Share this page:
Stay connected:
Welcome to the Citywire Money Forums, where members share investment ideas and discuss everything to do with their money.

You'll need to log in or set up an account to start new discussions or reply to existing ones. See you inside!

Notification

Icon
Error
Taking my pension at 50
+ Reply to discussion
Options
Robert Colley
Posted: 09 February 2012 20:24:06(UTC)
#1

Joined: 09/02/2012(UTC)
Posts: 1
When i joined my pension scheme if i wished i could take the benefits at 50. As we all know this has been changed my those wise people in suits who know all, to 55. I wonder is this act an act "against my human rights". I don't see how it can be lawfull to change the rules, yes from say all people joining say "today" or contributions to a plan "today", not value from passed contributions. Very cross about the situation, you work most your life then your told you need to work some more, then you die "great".

And another point I would like comments on, what is the point of making people work longer while at the other end of the age scale there all out of work claiming benifits. the government has to pay out either way so why not leave the retirement as it was and give the jobs to the unemployed who are desperate for a job. i just don't see the logic.
Back to top Quote
PensionsManager
Posted: 09 February 2012 21:11:05(UTC)
#2

Joined: 20/08/2009(UTC)
Posts: 14

Was thanked: 3 time(s) in 2 post(s)
Unfortunately the Government has a lot of power I'm afraid. If you had a contractual right from your employer to take a pension from 50 without consent needed then you can keep age 50, otherwise you are stuffed.

Just to add insult to injury Mr 'Fred the Shred' Goodwin was just in time to get a super high pension at 50 before the rules changed.

If you can afford to fight it in the Courts through UK and Europe then you don't need the money. You could try a consumer group to see if they will sponsor a test case, but as has been shown recently, the Government seem able to increase State Pension Ages and change RPI to CPI for pension increases at a stroke.

It seems daft to let youngsters suffer in unemployment whilst those in their late 60s carry on working, but why should they be prevented from supplementing a small pension, or doing something they enjoy? We will all be old one day.

Things will get better.
Back to top Quote
1 user thanked PensionsManager for this post.
Jo Public on 19/02/2012(UTC)
malcolm roberts
Posted: 09 February 2012 23:01:02(UTC)
#3

Joined: 10/01/2012(UTC)
Posts: 17

Thanks: 2 times
Was thanked: 3 time(s) in 3 post(s)
The world is slowly over populating and everything boiles down to mathamatics, the more people thier are the more jobs that will be required, the more homes required, the more money required. the more the governments will need to sustain it all.

The world is on a financial slippery slope that it can not recover from. What would happen if all the investors took back thier funds and buried it?
It would be a financial catastrophe. Thier would be no pensions to be had.
The financial world relies on investments to survive.

All we can do is try and do the best we can and be grateful for what we have.

Nobody will ever beat the hierarchy, whoever or whatever it is.
Back to top Quote
banjofred
Posted: 10 February 2012 06:42:38(UTC)
#4

Joined: 14/03/2011(UTC)
Posts: 128

Thanks: 51 times
Was thanked: 28 time(s) in 19 post(s)
Actually these powers over us are held by a handful of small men.

We are in the millions, and the grey pound gets more powerful

We need one massive pressure group that says to these pirates who rob our funds - no more.

They need a shock

Labour has had its shock by being sacked. They wont learn any lessons as they are full of grey men and grey ugly women. They will work constantly to steal our funds by whatever method

The Con libs are in theory on our side, but in reality will take our money by whatevver means. A turd in a blue suit or a brown suit is still a turd

We need to vote them all out next time and vote for whoever will treat us as masters rather than servants.

In theory there are enough people to do this especially if everyone votes. Unfortunately the country is full of sheep - proles who dont care who runs the show.

Other countries are rising up against the thieving maniacs who ran their coutnries. One by one the dominoes are falling.

Eventually we will say no more.

Short term do we take our 25% tax free before they cut it. Thats my latest worry for the wall??

Dont waste your money putting it into pensions where the govt can steal it (as has happened even in the USA in the past - a stroke of the pen and they nick your life savings. Keep it accessable

if around 50 grab your 25% tax free and drawdown the rest.
Back to top Quote
1 user thanked banjofred for this post.
Cicero on 11/02/2012(UTC)
EA
Posted: 10 February 2012 09:18:58(UTC)
#5

Joined: 23/01/2012(UTC)
Posts: 39

Thanks: 8 times
Was thanked: 20 time(s) in 13 post(s)
Banjofred

I have posted this before but as an experienced SIPP / SSAS Administrator I would say there is only one reason the government would suddenly decide to rename 'Tax Free Cash' (TFC) to 'Pension Commencement Lump Sum' (PCLS) and that is because it will no longer be tax free at some point in the future.

I am a long way off retirement, but having said that if I had the option I wouldn’t think twice about fully crystallising my benefits and getting what I could out the pot!

The Government will surely be looking to claw back any tax breaks they can.
Back to top Quote
 |  Edit by user
2 users thanked EA for this post.
Cicero on 11/02/2012(UTC), banjofred on 13/02/2012(UTC)
dd
Posted: 10 February 2012 10:12:41(UTC)
#6

Joined: 15/09/2010(UTC)
Posts: 122

Thanks: 6 times
Was thanked: 3 time(s) in 3 post(s)
It's interesting to note under which government the name was changed. Was it not one of those pension "simplification" rules which applied from A day in April 2006?
Back to top Quote
PensionMan
Posted: 10 February 2012 12:50:12(UTC)
#7

Joined: 05/10/2006(UTC)
Posts: 32
EA

I have read your comments re PCLS before and you may be right.

But could an alternative reason be down to how the BCE triggers work now - if you take PCLS you have to commence (but not draw) pension?

You may be correct but I do hope you are wrong and getting people worried about the future benefits of saving in a pension is hardly an inspiring way to get folk to fund their retirement.
Back to top Quote
EA
Posted: 10 February 2012 15:44:53(UTC)
#8

Joined: 23/01/2012(UTC)
Posts: 39

Thanks: 8 times
Was thanked: 20 time(s) in 13 post(s)
PensionMan,

I really hope I am wrong and excuse me for coming across as all doom and gloom, there is enough of it about at the moment.

The main point is, as I've said in many Trustee meetings, you can only plan for the future based on today's legislation there really is no telling what will happen, but we can all err on the side of caution.

To answer a question above, yes it was brought in as part of the A Day 'Pensions Simplification' changes, so make of that what you wish.
Back to top Quote
 |  Edit by user
jeffian
Posted: 10 February 2012 22:50:36(UTC)
#9

Joined: 09/03/2011(UTC)
Posts: 20

Was thanked: 11 time(s) in 6 post(s)
Two points:

Firstly, if you had a contractual entitlement to a pension at 50, it can't be changed retrospectively. The employer/PF Trustee may agree different terms for new entrants, but I don't think you can re-write the rules for existing employees. You don't make it clear whether you are in private or public employment but, if the latter, even the Govt has made very generous provision for existing retirees whilst trying to rein in the cost of future pensions.

Secondly, though, "you work most your life then your told you need to work some more". Errrm, if you retire at 50, you DON'T work most of your life; you may have worked for 30/35 years and then expect a living income for potentially the next 50 years and therein lies the problem. In my Dad's day, it was not unusual for people to live only 3-4 years into 'retirement'; now +/- 30 years is the 'norm'. For public sector employees who retire on a %age of final salary, do they understand the capital sum required to buy such an income? Certainly well in excess of their contributions. Something had to give, I'm afraid.
Back to top Quote
3 users thanked jeffian for this post.
Sinic on 13/02/2012(UTC), Gill Pelosi on 14/02/2012(UTC), dd on 18/02/2012(UTC)
dd
Posted: 11 February 2012 12:00:11(UTC)
#10

Joined: 15/09/2010(UTC)
Posts: 122

Thanks: 6 times
Was thanked: 3 time(s) in 3 post(s)
For me, the best strategy/goal is to have a job I enjoy, so that I do not feel disatisfied about retiring only when I am incapable of working. I don't intend to burden an employer when old, as I own part of the very small business and have some control. My expectations have changed, now that my pension pot will only buy a minuscule proportion of the amount it would have bought 15 years ago, in terms of pension. Consequently it is difficult to sympathise with those who moan/strike about having to work for a year beyond their expectations or have some other change imposed which is relatively minor when compared with the changes which many, many people have had to accept.

The "but it's in my contract" argument is interesting. It seems that some believe that it should apply to nurses but not to Mr Hester, for example. There may be plenty of other good arguments but that one doesn't work, for me.
Back to top Quote
Dave Duffy
Posted: 12 February 2012 10:05:25(UTC)
#11

Joined: 14/05/2011(UTC)
Posts: 49

Thanks: 3 times
Was thanked: 5 time(s) in 5 post(s)
From what I recall reading about the change for earliest retirement age being increased from 50 to 55, I did not notice any points made about the chance to retire at 50 after the changes took place for those already in a pension scheme. I think the suits just decided to give some notice of when the change would take place and that was it.

Be aware though that in most, if not all these pension schemes that if you take an early pension paid immediately (not frozen till 60 or 65) then the pension scheme will deduct a percentage for each year that you retired early. I think these tend to range between 2% and 5% per year on FS schemes.

I don't see how the government were allowed to get away with this change rather than making savings from other less useful things. Government's fault but poor old taxpayer has to cough up again...
Back to top Quote
banjofred
Posted: 13 February 2012 19:47:47(UTC)
#12

Joined: 14/03/2011(UTC)
Posts: 128

Thanks: 51 times
Was thanked: 28 time(s) in 19 post(s)
EA

I agree, if I could take a lump sum I would do so and squander it

Dont some countries (Canada?) allow this?

I remember it was allowed in this country until 1978, as I cashed in a pension 100% at that time to get my first house deposit - one month before they changed the law.

I see us all like small farmers happy in our lot. The Saxon Baron (or Viking or whatever) rides up and says he will protect me but wants 10% of my crop forever more. I tell him I dont need his protection, so he burns my farm

the Krays, Al Capone and many others did similar.

Cameron and (even worse) the Libs and before them Robber Brown are no different, just on a massive scale..

Today the Libs are again coveting higher rate pension relief - with the budget a month away

Will they shaft us again???

You betcha
Back to top Quote
EA
Posted: 14 February 2012 10:57:27(UTC)
#13

Joined: 23/01/2012(UTC)
Posts: 39

Thanks: 8 times
Was thanked: 20 time(s) in 13 post(s)
banjofred,

Its not just Canada that allow it (although I couldn’t comment on their arrangements) if you have a personal pension, you can take up to 25% of your total pension savings from all sources as a tax free lump sum when you retire. However, that lump sum is only tax free if it is less than 25% of the lifetime allowance for the tax year.
Yes, it is sickening to say the least, pensioners have already got a not so good deal following the Bank of England's release of £50 billion worth of quantative easing, meaning those about to buy an annuity or crystallise pension benefits will get remarkably less than they would have done had these notes not have been printed! I would like to know how they think the vast reduction in pensioners income will kick start the economy?!!
Back to top Quote
 |  Edit by user
dd
Posted: 14 February 2012 11:46:04(UTC)
#14

Joined: 15/09/2010(UTC)
Posts: 122

Thanks: 6 times
Was thanked: 3 time(s) in 3 post(s)
Exactly. The about to retire dc pensioners won't be doing any kickstarting.
Back to top Quote
john dougherty
Posted: 18 February 2012 13:37:15(UTC)
#15

Joined: 14/02/2012(UTC)
Posts: 10

Thanks: 11 times
Was thanked: 1 time(s) in 1 post(s)
i was made redundant by nortel five years ago at age 51 so i took advise and signed for a early retirement pension which i paid in to for 33 years.then a year later it was cut by £40 a month because of the new ppf rules i am under 60 years old. this was not the rule when i sign for my pension so they should not have the right to cut it. what i say the government should bailout pension funds a 100% like the way they bailout the banks. so remember new rule is for early retirement pension at age 55 to 60 is only guaranteed 90% if your company went bust like nortel.
Back to top Quote
+ Reply to discussion

Markets

Other markets