DaveH
Striker
I agree with that.(IMO, morally) There should really be protection for schemes already open prior to the rule change.
That's what I'm trying to get my head around for my own circumstance. I'm not totally sure whether that applies. I think the following says it does:
I essentially have a contract with a private company and what I signed up for was that I could take an annual pension with a defined benefit, from the age of 57. That is now less than 10 years away. So they are committed to paying me X amount per month for the rest of my life, from the point I decide to draw my pension. If the government change the state pension age by say 3 years, that doesn't mean I'm going to live for another 3 years. It makes no difference to what they are currently committed to pay out.
I can understand the point of view of the government saying they are struggling to afford the state pension and need to push the age. Fine, that is the economics of the country.
But, my pension company has planned and budgeted for me potentially withdrawing at 57. Ok, they have applied penalties to that and if I go that early then I will only get 61% of what I could otherwise get. There is no economic or business reason (that I know of) why those in the scheme should have their benefits withheld.
I'm changing jobs in early May, with an attractive pay rise. One consideration is to put a bit more in the scheme, but faced with that and an ISA (which I don't currently have), an ISA sounds more sensible. There is not going to be anyone sitting saying "No, I know we all planned for you to take your investment back at this time, but we have changed our minds, off to work you go".