Too Poor to Retire?

[Han]

There's a fair bit in the news at the minute about pensions. Being in the industry I'd be interested to see what people think.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-14370452
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-14346734
(just a couple of links from the last few days)

There was also the kerfuffle (?) about the changes to pension age and public sector schemes recently.

Personally I think it's great that Pensions are appearing in the news more and more often but some of the "reports" have been far too negative, and in some circumstances taken way out of context (mostly due to lack of understanding, or because they've targetted the banking sector's services).


So... do you think you'll be "too poor" to retire?

Have you made any personal provision? Do your work offer anything?

Will (or do) you rely on the state pension only?

Are you lucky enough to be in the public sector? (ducks for cover)

What do you think to being automatically enrolled into your employer's scheme (by law) over the coming years?

Who would you speak to about this sort of thing? your adviser? employer? mates down the pub?

 

[bocadillo]

I think it's a great pity that the country has to rely on banks and insurance companies to run their pension schemes. There's too many people taking out from money that should be for the total benefit of the saver/pensioner. Pension providers should be non-profit making; it's the only way to stop everybody else creaming off their bit.

 

[Cate Fox]

I paid into a pension whilst at Jessops for 16 years, only to be told last year that it has gone kaput. I am still waiting to find out whether I will receive anything back from it to invest elsewhere... somehow I doubt it.

 

[bocadillo]

I paid into a pension with Jessel for 16 years, only to be told last week that he has gone kaput. I am still waiting to find out whether I will receive anything back from it to invest elsewhere... somehow I doubt it.

Gone kaput? I think you will find that the lying ****er has spent it on his season ticket!

 

[Matt_B]

I never paid into a pension in the private sector for fear of what happened to Cate. Now I'm a teacher I pay into that one whilst it lasts.

 

[Han]

I think it's a great pity that the country has to rely on banks and insurance companies to run their pension schemes. There's too many people taking out from money that should be for the total benefit of the saver/pensioner. Pension providers should be non-profit making; it's the only way to stop everybody else creaming off their bit.

Do you expect you bank account to be run for free, or anything else for that matter?

 

[bocadillo]

Do you expect you bank account to be run for free, or anything else for that matter?

I don't expect it to be run for free - but nor is there a need to make great profits from running it.

 

[Han]

I paid into a pension whilst at Jessops for 16 years, only to be told last year that it has gone kaput. I am still waiting to find out whether I will receive anything back from it to invest elsewhere... somehow I doubt it.

I never paid into a pension in the private sector for fear of what happened to Cate. Now I'm a teacher I pay into that one whilst it lasts.

Final Salary or Defined Benefit Schemes are what have put a lot of people off of saving for retirement. The problem with them is they are only as good as the company that backs them up. The Private sector is closing them, and the public sector is taking more from employees' pay packets. They are simply too expensive to run.

The more 'modern' pension schemes have no such implications and are only worth what you put in, meaning that nobody is taking silly risks with your money in order to meet high targets.

 

[Han]

I don't expect it to be run for free - but nor is there a need to make great profits from running it.

Fair enough. Profit per customer isn't that high though, unless you are saving a lot. There are options out there to reduce costs too, depending on what you have and the advice you receive.

 

[bocadillo]

The more 'modern' pension schemes have no such implications and are only worth what you put in, meaning that nobody is taking silly risks with your money in order to meet high targets.

There's no need for them to take silly risks. Just carry on with the piddling little annuity rates of the modern age and there's no need to take any risk at all.

 

[Han]

There's no need for them to take silly risks. Just carry on with the piddling little annuity rates of the modern age and there's no need to take any risk at all.

If defined benefit schemes used the same annuity rates as the rest of us, half of them would still be going strong. Is this the point that you're making?

 

[bocadillo]

If defined benefit schemes used the same annuity rates as the rest of us, half of them would still be going strong. Is this the point that you're making?

Defined benefit schemes don't use annuity rates.

If everybody had to suffer the same sort of returns that people taking annuities at the present time have to suffer, everybody will be too poor to retire.

 

[Real Sharapova]

I paid into a pension whilst at Jessops for 16 years, only to be told last year that it has gone kaput. I am still waiting to find out whether I will receive anything back from it to invest elsewhere... somehow I doubt it.

I believe that you will find you are covered ( to what extent I don't know ) by the pension protection scheme that came in a few years ago. I doubt, however, that the pension scheme itself is totally bust.

 

[bocadillo]

I believe that you will find you are covered ( to what extent I don't know ) by the pension protection scheme that came in a few years ago. I doubt, however, that the pension scheme itself is totally bust.

Didn't Jessop's pension fund buy out part of the company so that more of the profits would be diverted their way rather than fall into the hands of shareholders?

 

[Han]

Defined benefit schemes don't use annuity rates.

If everybody had to suffer the same sort of returns that people taking annuities at the present time have to suffer, everybody will be too poor to retire.

That way my point.

And I agree to the second part, they could and have been a lot higher in the past. It's a gamble that the insurance company is taking though. Some they win, some they lose. It's one of the only times in life where it pays to be a heavy smoker in poor health.

 

[Matt_B]

Final Salary or Defined Benefit Schemes are what have put a lot of people off of saving for retirement. The problem with them is they are only as good as the company that backs them up. The Private sector is closing them, and the public sector is taking more from employees' pay packets. They are simply too expensive to run.

The more 'modern' pension schemes have no such implications and are only worth what you put in, meaning that nobody is taking silly risks with your money in order to meet high targets.

The teacher's final salary pension as been around for ages, why is it only now too expensive?

 

[Dour]

The teacher's final salary pension as been around for ages, why is it only now too expensive?

The benefits to public sector workers have to be driven down so that corporations can drive down private sector pension benefits even further.

 

[jb5000]

The teacher's final salary pension as been around for ages, why is it only now too expensive?

It always was too expensive, the financial crisis of a couple of years ago has just uncovered that fact and made it something this generation have to deal with. If you'd managed to pass the buck on to your children or grandchildren they would only be paying more.

I'm really pleased the pension age is going up. I am really irritated by people who think that they have a right to live well for 20-30 years (at current life expectancies) after a work career of not much longer. The orginal pensions were genuinely meant as a social net for those unable to work any more due to infirmity. Better health and less physical work means that most of us can work way past 65, and if you can work you should. If this actually happened we'd be in a much better position to really care for people unable to work due to disability of infirmity.

 

[Matt_B]

It always was too expensive, the financial crisis of a couple of years ago has just uncovered that fact and made it something this generation have to deal with. If you'd managed to pass the buck on to your children or grandchildren they would only be paying more.

I'm really pleased the pension age is going up. I am really irritated by people who think that they have a right to live well for 20-30 years (at current life expectancies) after a work career of not much longer. The orginal pensions were genuinely meant as a social net for those unable to work any more due to infirmity. Better health and less physical work means that most of us can work way past 65, and if you can work you should. If this actually happened we'd be in a much better position to really care for people unable to work due to disability of infirmity.

I thought Joey Barton was bad enough, this reaches a whole new level of idiocy

 

[jb5000]

I thought Joey Barton was bad enough, this reaches a whole new level of idiocy

Right, so you want to lock up and throw away the key on someone who contributes a hell of a lot through their taxes to pensions, and you want keep on paying people who can work not to. You are right, that is a whole new level of idiocy.