retirement age

[ladymuck]

Maybe eligibility should be on xx years of contributions. So the manual worker starting work at 16 would get a state pension sooner than the graduate starting work at 22.

At first glance that makes sense. However, there are loads of healthy people who started work young, haven't done hard manual work and don't need to start claiming so early. If they did, the country would go bankrupt even quicker.

For example, I'm not a graduate and started contributions in 1991/92. I achieved fully paid up status in my mid-40's. My £241.30 weekly bounty will start paying out in 2043.

[sadkingbilly]

I'm inclined to agree. The UK is at 67 (or will be) and there's plans to increase it further. With people routinely living longer, the cost of the state pension keeps increasing because all those shirkers on welfare receive more than they contribute. At some point, the government will run out of ways to tax the few remaining people still working and the whole ponzi scheme will fall apart.

really? i'm disappointed.
right out of fuhrer farage's songbook.

[ladymuck]

really? i'm disappointed.
right out of fuhrer farage's songbook.

It was intended to be tongue in cheek

[Smartie]

There's retirement age, and state pension age.

I think that in principle we should be looking to reduce state pension age since 'healthy years' numbers are falling. The funding for this remains a challenge to be resolved.

It's clear that many will need to retire before 67 (or later) - heavy manual work, deprived low life expectancy areas etc.
As it's possible to defer the state pension to any age above 67 to get higher payments (5.8% per year delay), then logically it should be possible to take the pension early but at a reduced rate.
There's a risk here that those wholly reliant on the state pension, could take it early and get it topped up by pension credit welfare payments, so that would need to be addressed.
Probably also an issue with planned pension payments increasing faster than expected causing budget issues for the Chancellor.

Pension age will have to go up though, and likely faster than currently planned.
The triple lock needs to go and be replaced by a payment fixed at a percentage of average wage e.g. 35%.

No political party seems to be able to make sensible long term plans though and in large part, I blame the voters for that who always want their cake today.

[Protagoras]

There's a risk here that those wholly reliant on the state pension, could take it early and get it topped up by pension credit welfare payments, so that would need to be addressed.
Probably also an issue with planned pension payments increasing faster than expected causing budget issues for the Chancellor.

Pension age will have to go up though, and likely faster than currently planned.
The triple lock needs to go and be replaced by a payment fixed at a percentage of average wage e.g. 35%.

No political party seems to be able to make sensible long term plans though and in large part, I blame the voters for that who always want their cake today.

The 'credit' system should be unnecessary. The notion that state pension isn't enough, so that people need a top-up is to me bonkers. It should be paid at a level that doesn't need topping up. And it should not be subject to income tax for those for whom it's the only income.
For those who have other good pension provision, additional income tax will deal with the 'excess'. I see in-employment tax credits also as a wage distortion.

We seem to have too many people for the available work, and too many older people who need to be funded from those working. With youth unemployment high, keeping older workers from retirement kicks the can down the road.

Government needs to move state pension from a ponzie scheme to an investment based scheme. But meanwhile govt reduces the ability of younger people to save for pensions with measures such as reducing salary sacrifice level.

As an aside, something will need to be done about the disparity between public sector and private sector wage growth and pension entitlements. The current arrangements would appear to be unsustainable.

No political party seems to be able to make sensible long term plans though and in large part, I blame the voters for that who always want their cake today.

The necessary changes to sort out UK finances won't be vote winning and are in the too-difficult box. It's much easier just to pretend that it's the PM's fault ...

[milanbenes]

It is. 35 years is the max. Students don't get a credit unless they pay NI with some side job.

I don't plan on retiring until literally I can't work. I enjoy what I do. There's little stress. Maybe go to 50% once I'm 65 or so.

I am very much in a similar situation, money for old rope, and fun at the same time, it's a shame not to log on and be available and then send the invoice once a month

Milan.

[sadkingbilly]

It was intended to be tongue in cheek

ahhhh, my apologies. i shouldn't have such a hair trigger

[sadkingbilly]

I've retired 4 times now. every time i get bored 'cos i can no longer pursue my more physically demanding hobbies.
then consultancy co calls with wads of wonga on offer, and here i go again
like others, i enjoy the work, and it hopefully fends off mental deterioration.
The money comes in handy too.
I keep it part time to avoid paying higher rate to the govmint leeches.

[ladymuck]

ahhhh, my apologies. i shouldn't have such a hair trigger

We do have an array of smilies to help convey intent; I could have made better use of them

[Protagoras]

I keep it part time to avoid paying higher rate to the govmint leeches.

Everyone I know is managing income level to avoid higher rate tax; those in work are part-time or use salary sacrifice and those retired adjust drawdown income. I'm convinced that government could raise more tax by increasing the tax bands.

I'd put my income up by £5k and pay an additional £1k tax, but no way would I pay another £2k tax, so I'm just holding back on income and reducing savings (since need to keep interest income under £1k to avoid that being taxed!).