Steven Cameron, Pensions Director at Aegon comments: “It will be a big relief to many if as reported, the Government has shelved plans to accelerate increases in the state pension age. Having certainty and stability around when your state pension will commence is essential for future planning and official confirmation from the Government would be most welcome. There had been speculation that the state pension age might have been increased from age 67 to 68 a few years earlier than planned. If this had happened in 2035 rather than 2038, it would have meant millions currently aged between 52 and 55 would have had to wait a year longer to receive it.
“From 6 April, the state pension triple lock will deliver a 10.1% increase for state pensioners. While just falling short of the 10.4% inflation rate announced today, it is still good news for state pensioners. However, it comes at a high cost which is met from the National Insurance contributions of today’s workers. Many believed that to sustain funding, the Government would increase the state pension age sooner. However, life expectancy at retirement is now lower than previously assumed, which takes some pressure off the future cost of state pensions and avoids a controversial state pension age hike in the run-up to a General Election.”
Dean Butler, Managing Director for Customer at Standard Life said: “The news that further increases to state pension age have been delayed will be met with a sigh of relief from those who would have been affected. When rumours of a planned increase were first reported in January it prompted thousands of people to go online with 110,000 searches for ‘retirement age’ recorded. This was an 82% on the same period last year, highlighting just how significant the issue is for many people.
“Those currently in their early fifties were the first that could have been impacted by the changes and these would have been particularly challenging for a number of groups. Those planning to start accessing their personal savings before for state pension age would have had to consider whether they would have stretched far enough to bridge the gap, while others would have faced an extended period in the workforce.”
|
