The age when members can access pension pots should rise in line with increases to the state pension age to keep a 10-year gap.
Over half (53%) of respondents said the age at which members can access pension freedoms should rise in line with the state pension age, to ensure 10 years between the two.
Of those who answered yes, one said: "Age 55 is far too low, and it's irresponsible of the government."
Another said: "Accumulating sufficient benefits through a lifetime of defined contribution (DC) payments is going to be a minority sport for people - widening the gap between SPA and early retirement date just means more poverty."
However, under two fifths (36%) answered no, and one argued a minority will not have the ability to enjoy the quality of life enjoyment if the access age rises.
Another said: "[This is a] completely arbitrary figure - increases in age will only serve to discourage greater levels of saving."
Just 11% said they did not know.
Just under half (48%) of respondents said defined benefit (DB) members should not have a limited legal right to do a partial transfer, after the government has been called on to legislate.
One said: "DB is a good scheme and taking money out of the 'pot' will only lead to the long term reduction in benefits to those in the scheme. Taking money out of any scheme is a long-term poverty trap!"
Others called it an "administrative nightmare" for pension schemes, and warned that they don't need yet more complexity.
However, some 45% said it should be introduced, with many saying it would work in some instances.
One said: "As long as the cost impact on scheme administration is not disproportionate. In practice, many schemes that I advise have already taken the step to offer this on a non-statutory basis."
Just 7% did not know, with one saying while partial transfers give members the flexibility of combining a certain level of income with flexibility over the amount transferred out, it would involve many complexities.
Under three fifths (56%) said they think a significant minority will fail to meet their deadline to include common and conditional data in scheme returns by January 2018.
Of these respondents, one said: "Many trustees are still happily ignorant about historical issues - some dating to the original installation. [It's] hard for an administrator to raise if they have had scheme for a long time."
Some 14% said they think a majority will miss the deadline. One said: "Most schemes have ignored TPR on this for a long time and are nowhere close to doing it."
Just over one fifth (21%) said very few will fail to meet the deadline, with one saying surely it should be none, but there are likely to be some who fail.
Only 1% said none at all, with one respondent commenting: "No one checks whether anything reported is even honest. So only the honest will get punished."
A further 8% answered "other," with one saying they do not know the details of schemes apart from their own.
Over half (52%) of respondents said there has been some innovation in the drawdown fund market since Freedom and Choice was introduced, but not a lot.
Of those, one said: "There has been some - but there's more to do. The FCA is looking at the non-advised drawdown market - until we know the outcome, there's little point to innovate."
Just 6% said they have seen a lot of innovation, with one saying: "When we saw that our DC provider was not responding we simply switched providers to cater for the interests of our staff."
Some 30% said there has been very little innovation, with one saying: "Providers are scared to be a first mover due to FCA rules and perceived risks of being a first mover in a market. Big shame - unintended consequences at its worst."
Another said that better products would come if the government stopped tinkering with pensions and gave a great industry time to work them out.
A further 12% answered "other," with one saying there is insufficient experience.
The majority (85%) of respondents said the government should not abolish all tax relief in favour of a more generous state pension.
Of those who said no, one said: "Absolutely the wrong approach - if anything it should be the exact opposite. More encouragement for individuals to make their own provisions and not encouragement for them to believe that it's somebody else's responsibility to look after them."
Another said tax relief should absolutely not be abolished, as this amounts to scrapping long-term pension saving altogether.
Just under 10% said yes, and one argued it would simplify pensions immensely and remove issues with engagement.
Just 6% were undecided, with one saying: "There would be winners and losers. But those currently saving recommended amounts into pensions are likely to end up the losers."
Another said it would be unbelievably difficult to know what the best course of action is.
In this week's Pensions Buzz, we want to know whether you support the ruling that defined benefit (DB) trustees must equalise GMPs in past transfers.
More than £130bn of company funds are tied up in pension schemes specifically due to lower than expected levels of life expectancy improvements over the last decade, according to PwC.
XPS Pensions Group has launched a scam protection checklist to assist trustees in meeting The Pensions Regulator’s (TPR) scam pledge initiative.
This week’s top stories included the rejection of an automatic guidance amendment in the Pension Schemes Bill, while The Pensions Regulator posted a sharp increase in the use of its powers.
The majority of the pensions industry agrees an eventual net-zero target should not be mandated for schemes as part of the Pension Schemes Bill, according to a Professional Pensions poll.