISA at £20k a year and some PMs until it's gone; then empty the DCs into it and repeat, and only then take the DB pensions because I can see that course of action would now breach the rules.

That said and with all the mucking about I think the higher rate relief on contributions and the usually generous company contributions still make them worth doing.  Cut the higher rate relief and for most people the tax they save on contributing will be paid back to the government when they draw. 

I know someone who has just taken the tax free 25% from a SIPP as soon as they could as a precaution as they were worried about this changing and/or the access age or restrictions changing.  Just the 25% so they can still contribute up to the max £40k pa (not so if they take drawdown), subject to the recycling rules and employment status.  The funds are used for investments in ISAs, etc.  Also gives chance to utilise the annual CGT allowance outside of an ISA (using accumulation rather than distribution funds), assuming this doesn't change in the Budget.  Also a chance the higher rate pension tax relief will go this Budget so that reduces the attractiveness of pensions over say an ISA (except the higher degree of ring fencing).  I've heard about restrictions on the amount you can drawdown you mention but I thought these rules had been dispensed with.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Harley said:

I know someone who has just taken the tax free 25% from a SIPP as soon as they could as a precaution as they were worried about this changing and/or the access age or restrictions changing.  Just the 25% so they can still contribute up to the max £40k pa (not so if they take drawdown), subject to the recycling rules and employment status.  The funds are used for investments in ISAs, etc.  Also gives chance to utilise the annual CGT allowance outside of an ISA (using accumulation rather than distribution funds), assuming this doesn't change in the Budget.  Also a chance the higher rate pension tax relief will go this Budget so that reduces the attractiveness of pensions over say an ISA (except the higher degree of ring fencing).  I've heard about restrictions on the amount you can drawdown you mention but I thought these rules had been dispensed with.

It was something like having a demonstrable income from other sources of £20k in order to allow a greater than 5% take of the SIPP each year.

I don't think that those are the figures but it was of that order.  I won't bother looking it up because it will have changed by the time I come to do it.

I'm still unclear on my "pension event".  As I don't plan on simultaneous pension taking I wondered if it applied to each pension or whether you had to take them all in one go.  And if I don't understand it with my finance interests then not many will!

Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Frank Hovis said:

It was something like having a demonstrable income from other sources of £20k in order to allow a greater than 5% take of the SIPP each year.

I don't think that those are the figures but it was of that order.  I won't bother looking it up because it will have changed by the time I come to do it.

I'm still unclear on my "pension event".  As I don't plan on simultaneous pension taking I wondered if it applied to each pension or whether you had to take them all in one go.  And if I don't understand it with my finance interests then not many will!

For me it's rapidly becoming a risk having a pension, save for the degree of legal protection it offers and it's exclusion from some benefit claculations.  OK while I was a wage slave for the employer contributions but even then the company pension provider was a rip off merchant (it seemed the pension only ever went up by my contributions!).  Take away the top tax relief (which has already been reduced with the LTA and tapering) and to me it should defo only be a part of a balanced portfolio of funds.  It does carry some regulatory risk, more so over the next few years.  People forget about CGT allowances (although may change in the Budget) which provide opportunities with accumulation funds, etc.  Then there's the VCTs, etc you've been into.  So not just ISAs. 

Just to add, I found the 1:1 free advice session (over the phone) with a FA via the Pension Wise service excellent.  For those in a DC scheme and over 50.  It really was totally excellent, and I thought I was up to speed!

Edited by Harley
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Harley said:

Just to add, I found the 1:1 free advice session (over the phone) with a FA via the Pension Wise service excellent.  For those in a DC scheme and over 50.  It really was totally excellent, and I thought I was up to speed!

Thanks for the steer; I don't intend doing anything for a few years but when I do I'll be calling them.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Frank Hovis said:

It was something like having a demonstrable income from other sources of £20k in order to allow a greater than 5% take of the SIPP each year.

Per Which the income limit was for capped drawdown but does not seem to apply to the flexi-access drawdown which replaced it in 2015.  I thought the FA mentioned that to me in my call with him so I checked a bit.  One of the many surprises which made the call so good.  Of course, with all the current noise, they may well re-introduce it although I was told one of the reasons for the 2015 relaxations was to get people spending more (economic growth don't ya know)! 

Edited by Harley
Link to post
Share on other sites

"Nobody got rich by wasting money"!

My strategy is to take out from my pension what I need now 25% tax free to invest in things which will reduce future living costs and then aim to take out only a little per month.  So far the potential list is oil stocks to hedge my heating oil bill, solar PV array, allotment, equipment, borehole, woodland (planted), and a second hand basic electric car.  These investments will hopefully directly reduce future living costs over my remaining lifetime with less risk and tax issues, etc than with just financial investments.  I certainly have no intention of using any pension money for holidays and the like.  I got all that out of my system at a much younger (and fitter) age!  I need a list first as that up-to-25%-tax-free-sum is a one off so I don't want to take too much or too little (like I have a lot to start with!).  Any other ideas of such productive ways of investing that (up to) 25%?       

Edited by Harley
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, 201p said:

This is an interesting change. We have to ask why?

I made a comment on the thread on the main forum

 

 

To take this section of your post.

Quote

 

I also think the changes are to do with the stock market. We know they support the housing market - they also support the stock market. 

The FTSE, where most of our pension is invested in hasn't done anything for the last 10 years, whilst the US markets have been roaring away.

We just don't invest in the stock market like our American cousins. The worrying thing is that our markets are actually now turning down when they should be going up and mirroring the US, which they have always done historically.

 

 

Firstly those are the simple index values.  The yields have been great and with income reinvested those graphs would look a lot better.

Secondly the UK stock market listings are mostly traditional companies.  The growth in the US market has been from a handful of very fast growing tech companies - Amazon, Apple, Facebook - which are either in a bubble or just going to keep rising because they are the future depending upon your viewpoint.

The fall back in the UK stock market was appropriate because earnings generally will be impacted by the covidiocy driven recession.

I take the long view that the best returns are from the biggest companies from developed economies; yes that's projecting forward from past data but I don't see why it would cease to be a good strategy now.  I hold through tracker indexes which have tiny fees so I'm already doing 1 - 1.5% better than the stock picker funds.

The below is to me an absolutely killer graph for anyone who is investing for the long term.  It's particularly good because it's adjusted for inflation.

 

Note that in order to even fit the Large Stocks line on the graph has had to be made logarithmic.

 

Reading it off by eye $1 invested in each category in 1925 is worth the following in real terms 90 years later in 2015:

Cash:  8 cents

Treasury Bills: $2

Gold: $8

Long Treasury Bonds: $10

Large Stocks: $800

 

There really is no issue here IMO.  If you want to make money in gold, for instance, you have to be in and out of it rather than simply holding it.

 

Large stocks however: just sit back and watch them power away.

 

49709965-15364433570054197_origin.jpg

https://seekingalpha.com/article/4205268-inflation-arrived-how-to-profit?source=cnbc

Link to post
Share on other sites

^These are valid points. 

I think however, the people that run the show and pull the strings are only looking at the basic indices. The timing of the changes seems to be reactionary.

We also have the other thread about banking, and how sick it is. Banking and the economy needs to function like the human body, the sum of all the parts. The heart, the brain, the liver the kidneys etc.

I don't work in banking but I guess for it to be healthy it needs the economy to be healthy, and not just reliant on house prices. It needs savings, and healthy inflows into the stock market, as banking isn't just about the retail side but also the investment side.

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, 201p said:

^These are valid points. 

I think however, the people that run the show and pull the strings are only looking at the basic indices. The timing of the changes seems to be reactionary.

We also have the other thread about banking, and how sick it is. Banking and the economy needs to function like the human body, the sum of all the parts. The heart, the brain, the liver the kidneys etc.

I don't work in banking but I guess for it to be healthy it needs the economy to be healthy, and not just reliant on house prices. It needs savings, and healthy inflows into the stock market, as banking isn't just about the retail side but also the investment side.

Governments and central banks seem to have forgotten that for capitalism to work, it must enable and encourage the healthy formation of capital - ie. savings (individual and corporate), which can then be invested. Instead, they've discouraged it and encouraged high debt (especially for housing but pretty much for all consumption) enabled by printed, rather than formed, capital. To use a technical term, it's properly fucked. 

Edited by The Idiocrat
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, The Idiocrat said:

Governments and central banks seem to have forgotten that for capitalism to work, it must enable and encourage the healthy formation of capital - ie. savings (individual and corporate), which can then be invested. Instead, they've discouraged it and encouraged high debt (especially for housing but pretty much for all consumption) enabled by printed, rather than formed, capital. To use a technical term, it's properly fucked. 

They haven't forgotten, they abandoned capitalism ages ago.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, The Idiocrat said:

Governments and central banks seem to have forgotten that for capitalism to work, it must enable and encourage the healthy formation of capital - ie. savings (individual and corporate), which can then be invested. Instead, they've discouraged it and encouraged high debt (especially for housing but pretty much for all consumption) enabled by printed, rather than formed, capital. To use a technical term, it's properly fucked. 

For me the goal looks to be a gradual extension of control over people's lives so that the state sets:

  • for how long people work (load them up with debts so that they cannot stop work before SPA)
  • and for how much (the initial aim of the above-inflation rise of the minimum / living wage's initial aim is to cover 20% of jobs).

With this achieved you have a working population the tax revenue from whom is both predictable and controllable.

The idea of free markets, personal initiative and entrepreneurship looks to belong in the past as governments simply look to what will keep their donors, major corporations, happy. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Frank Hovis said:

For me the goal looks to be a gradual extension of control over people's lives so that the state sets:

  • for how long people work (load them up with debts so that they cannot stop work before SPA)
  • and for how much (the initial aim of the above-inflation rise of the minimum / living wage's initial aim is to cover 20% of jobs).

With this achieved you have a working population the tax revenue from whom is both predictable and controllable.

The idea of free markets, personal initiative and entrepreneurship looks to belong in the past as governments simply look to what will keep their donors, major corporations, and twitter, happy. 

A slight EFA but you're absolutely right. Debt slavery is policy, although I don't think politicians are clever enough to have consciously planned it - they have lazily/stupidly gone to bankers/BoE and asked "What is best for the economy that will keep me in power?" and gotten the results you describe.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...