Pensions

[basil6345789]

Was on the news that "some companies might be allowed to give less generous payments".
Less generous! as if it's some sort of good turn they're doing. These are defined benefit schemes, in effect a contract with the employee who will have been paying in for 40 odd years. It's HIS money, not theirs. What a liberty - Metro pigs strike again.

[mrhungryone]

Bricks and mortar everytime for the working man ......he/she always get shafted

[minnieclaret]

You're totally correct, Basil but 40 years ago they never expected folk to live forever.
Unsustainable.
Thankfully I was warned to get out before they started clawing back, 2004.

[Hipper]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-39026975" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Healeywoodclaret]

Also disgusting that I can't get state pension until age 67 ando government are pushing for age 70. Do people honestly think they can still do 12 hour days until age 70. I'm out of the house over 12 hours 5 days a week. The message to the younger generations is start planning your retirement as soon as possible otherwise you will never be able to retire.

[Lord Beamish]

Bricks and mortar everytime for the working man ......he/she always get shafted

This.

[Top Claret]

Bricks and mortar everytime for the working man ......he/she always get shafted

You need a mixture of both if you have the money. I have property and a pension and the pension is the best investment due to the generous tax advantages.

You get taxed on your rental income, and when you sell on your profit.


Now you are able to draw down your pension it makes it even more attractive. You can keep your 25% tax free amount in the pot and draw it down gradually tax free and your pension pot will grow if invested wisely. When you die your full pension pot will be passed on to your partner and then when she goes down the line to your kids, tax free with zero inheritance tax.

If you are taking your pension make sure you go to a company who specialise in draw down pensions, shop around and make sure you get a good mix in your investment of equities, cash and bonds. Equities are very dodgy at the moment with the markets being so high a correction is due and someone is bound to catch a cold.

[South West Claret.]

Pensions are deferred wages, but no government has put in the necessary protections for employees from some unscrupulous employers.

[Walton]

The 'less generous payments' isn't a case of less generous payments as far as I'm aware, it's just a very early stage proposal to change the basis on which annual pension increases for pensioners are derived. The amounts due to someone at retirement will remain the same. It'd be better to say 'less generous increases to payments'.

Basically, legislation was passed a few years ago where Final Salary (DB) Scheme Trustees could opt to change the indexation method from RPI to CPI, where the Scheme rules weren't specific in naming RPI as the indexation method.

A green paper has been proposed which would allow Trustees to opt to change from RPI even where RPI was stated within the Scheme rules.

Take up of this, if it goes so far as becoming legislation, would of course be very unpopular for scheme members, and Trustees are usually very aware of their members' feelings. Boards of Trustees are usually made up of employees of the company, member nominated trustees (usually pensioners in the scheme), plus sometimes an external expert. In my experience they still live and work in the same towns as the members of the Scheme. They see them down the pub, or in the supermarket. It usually directly affects them too, and probably in more severe ways if their pensions are bigger than Joe from the factory floor.

From my previous discussions with Trustees, a lot of their boards will not take anything like this up, even if it does pass Parliament, unless the scheme is in dire straits and needs the money in order to secure more important promises, such as upcoming pensioners.

Separately RPI as an index has gradually been phased out by the ONS, as it doesn't meet international standards. It's been replaced by RPI (Joules).

As it is, for September 2016 (on which a lot of majority of Schemes base their indexation) CPI was 1.2% and RPI was 2.0% RPIJ was 1.3%.

So a pension of £8,000 per annum would increase to £8,096 this year on CPI, not £8,160 on RPI. There's still an increase in line with inflation though.

[Sidney1st]

You only have to look at companies that have massive black holes in their pension schemes to know that some are not viable to maintain at their current levels.

Numerous companies have gone bang over the years and part of the issue was the pension scheme due to people living longer.

The government want to raise the retirement age to 70, that's fine, BUT they need to be aware that not all jobs can be worked by someone in their 60's / 70's and not everyone can retrain so it does become a bit of a minefield.

There is also the strain of having people living longer but not working and still require help from the NHS.

[Lancasterclaret]

Its another looming problem that not enough is being done about.

If you are young, old or middle aged, you've got to think about what you want when you are retired, and how you are going to pay for it. You cannot rely on anybody else helping you out, and you certainly can't rely on the government to sort it out.

Bleating about in thirty years time won't do any good. (thats not meant to sound harsh, just realistic)

[Walton]

I'd also go for a well invested personal pension fund over a bricks and mortar investment every time. There's the huge tax break for a start, the most generous available basically.

And then say the Pru Growth fund, a cover-all product available from a household name, has returned +37.9% growth over the last 5 years. For a good example of an individual equity fund, JOHCM UK Equity Income has returned an +80.8% growth in that period. 30.7% in the last year.

[South West Claret.]

One of the answers to a lot of pension/social imperatives is fair/decent taxation by all, especially (those who are laughfinly referred to as big business). Get that lot paying their wack and then we can talk about the rest of us.

[Sidney1st]

One of the answers to a lot of pension/social imperatives is fair/decent taxation by all, especially (those who are laughfinly referred to as big business). Get that lot paying their wack and then we can talk about the rest of us.

Won't happen because the Government / HMRC either haven't got the balls to deal with it or are to worried that some of these companies will leave the UK.
They probably aren't considering the fact that someone else will fill the void if they do bugger off.

[South West Claret.]

Absolutely Sidney, the tasid collusion between some elements in government and thier "mates" large Employers is obvious.

[fatboy47]

The plebs will have to howl for a few years yet, and they'll still be small-brained enough to return a government of their masters.

I'm all right,I got my pile, cleared off out of the cess pit and left 'em to it.

Best way.

[Paul Waine]

Was on the news that "some companies might be allowed to give less generous payments".
Less generous! as if it's some sort of good turn they're doing. These are defined benefit schemes, in effect a contract with the employee who will have been paying in for 40 odd years. It's HIS money, not theirs. What a liberty - Metro pigs strike again.

Hi basil...

1) Blame the press for the poor reporting - "sensational" headlines sell more papers than more "sober" and "thoughtful" headlines.
2) Blame Gordon Brown for his tax raid on pensions in 1997 - removed the tax free dividends that were secondary source of pension funds income (primary source, sponsoring companies and employees' contributions).
3) Thank the fact that we are all (on average) living longer and well beyond the pension funds expectations.
4) Criticise the Treasury that used to have responsibility for regulating pension funds for not understanding pensions. Ref: Andy Haldane; ref: Equitable Life.
5) Criticise the Public Sector for operating unfunded pension schemes where their future obligations will be met the taxpayer.
6) Criticise MPs for not learning the right lesson from Maxwell and Mirror pensions: set up the "pension protection fund" but didn't solve the rea; problem that Maxwell (and others) revealed. Ref: BHS/Green, Tata Steel and many, many more.

Solution: We should have a "brexit" moment for pensions: All high earners in public sector should be moved to defined contribution schemes - high earners include MPs, "First Division" Senior Civil Servants (pension problems are not about lower admin grades, cleaning staff, carers, etc - but, I'm sure a lot of those jobs have already been outsourced). Everything else will "fall into place" once the MPs and Treasury (and Bank of England) are on defined contribution schemes.

The proposal to reduce the inflation index is only an attempt to moderate some of the pension scheme obligations and give those funds a chance to keep on paying their pensions. The only alternative at present is the obligations being picked up by the Pension Protection Fund and the sponsoring firm going bust. If PPF steps in payouts cut to 90% (and more over a ceiling) - and, I think, CPI applies (if any inflation adjustment). Remember that Tata Steel (again, and others) have agreed much more drastic changes to pension schemes in order to keep the firm "alive" and save jobs.

Let's be thankful that (on average) we are all living longer. The scale of pension scheme pressures wouldn't be so great if we weren't living longer. Does anyone think we should "give up" our longer lives?

It's almost 20 years since Gordon Brown raided the pension schemes. No one (perhaps John Ralfe, Boots) screamed at the time. The country re-elected Tony Blair and Gordon Brown for 13 years. The "oil tankers" of pension schemes fleets are now getting "closer to the rocks" - some, as above, have already sunk.

For a bit of "political balance" - George Osborne also did some "dumb things" with tax relief on pension contributions. Does anyone think that capping "life time allowances" at £1 million is a good idea? How long do you think such a fund will last? Does anyone think that cutting tax relief to £10,000 when earnings are above £150,000 (including employer's contribution and including some other things) is a good idea? It's already mentioned elsewhere on this thread that "bricks and mortar" are best basis for pension savings. How much has the drive for additional property pushed up the price of houses and made it unaffordable for younger generations? There should be no advantage between different classes of assets. We should blame the governments (both Labour and Tory) for the instability of pensions and the pressure to mitigate by pushing up house prices.

The problem is our MPs don't connect these things. They just think about - how can I get re-elected in the near term. And, our media doesn't report these things in a way that informs the public what is actually happening and forces our MPs to think.

[Top Claret]

I am 57 and look forward to taking my pension in the next 8 weeks. I have been fortunate that I have been able to load up my pension over the last 15 years of my working life and was lucky to work with a guy who was extremely pension savvy, if not I would have piled everything into property.

If you have any spare cash you really should be putting your money into a pension fund and save for your retirement, if not you could quite easily be working when you are in your 70s. The state pension is more or less worthless, mine will be worth £120.00 p/w when I am 66.

If you are an employer and have a good year, put the lot into your pension fund this will save you corporation tax and you will feel the benefits in your later life.

[Walton]

If PPF steps in payouts cut to 90% (and more over a ceiling) - and, I think, CPI applies (if any inflation adjustment)

PPF payments are 100% if member is above Scheme normal retirement age prior to entering assessment.

Otherwise, 90%.

Basically, PPF annual increases are:

Pre April 97 benefits don't increase, and GMP protection lost - defaults to Pre 97 'excess'
Post April 97 is CPI capped at 2.5%.

[Paul Waine]

PPF payments are 100% if member is above Scheme normal retirement age prior to entering assessment.

Otherwise, 90%.

Basically, PPF annual increases are:

Pre April 97 benefits don't increase, and GMP protection lost - defaults to Pre 97 'excess'
Post April 97 is CPI capped at 2.5%.

Thanks, Walton. Agree your additional details. Illustrates that there is a lot of complexity to pension schemes. Most people may never be aware of these details, perhaps only finding out when there are proposals to change their scheme - or even worse, when it is already in trouble and too late to do much about it.

[basil6345789]

Walton - I am lead to believe that new moves are afoot, beyond what you summarised above (thanks for that), to allow companies to plunder more out of the pot, perhaps in the same way as they used "pensions holidays" , if you can remember that era, when they used pension funds to fund their businesses and use as an alternative to normal pay rises. Very sneaky.

[RingoMcCartney]

This is where your community charge is going

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news ... chief.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

And in Scotland!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... sions.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Sidney1st]

If you have any spare cash you really should be putting your money into a pension fund and save for your retirement, if not you could quite easily be working when you are in your 70s. The state pension is more or less worthless, mine will be worth £120.00 p/w when I am 66.

.

Spare cash?

Living in Oxfordshire there's no such thing due to the stupid costs of rent / buying / living etc.

[Lancasterclaret]

You have a choice Sid, anything you put away now helps you later.

[dushanbe]

Be your own financial advisor.

[Paul Waine]

This is where your community charge is going

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news ... chief.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

And in Scotland!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... sions.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Hi Ringo, just one illustration if my point 5. public sector unfunded schemes.

This is one of those "inter-generational" transfers. People received the council services in earlier years - and now other council tax payers have to pay extra council tax to pay the pensions of the retired council employees.

Reading the comments on the thisismoney link: Interesting how some just say "I'm all right, too bad for the rest of you." Don't they have children and grandchildren?

[South West Claret.]

One of the answers to a lot of pension/social imperatives is fair/decent taxation by all, especially (those who are laughfinly referred to as big business). Get that lot paying their wack and then we can talk about the rest of us.

Also because the pension industry have used the "pension language" to make pensions difficult to understand the general public have largely switch off (which is what they want).

The basic RP has been downgraded by successive dodgy governments in stopping the much fairer SERPS to top up the basic RP? Basically the more money employees earn the more you get on top. An incentive to work overtime that the Company required from time to time.

[minnieclaret]

Top of me head thinking: If they allowed you to use pension contributions to pay off mortgages would folk be better off?
I realise there are less home owners than previously but being mortgage free is massive. Once paid off you are immediately cash rich and you can start pension saving.

[Walton]

Walton - I am lead to believe that new moves are afoot, beyond what you summarised above (thanks for that), to allow companies to plunder more out of the pot, perhaps in the same way as they used "pensions holidays" , if you can remember that era, when they used pension funds to fund their businesses and use as an alternative to normal pay rises. Very sneaky.

I haven't seen anything new as yet, but it's scandalous that companies took contribution holidays with little interest in catching up in the future. Schemes are required to have a schedule of contributions/deficit reduction strategy drafted by the actuary, but I've definitely come across cases where the company then can't meet the increased contributions. The pensions regulator will fine them, but ultimately those schemes will fall into the PPF, despite the best intentions of almost everyone involved in the Scheme side of things.

One way some people can escape it is if their DB scheme is paying full transfer values, to transfer to a SIPP or other personal pension. The last 9 months have seen eyewateringly high transfer values as the gilt yields have swung so much, but I believe they're starting to come down again a little.

On an individual member level what was once a very hard decision to make (giving up their defined benefits) turned into a bit of a no-brainer. For a Scheme it's an absolute nightmare, as where previously it had been seen as simply losing a liability and good for the Scheme, they're now faced with just a few people transferring relatively modest pensions out, and they're looking at a couple of million quid leaving the Scheme's assets. If they've got a crap investment strategy, it could do them in.

[Walton]

Further to Paul Waine saying that MPs don't get it, they actually did have a bloke as Pensions Minister who absolutely knew his onions, Steve Webb.

Unfortunately the Govt saw fit to replace him with Ros Altmann, which is the equivalent of replacing Arsene Wenger with Piers Morgan.

[Quickenthetempo]

I have had several people try to sell me pensions over the years and the first question I ask them is which one have you signed up to? Surprise surprise not one of them had their own.
Everyone seems to have different ideas on what's best but everything changes so fast who really knows?

If you saved £5 in the 70s that could give you a full night out with supper and taxi home and still have it for a rainy day now, Would it have been worth it? Say 2% interest over time, Would it give you enough for a full night out today?

[Overthehill]

I don`t think there a right or wrong answer as such, and that`s because we all have differing expectations and requirements for retirement.

Personally, i think a portfolio of investment is the way forward as this limits exposure.
Luckily I work for a business with a good pension scheme in that its a personal pension and the company contribute to it.
My pension contributions are taken at source, therefore I avoid income tax on this element of my salary, I think (but could be wrong) I still get tax relief on my private pension (only on my contribution not the companies) at about 15%(ish) So paying into a pension works for me now.
Many years ago I dabbled in rental market, didn't like it and proved troublesome. Instead I have invested in the property I live in by buy / selling my way up the property ladder and I fully expect to downsize when I come to retirement to release capital.

[Paul Waine]

Further to Paul Waine saying that MPs don't get it, they actually did have a bloke as Pensions Minister who absolutely knew his onions, Steve Webb.

Unfortunately the Govt saw fit to replace him with Ros Altmann, which is the equivalent of replacing Arsene Wenger with Piers Morgan.

Hi Walton, I disagree, Steve Webb may have been better than some of the others, but there are lots of things that Steve Webb doesn't speak about or try to address. None of them do. I'd favour Steve Webb a little more if he'd (a) give up is own tax payer funded pension; (c) campaign to end high earners public sector defined benefit pensions and (c) campaign for equality between defined contribution and defined benefit pensions in their tax treatment.

I was "fortunate" to have a conversation in a meeting with one of the earlier Gov't ministers with responsibility for pensions - part of my job at the time. There was no indication that the gov't connected what they were doing with taxes and what would happen to pension funds in the future. Similarly, no idea what situation the younger generation would be in - graduate from college with student loan debt, try to get on to the housing ladder with rising house prices and being told that they need to start paying into their (defined contribution) pensions as soon as they start working.

That meeting was some time before the 2008 financial crisis.

Arsene Wenger may be no better than Piers Morgan if the subject is chess - rather than football. It's the same with Webb v Altmann.

[Paul Waine]

[quote="Quickenthetempo"]I have had several people try to sell me pensions over the years and the first question I ask them is which one have you signed up to? Surprise surprise not one of them had their own.
Everyone seems to have different ideas on what's best but everything changes so fast who really knows?

If you saved £5 in the 70s that could give you a full night out with supper and taxi home and still have it for a rainy day now, Would it have been worth it? Say 2% interest over time, Would it give you enough for a full night out today?[/quote


In past years the people who were trying to persuade you to invest in pension savings became very rich on the commission they earned on your contributions. Disclosure of commissions has improved significantly in recent years. But, this is the same with all "friendly conversations" with bank and other financial sector staff who want to advise you on what to do with your money. Always ask: how much commission will you earn? All fees should now be disclosed in full.

Re interest rates - these were much higher in 70s/80s and 90s. But, again, don't assume that the rates that are used to forecast the returns on any savings will be the rates you will receive. We are now in a "low returns" world - the flip side of low mortgage rates.

[Paul Waine]

I don`t think there a right or wrong answer as such, and that`s because we all have differing expectations and requirements for retirement.

Personally, i think a portfolio of investment is the way forward as this limits exposure.
Luckily I work for a business with a good pension scheme in that its a personal pension and the company contribute to it.
My pension contributions are taken at source, therefore I avoid income tax on this element of my salary, I think (but could be wrong) I still get tax relief on my private pension (only on my contribution not the companies) at about 15%(ish) So paying into a pension works for me now.
Many years ago I dabbled in rental market, didn't like it and proved troublesome. Instead I have invested in the property I live in by buy / selling my way up the property ladder and I fully expect to downsize when I come to retirement to release capital.

Hi Overthehill,

If you are currently saving into a pension I'm sure you are not yet "over the hill" and retired...

Sounds like you've got a defined contribution pension fund. You get tax relief at your marginal (highest) rate of tax on your contributions - and you don't pay tax on your employer's contributions. You are safe from changes in inflation indexing changes by a sponsor - but, only because you don't get any of these promises of the amount you will be paid when you retire.

Agree, on the (sole) residential property. I'm also planning to downsize when the time is right. However, George Osborne's stamp duty hike has put up the cost of downsizing, particularly if you are living in London.

[Sausage]

Top of me head thinking: If they allowed you to use pension contributions to pay off mortgages would folk be better off?
I realise there are less home owners than previously but being mortgage free is massive. Once paid off you are immediately cash rich and you can start pension saving.

Didn't that used to happen up to the mid-90s with mortgage interest tax relief?

[Blackrod]

'A little knowledge is a dangerous thing'

[3putt]

Very interesting and indeed for many worrying subject.

The key thing is for anyone is to save as much as possible for your retirement years. I't's often difficult for people in their 20's and even 30's to think ahead to their retirement, but it is so, so important to do something and the sooner you start the better.

I would suggest pensions is the best way for most people as it is a compulsory form of savings for retirement and can quite often be deducted from your salary. As already mentioned, great tax incentives, meaning that 20% or even 40% of your contributions are coming from the government and 25% of the pot can be taken tax free. Also the fact that you cannot access the pension pot until later in life is a good thing. If you save into an ISA as an alternative or even buy a property, there is always the temptation to cash in or sell long before you reach your planned retirement.

For those already in retirement or approaching, I would urge you to look at your house as part of your pension pot. For most people the value of the home will be their most valuable asset and can be a great boost retirement finances. There are many options now of how to access some of the capital tied up in your home via a lifetime mortgage (equity release). These can be a great way of enhancing your retirement or even passing on an early inheritance to children or grandchildren. These plans aren't for everybody, but I would suggest it is pretty silly for anyone trying to manage on a tight budget when retired and yet living in property that may be worth £150 - £200k and of courses in many areas far more than that.

Unfortunately these schemes are greatly misunderstood, often even by financial advisers. Some of the common misconceptions :-

You will no longer own your home - not true, with a lifetime mortgage you will continue to own your home.
You are at risk of losing your home - not true, unlike a residential mortgage with these plans you have the legal right to live in the property for the rest of your life.

They are expensive - not true, the majority of these plans have a fixed interest for life as low as 4 per cent, don't forget these plans may run for 30 years - show me another way of borrowing for 30 years with a such a low fixed rate of interest.

You will leave nothing to your beneficiaries - may be true, but in most cases there will be something left for beneficiaries and there are ways of safe guarding this.

[Healeywoodclaret]

Its another looming problem that not enough is being done about.

If you are young, old or middle aged, you've got to think about what you want when you are retired, and how you are going to pay for it. You cannot rely on anybody else helping you out, and you certainly can't rely on the government to sort it out.

Bleating about in thirty years time won't do any good. (thats not meant to sound harsh, just realistic)

I'm not bleating (if that was aimed at me) I have a private pension. You can't rely on the government for sure because the government just start taking from the minute a young person starts earning.
They want them to keep paying until the age of 70 and then promptly drop dead. Simple as that really.
As pointed out by an earlier poster people from 60 onwards may not be physically capable of continuing to do the job they have done for years as their health may start to fail. It's pretty sobering to think people in their twenties must start planning their retirement when all they want to do is be young and have fun. Next it will be a case of planning your funeral in your twenties. From the age of 50 people are bombarded with funeral plans. So depressing.

[3putt]

"It's pretty sobering to think people in their twenties must start planning their retirement when all they want to do is be young and have fun."


Young people in their 20's should be encouraged to save for their retirement, it doesn't need to be a huge amount. I agree people of that age want to be young and have fun and that should be their priority. But a little bit of responsible of saving for the future is sensible.

You might be surprised that people in their 60's and even 70's who are retired want have their fun and enjoy the "autumn" of their lives.

The problem being it costs money to do the fun things as it does at any stage of life.

[Paul Waine]

I'm not bleating (if that was aimed at me) I have a private pension. You can't rely on the government for sure because the government just start taking from the minute a young person starts earning.
They want them to keep paying until the age of 70 and then promptly drop dead. Simple as that really.
As pointed out by an earlier poster people from 60 onwards may not be physically capable of continuing to do the job they have done for years as their health may start to fail. It's pretty sobering to think people in their twenties must start planning their retirement when all they want to do is be young and have fun. Next it will be a case of planning your funeral in your twenties. From the age of 50 people are bombarded with funeral plans. So depressing.

Hi Healeywood, I'm with you on the age thing. In your 20s life should be about fun and building for the future. I think it is enough to (1) get started in life, both social and career wise; (2) start paying down student debt (if you've been to uni); (3) start saving to get on the property ladder. It is a "Bit much" to be told that some of your money must be put away until you are (at least) 55, as part of your pension. Oh, and you won't get a state pension until you are 70 (at the earliest).

I "cashed in" both of my contributions to my first two employers pensions when I left those jobs (you were allowed to do that, if you'd not paid in for long, back then) and the money went towards getting married and deposit on house.

I had heart attack last year - and am determined to "stick around" to enjoy my pensioner years. I'm also keen to continue to do some work, but not as much as before. I can understand that it's difficult to do manual stuff as you age - but, trying something different can be great for a longer life and easing into retirement. It's what I hope to do.

[Bertiebeehead]

Bricks and mortar everytime for the working man ......he/she always get shafted

This.
Is exactly why the housing market is what it is today, a house should be a home not an investment tool. Too many people trying to make easy money rather than working for it.

[Lancasterclaret]

Not aimed at you Healeywood, good to hear that you have a private pension.

Paul, I started my pension at 23 years of age, on the advice of my dad. Its been good advice

[dushanbe]

Not aimed at you Healeywood, good to hear that you have a private pension.

Paul, I started my pension at 23 years of age, on the advice of my dad. Its been good advice

Same here, only wish I could have afforded to put more in during the early years which are by far the most important to take advantage of compounding.

[Healeywoodclaret]

Hi Healeywood, I'm with you on the age thing. In your 20s life should be about fun and building for the future. I think it is enough to (1) get started in life, both social and career wise; (2) start paying down student debt (if you've been to uni); (3) start saving to get on the property ladder. It is a "Bit much" to be told that some of your money must be put away until you are (at least) 55, as part of your pension. Oh, and you won't get a state pension until you are 70 (at the earliest).

I "cashed in" both of my contributions to my first two employers pensions when I left those jobs (you were allowed to do that, if you'd not paid in for long, back then) and the money went towards getting married and deposit on house.

I had heart attack last year - and am determined to "stick around" to enjoy my pensioner years. I'm also keen to continue to do some work, but not as much as before. I can understand that it's difficult to do manual stuff as you age - but, trying something different can be great for a longer life and easing into retirement. It's what I hope to do.

Hi Paul it's not just manual stuff that can be difficult as you age. If you have a job which provides you with constant mental challenges, problem solving (I usually refer to it as brain aerobics ) it may not be possible to continue beyond 60. So it's important to plan because you want to finish whilst you are still firing on all 4 cylinders! More importantly there should be something left in the tank to enjoy what you've got left.

[Paul Waine]

Hi Paul it's not just manual stuff that can be difficult as you age. If you have a job which provides you with constant mental challenges, problem solving (I usually refer to it as brain aerobics ) it may not be possible to continue beyond 60. So it's important to plan because you want to finish whilst you are still firing on all 4 cylinders! More importantly there should be something left in the tank to enjoy what you've got left.

Hi Healeywood,

Please don't write off all the over 60s.

I'm 63 now. Yes, I suffered a heart attack 12 months ago - so, I've not played 5-a-side since! But, I'm been busy restoring my physical (especially cardio) fitness and probably physically fitter now than I was 10 years ago. I hope to go skiing again next winter (2017/18). I'm not claiming to be "firing on all 4 cylinders" - 3 will do for me, now, perhaps with a little "hybrid" boost every now and again.

As for "brain aerobics," after a 6 month break I am now working part-time as a management consultant. OK, yes, I got a good education and have good experience behind me. Whatever you've done in life, for most, being in your 60s is still a good time (I agree there are some who aren't so lucky with their health, but that applies at all ages). Being involved in work is good for your health, whether you are an assistant in B&Q (I understand they have roles for over 60s) or in many other things. I believe part of it is the social side and feeling you are "still contributing."

As we live longer, for most of us our health will also be better - you could say that the 60s is the new 40s. I'm sure there are many others on here who will share this view.

I agree that "it's important to plan" - I wasn't planning on a heart attack last year. I am planning on doing some work - maybe never go back to full time - and hope to do it for a few more years yet. And, of course, I'm going to continue supporting and watching the Clarets.

[Healeywoodclaret]

Hi Healeywood,

Please don't write off all the over 60s.

I'm 63 now. Yes, I suffered a heart attack 12 months ago - so, I've not played 5-a-side since! But, I'm been busy restoring my physical (especially cardio) fitness and probably physically fitter now than I was 10 years ago. I hope to go skiing again next winter (2017/18). I'm not claiming to be "firing on all 4 cylinders" - 3 will do for me, now, perhaps with a little "hybrid" boost every now and again.

As for "brain aerobics," after a 6 month break I am now working part-time as a management consultant. OK, yes, I got a good education and have good experience behind me. Whatever you've done in life, for most, being in your 60s is still a good time (I agree there are some who aren't so lucky with their health, but that applies at all ages). Being involved in work is good for your health, whether you are an assistant in B&Q (I understand they have roles for over 60s) or in many other things. I believe part of it is the social side and feeling you are "still contributing."

As we live longer, for most of us our health will also be better - you could say that the 60s is the new 40s. I'm sure there are many others on here who will share this view.

I agree that "it's important to plan" - I wasn't planning on a heart attack last year. I am planning on doing some work - maybe never go back to full time - and hope to do it for a few more years yet. And, of course, I'm going to continue supporting and watching the Clarets.

Good luck in the future Paul! Great to hear you will always be supporting and watching the Mighty Clarets! A point on the road today Young Michael Keane is a legend already!