D
Dave The Dude
Guest
I have had many things up Soi 6/7 & 8
wildoates
Surin Legend
Oh Kiss and tell...... :A
nomad97
Resident Geek
Blimey! This thread is like the old palour game of Chinese Whispers. No matter what the first person says, by the time it gets around the circle it is something completely different. In this case we were have a serious talk / dicussion about UK State Pensions and finish up talking about the size of willies and discount rates from the girls in Pattaya. LOL!
A
alan crisp
Guest
nomad97
Resident Geek
Sorry guys, can I go back to UK pensions for a moment?
Prakonchai Nick, you said, "To confirm, when living in Thailand, the pension is frozen from the time you first receive it. For most of us that will (currently) be age 65. But if you wish to defer claiming for a year or more, then regardless of your age when you do eventually claim, you will receive the rate then payable after which it will be frozen."
That is something I had thought about but I had not established what would happen to any yearly increases if I did defer taking the pension. I had seen that you could defer taking the pension for 5 years and there are charts that show you what you would receive if you did so, year by year. Given that pensions are frozen at the point one starts claiming them this would circumvent that rule (for up to 5 years) and provide a useful vehicle for a savings programme. When you did draw down your pension you would receive a lump sum (subject to tax?) and benefit from yearly increases in between times. Sounds like a win-win situation, provided you do not die beforehand!
Prakonchai Nick, you said, "To confirm, when living in Thailand, the pension is frozen from the time you first receive it. For most of us that will (currently) be age 65. But if you wish to defer claiming for a year or more, then regardless of your age when you do eventually claim, you will receive the rate then payable after which it will be frozen."
That is something I had thought about but I had not established what would happen to any yearly increases if I did defer taking the pension. I had seen that you could defer taking the pension for 5 years and there are charts that show you what you would receive if you did so, year by year. Given that pensions are frozen at the point one starts claiming them this would circumvent that rule (for up to 5 years) and provide a useful vehicle for a savings programme. When you did draw down your pension you would receive a lump sum (subject to tax?) and benefit from yearly increases in between times. Sounds like a win-win situation, provided you do not die beforehand!
Prakhonchai Nick
You chose a custom title
Spot on Nomad.
If you do not need the money, then by deferring you gain 1% every 5 weeks + you receive the annual increase in April (which will likely be in excess of 4% next April and is guaranteed to be a minimum 2.5% each year). As you say you will receive the extra money as a lump sum which is taxable, but if you take it towards the end of the tax year and have no other taxable UK income, it is conceivable it could be largely tax free. I believe it is also possible (by arrangement) to spread it over 2 tax years)
Assuming you are not in the supertax bracket, even at 20% tax, you will still net in excess of 10% extra each year.
Also as a safeguard, in the event of death before claiming the pension built up, it will go to your estate.
Last edited:
D
Dave The Dude
Guest
Very useful info that I am sure, will interest many
Thanks 'The Nick & Nomad" roadshow!
:Bow5:
Thanks 'The Nick & Nomad" roadshow!
:Bow5:
D
densleyporter
Guest
Actually living in Thailand,or here on a Non O,thats the difference,if you are married,or live here as retired,then yes you have no alternative,but to declare your correct location.
Naturally you keep your address in the uk.If you spend over 180 days out of the EEC you are classified as semi residential elsewhere,therefore again your pension will be frozen.
It is also worth remembering that each time you return to the uk,even for a few weeks,you will receive the pension level of payment in force,for that amount of time,having to inform Newcastle of this on your arrival,genuine,then back to your original payment on your return to Thailand.
Problem doing this is the amount of time the IPC take sorting everything out,interim,they withold your payments,took me 8 weeks to get it sorted,without payment,ok afterwards but,I asked them what the hell do I live on in the meantime,I had additional income luckily,but that was not the point.
These people do not give a monkeys,jobsworth and all that.
D
Dave The Dude
Guest
They are probably like the Bank staff now, all short term agency staff.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ZAoMv_QnAU&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ZAoMv_QnAU&feature=related
D
Dave The Dude
Guest
The cost of retiring at 66
How much extra will you have to save to retire at 65?
By Emma Simon and Paul Farrow
Published: 7:59PM BST 25 Jun 2010
The cost of retiring at 66 Photo: HOWARD McWILLIAM
The state pension age looks set to rise to 66 in just six years' time, and may be extended far further -possibly to 70.
Unions have condemned these "work till you drop" plans – but they shouldn't come as any surprise. The Conservatives made no secret of their intention to bring forward plans to raise the state retirement age if they won the general election.
Under current legislation, the pension age for men and women would have risen to 66 in 2024 – and then to 68 by 2046. But the new Government is proposing that men retire at 66 in 2016, and women by 2020.
If, as expected, these proposals become law, it will particularly affect men aged between 50 and 58 and women aged between 50 and 54. This is because those older than this will have retired before the age is raised – and those younger already faced a later retirement date, though many of them may not have realised it.
Remember, women's pension age is already rising from 60. Over the next decade it will be increased gradually until by 2020 it is in line with men – who by then are likely to retire at 66, rather than 65.
But younger workers in their 30s and 40s need not assume this won't affect them. Raising the state pension age to 66 is just the starting point. It seems a racing certainty that the date at which it is raised to 68 will also be brought forward, and potentially raised even higher, affecting many younger workers today.
It is not hard to understand why: we are living longer and drawing our pensions for longer, increasing government costs.
For each year the Government delays paying pensions it can save an estimated £13bn. So this is one simple way to manage the soaring pension bill.
When the state pension was introduced, a quarter of working people died before they even reached retirement, and those who did get this benefit drew it, on average, for just five years.
Today men can expect to live until 78 and women until 82. If the state pension age had increased in line with life expectancy, we would not be drawing it until our 75th birthday.
But while few would deny the logic of increasing the retirement age, those caught at the sharp end of this reform may feel aggrieved that it is their retirement plans that are being sacrificed to help get the economy back on an even keel.
But there are steps that those affected can take to help safeguard their pension plans and protect their "holiday of a lifetime".
Laith Khalaf of Hargreaves Lansdown, the financial adviser, explained: "It is still possible to retire at 65, or even younger, but those who are fast approaching their retirement need to get their savings skates on."
Those closer to retirement will have to save more because they have fewer years in which to make up the shortfall. A man now aged 59 needs to put aside an extra £63 a month – £756 a year – to bridge the gap.
Women aged 55 need to salt away a further £35 a month (or £420 a year) to replace a year's lost state pension. A 50-year-old would not have to save quite so much, needing to put aside just an extra £21 a month (£252 a year). All these figures assume inflation of 2pc a year and that savings enjoy annual average growth of 6pc.
Financial advisers do not recommend that people necessarily put these extra funds into a pension. Mr Khalaf said: "People should of course be making their own private pension savings. The proposals mooted this week hammer home the fact that none of us can rely on the state any more for a decent pension.''
But, he says, if people are looking to replace the money they would have received from the state pension for one year, an Isa may be more appropriate. The problem with a pension is that it is designed to produce an income for life, not for one year only. By contrast, if you save enough in an Isa, you can run down the account over a year when you hit 65.
Mr Khalaf added: "The pensions revolution is coming and workers and employers need to prepare for it. Automatically enrolling workers into workplace pensions will be the keystone of reform, but it is likely to be accompanied by a rise in the state pension age and longer working lives."
Employees have been warned that changes to the state pension could also have a knock-on effect on many company schemes.
Actuarial consultants point out that if the state pension age is changed, company pension schemes may also alter the age at which members can draw benefits, although such changes would apply only to pensions promised in future, not to benefits accrued to date.
They reckon that savers in defined contribution (or money purchase) schemes may have to change their investment strategy to reflect a later retirement date, or save more to avoid the change.
The upside of this is that delaying taking a private or company pension can boost its value significantly. Figures calculated by Standard Life show that a 45-year-old man saving £200 a month could increase his private pension by almost 10pc if he chose to retire at 66 rather than 65.
John Lawson of Standard Life said: "Delaying taking your private pension by just a year can significantly boost your income." He added that people needed to be saving at least 12pc of their income each month to ensure they had a comfortable retirement.
There are also plans to abolish the "default" retirement age, which effectively allowed companies to sack staff once they hit 65 (or 60 for women). If people are allowed to work longer, they can continue saving into their pension, which will give them an even bigger pot when they do retire.
Ian Naismith of Scottish Widows said: "Employers may need to consider late retirement provisions under pension schemes, with more staff likely to work beyond the schemes' normal retirement ages."
But while many will welcome the right to continue working, others will not find themselves in such a fortunate position.
Dave Prentis, the head of Unison, the trade union, said: "It may be a choice for the fit and healthy to keep going for another year at work, but, for some, work takes a terrible toll on their health. Many workers across the public and private sector do very physically demanding jobs where carrying on until 66 is not a safe or practical option."
There have also been concerns that many who find it difficult to find work in their 50s will now be forced to stay on lower unemployment benefits for an extra year, rather than getting the pension to which they've contributed.
We might well feel aggrieved that we are being asked to wait until we are 66 to clock off for good. But unless substantial numbers of fifty-something workers take to the streets, it seems inevitable that we will all be working longer.
How much extra will you have to save to retire at 65?
By Emma Simon and Paul Farrow
Published: 7:59PM BST 25 Jun 2010
The state pension age looks set to rise to 66 in just six years' time, and may be extended far further -possibly to 70.
Unions have condemned these "work till you drop" plans – but they shouldn't come as any surprise. The Conservatives made no secret of their intention to bring forward plans to raise the state retirement age if they won the general election.
Under current legislation, the pension age for men and women would have risen to 66 in 2024 – and then to 68 by 2046. But the new Government is proposing that men retire at 66 in 2016, and women by 2020.
If, as expected, these proposals become law, it will particularly affect men aged between 50 and 58 and women aged between 50 and 54. This is because those older than this will have retired before the age is raised – and those younger already faced a later retirement date, though many of them may not have realised it.
Remember, women's pension age is already rising from 60. Over the next decade it will be increased gradually until by 2020 it is in line with men – who by then are likely to retire at 66, rather than 65.
But younger workers in their 30s and 40s need not assume this won't affect them. Raising the state pension age to 66 is just the starting point. It seems a racing certainty that the date at which it is raised to 68 will also be brought forward, and potentially raised even higher, affecting many younger workers today.
It is not hard to understand why: we are living longer and drawing our pensions for longer, increasing government costs.
For each year the Government delays paying pensions it can save an estimated £13bn. So this is one simple way to manage the soaring pension bill.
When the state pension was introduced, a quarter of working people died before they even reached retirement, and those who did get this benefit drew it, on average, for just five years.
Today men can expect to live until 78 and women until 82. If the state pension age had increased in line with life expectancy, we would not be drawing it until our 75th birthday.
But while few would deny the logic of increasing the retirement age, those caught at the sharp end of this reform may feel aggrieved that it is their retirement plans that are being sacrificed to help get the economy back on an even keel.
But there are steps that those affected can take to help safeguard their pension plans and protect their "holiday of a lifetime".
Laith Khalaf of Hargreaves Lansdown, the financial adviser, explained: "It is still possible to retire at 65, or even younger, but those who are fast approaching their retirement need to get their savings skates on."
Those closer to retirement will have to save more because they have fewer years in which to make up the shortfall. A man now aged 59 needs to put aside an extra £63 a month – £756 a year – to bridge the gap.
Women aged 55 need to salt away a further £35 a month (or £420 a year) to replace a year's lost state pension. A 50-year-old would not have to save quite so much, needing to put aside just an extra £21 a month (£252 a year). All these figures assume inflation of 2pc a year and that savings enjoy annual average growth of 6pc.
Financial advisers do not recommend that people necessarily put these extra funds into a pension. Mr Khalaf said: "People should of course be making their own private pension savings. The proposals mooted this week hammer home the fact that none of us can rely on the state any more for a decent pension.''
But, he says, if people are looking to replace the money they would have received from the state pension for one year, an Isa may be more appropriate. The problem with a pension is that it is designed to produce an income for life, not for one year only. By contrast, if you save enough in an Isa, you can run down the account over a year when you hit 65.
Mr Khalaf added: "The pensions revolution is coming and workers and employers need to prepare for it. Automatically enrolling workers into workplace pensions will be the keystone of reform, but it is likely to be accompanied by a rise in the state pension age and longer working lives."
Employees have been warned that changes to the state pension could also have a knock-on effect on many company schemes.
Actuarial consultants point out that if the state pension age is changed, company pension schemes may also alter the age at which members can draw benefits, although such changes would apply only to pensions promised in future, not to benefits accrued to date.
They reckon that savers in defined contribution (or money purchase) schemes may have to change their investment strategy to reflect a later retirement date, or save more to avoid the change.
The upside of this is that delaying taking a private or company pension can boost its value significantly. Figures calculated by Standard Life show that a 45-year-old man saving £200 a month could increase his private pension by almost 10pc if he chose to retire at 66 rather than 65.
John Lawson of Standard Life said: "Delaying taking your private pension by just a year can significantly boost your income." He added that people needed to be saving at least 12pc of their income each month to ensure they had a comfortable retirement.
There are also plans to abolish the "default" retirement age, which effectively allowed companies to sack staff once they hit 65 (or 60 for women). If people are allowed to work longer, they can continue saving into their pension, which will give them an even bigger pot when they do retire.
Ian Naismith of Scottish Widows said: "Employers may need to consider late retirement provisions under pension schemes, with more staff likely to work beyond the schemes' normal retirement ages."
But while many will welcome the right to continue working, others will not find themselves in such a fortunate position.
Dave Prentis, the head of Unison, the trade union, said: "It may be a choice for the fit and healthy to keep going for another year at work, but, for some, work takes a terrible toll on their health. Many workers across the public and private sector do very physically demanding jobs where carrying on until 66 is not a safe or practical option."
There have also been concerns that many who find it difficult to find work in their 50s will now be forced to stay on lower unemployment benefits for an extra year, rather than getting the pension to which they've contributed.
We might well feel aggrieved that we are being asked to wait until we are 66 to clock off for good. But unless substantial numbers of fifty-something workers take to the streets, it seems inevitable that we will all be working longer.
B
billp
Guest
As somebody who retired compulsorily in 1991 at the age of 65 , it is obvious that I could have worked on longer and if I had had an option I would have done because I enjoyed my job . As it was , I then became Parish Clerk to the village where I lived and did that for another 5 years . I know many men of my age who resented being told at 65 that they were on the scrap-heap - many of them would have happily worked on and one reason is that the UK Old Age Pension is inadequate . Why not abandon the name Retirement age and replace it with Pension age so that , providing the firm will still employ you , you carry on working as long as you want either drawing your pension at the same time or leaving it there to build up . It might actually save the country some money .:GrinNod1::GrinNod1::GrinNod1:
D
Dave The Dude
Guest
Good Idea Bill.
I think whats worrying people are those in manual jobs that are near impossible to do physically, at an older age. Another idea is to have 'middle aged' apprenticeships. I think that's a good idea for retraining. After over 26 years in a clerical job and at the age of 40, I retrained to do a physically demanding job and I am sure that helped my health.
I think whats worrying people are those in manual jobs that are near impossible to do physically, at an older age. Another idea is to have 'middle aged' apprenticeships. I think that's a good idea for retraining. After over 26 years in a clerical job and at the age of 40, I retrained to do a physically demanding job and I am sure that helped my health.