Too Poor to Retire?

[Cate Fox]

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.

I hope I get something back out of it to stick into a frozen pension I have with Scottish Widows, but I'm not hopeful of receiving anything decent. The company that is looking after it now are very slow at informing the members of what is happening.

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?

I've no idea Bob, it wouldnt surprise me in the least. With the company about going bust the other year they no doubt didnt keep up with the payments into the fund.

 

[SJN-Fox]

I pay into the LGPS and have done for about 15 years. My pay has been frozen for 2 years (at least), despite the freeze being optional for those public servants that don't work directly for the Goverment, vat, fuel and just about everything else is rising, on top of that my pension contributions are set to rise by at least £25 a month followed by another rise in a year or so. In itself, that would be acceptable if it was going to increase the value of my pension rather than to pay for a big hole in the budget.

 

[Mawsley]

I have nothing but rage and strong words for those involved in dicking about with my pension. Barely a day goes by without someone saying something on Facebook or in the media which doesn't drive me to a state of extreme vexation.

I'm angry...to the extent that I'm going to pop this thread on ignore before someone says something I find deeply objectionable and I retort with abuse.

 

[Matt_B]

BM style:

Right, so you want to lock up and throw away the key

I never said or implied that. I said he is a ****, and does not deserve to be idolised or defended by football fans. You appear to believe that verbal assault is not serious.

on someone who contributes a hell of a lot through their taxes to pensions

Proportionally, footballers do not pay anywhere near as much tax as the common fan due to the way they are paid

and you want keep on paying people who can work not to.

You honestly think people should work until they die? I would love to know how old you are and your physical state.

You are right, that is a whole new level of idiocy.

I'm glad you agree.

What pisses me off most is that you just make up numbers and pass them off as fact to argue a shitty point.

I am really irritated by people who think that they have a right to live well for 20-30 years (at current life expectancies)

The retirement age is 65, the average life expectancy is 80 (link) so really these irritating people only believe they have a right to live well for 15 years max, 50% of your made up fact.

Add to this the average UK salary is just over £27,000 and the state pension is £102 a week. That's a whopping £5,300 a year. How dare these people want to live in such luxury! You really think that is living well?! A couple going from over £50k a year to £10k?!

after a work career of not much longer.

I can't argue on this simply because I don't know your definition of "not much". However, according to the government statistics, there are a significant number of people in employment between the age of 16 and 24, so even if we assume an average person will start work at 20-21, they will work for 45 years before they retire. Again, this is 50% more than your made up fact, so I have to assume that 50% is not much to you.

I think I might need to follow Mawsley and introduce you or this thread to my ignore list. ****ing ignorant posting.

 

[Cate Fox]

BM style:



I never said or implied that. I said he is a ****, and does not deserve to be idolised or defended by football fans. You appear to believe that verbal assault is not serious.



Proportionally, footballers do not pay anywhere near as much tax as the common fan due to the way they are paid


You honestly think people should work until they die? I would love to know how old you are and your physical state.


I'm glad you agree.

What pisses me off most is that you just make up numbers and pass them off as fact to argue a shitty point.



The retirement age is 65, the average life expectancy is 80 (link) so really these irritating people only believe they have a right to live well for 15 years max, 50% of your made up fact.

Add to this the average UK salary is just over £27,000 and the state pension is £102 a week. That's a whopping £5,300 a year. How dare these people want to live in such luxury! You really think that is living well?! A couple going from over £50k a year to £10k?!


I can't argue on this simply because I don't know your definition of "not much". However, according to the government statistics, there are a significant number of people in employment between the age of 16 and 24, so even if we assume an average person will start work at 20-21, they will work for 45 years before they retire. Again, this is 50% more than your made up fact, so I have to assume that 50% is not much to you.

I think I might need to follow Mawsley and introduce you or this thread to my ignore list. ****ing ignorant posting.

I hadnt seen the post you were quoting; thank you for introducing it to me and to another poster to add to my ignore list. Jeeeesus fecking christ some people are ignorant.

 

[jb5000]

BM style:

Classy

I never said or implied that. I said he is a ****, and does not deserve to be idolised or defended by football fans. You appear to believe that verbal assault is not serious.

Do you seriously think verbal assault is as bad as physical assault? I've never idolised a footballer in my life, and as I've said here many times before - those who do are fools. Having said that I'd be happy for him to play here. If you're saying that you don't want him here then it's a perfectly logical to extend that to you saying that fans like you should not welcome him at their own club. Which boils down to wanting him hounded out of the game and his living. Whether you like him or not, he has paid his debt to society as decided in a court of law, so move on.

Proportionally, footballers do not pay anywhere near as much tax as the common fan due to the way they are paid

And of course, in absolute terms they pay far more. Since the state runs on real money, not proportions, the absolute measure is far more useful.

You honestly think people should work until they die? I would love to know how old you are and your physical state.

You are building a straw man here. I have said that people who can work should, and that those who can't due to infirmity should be better treated. You have decided to decode that as 'the infirm should be made to work' so that you can lay in. Have you fun, but you're not making any real point.

What pisses me off most is that you just make up numbers and pass them off as fact to argue a shitty point.

The retirement age is 65, the average life expectancy is 80 (link) so really these irritating people only believe they have a right to live well for 15 years max, 50% of your made up fact.

Add to this the average UK salary is just over £27,000 and the state pension is £102 a week. That's a whopping £5,300 a year. How dare these people want to live in such luxury! You really think that is living well?! A couple going from over £50k a year to £10k?!

I can't argue on this simply because I don't know your definition of "not much". However, according to the government statistics, there are a significant number of people in employment between the age of 16 and 24, so even if we assume an average person will start work at 20-21, they will work for 45 years before they retire. Again, this is 50% more than your made up fact, so I have to assume that 50% is not much to you.

This thread started on private pensions, my comments should be read as such. The state pension ain't much, so I hope we both agree that not saving to supplement it is foolish.

There are plenty of examples of professions in the state sector having the opportunity to retire before 65, police for example can retire after 30 years service. If they joined at 18 that's retiring at 48, with 32 years left until they reach the average life expectancy. That pension will be worth around £18k a year even if our copper hasn't been promoted once in their career, comes with a fat tax-free lump sum and would cost millions if you were to buy it as an annuity. The accrued contributions don't even come close, with the difference either paid by taxpayers or added to the debt mountain for our kids to pay off. Teachers are another case in point, starting work at 22 as a bare minimum and retiring at 60 (a year's work expected to pay for more than six months pension!) on defined benefit pensions whose value simply haven't been covered by their contributions.

Now you might say, "but police officers can't be chasing hoodlums at 49", or "teachers can't be hopping up and down in front of their classes at 60", and you'd have a point. But there are more jobs in policing than chasing hoodlums, and more in teaching than in the classroom - and a lot of them go to older police officers and teachers. Just because someone becomes too infirm to do one particularly job is no reason to throw them on the scrapheap and say that they can do no job. It's no good for that person, and we simply can't afford it. You call my point 'shitty', but unless pensions are properly paid for it just means that the current generation will send the tab down the line, our children may well find that they have no opportunity to retire in the way we do now, I suspect they will call us pretty shitty if we let that happen.

I think I might need to follow Mawsley and introduce you or this thread to my ignore list. ****ing ignorant posting.

I feel that both yourself and Mawsley have stooped to levels of personal abuse that I feel I have not, complaining about a '****ing ignorant posting' shows which one of us is ignorant in a nutshell.

 

[bocadillo]

There are plenty of examples of professions in the state sector having the opportunity to retire before 65, police for example can retire after 30 years service. If they joined at 18 that's retiring at 48, with 32 years left until they reach the average life expectancy. That pension will be worth around £18k a year even if our copper hasn't been promoted once in their career, comes with a fat tax-free lump sum and would cost millions if you were to buy it as an annuity. The accrued contributions don't even come close, with the difference either paid by taxpayers or added to the debt mountain for our kids to pay off. Teachers are another case in point, starting work at 22 as a bare minimum and retiring at 60 (a year's work expected to pay for more than six months pension!) on defined benefit pensions whose value simply haven't been covered by their contributions.

You don't help your argument by making things up. Since 2006 police officers have had to work 35 years to earn a full pension. The normal retirement age for male teachers is 65 and for female teachers is 60 and it is being proposed that this should increase - the same as everybody else.

You seem to believe that pension benefits should derive solely from the payments contributed by the employee. It has long been practice for both the employee and the employer to subscribe to the employees pension, both in the public and in the private sector. Are you unaware of this?

You seem upset that benefits exceed the amount the employee pays in. Notwithstanding that the fact that the employer also contributes, do you not think that an employee should be entitled to benefit from the growth in his accumulated fund?

You seem to think that local government pensions are always paid by "the tab being sent down the line". I can assure you that it is not so. The local government fund from which my pension is paid is fully funded from the contributions made by employees and employers and has to invest in the markets in such a way that it can meet its obligations.

I do agree that there are things that are wrong with government schemes, but proper pensions for all are not going to come from degrading public pension levels to those of the private sector. What is needed is for better arrangements to be made in that private sector and that will involve many changes - not least the need to ensure that people contribute to their future from the start of their working lives; a feature which is sadly lacking in the private sector, where people find it just too easy to put preparations for their retirement off until never.

 

[Feriol]

I'm 28 and am not paying into a pension yet. I have no confidence in pensions, with around 40 years before i retire i doubt any pension i were to start now would last without me loosing out at some point along the way.

 

[bocadillo]

what is needed is for better arrangements to be made in that private sector and that will involve many changes - not least the need to ensure that people contribute to their future from the start of their working lives; a feature which is sadly lacking in the private sector, where people find it just too easy to put preparations for their retirement off until never.

i'm 28 and am not paying into a pension yet.

qed

 

[Feriol]

q.e.d.

Indeed. Although my motive isn't because its 'too easy' to put it off.

My dad had a pension that he was led to believe would give him a comfortable retirement at 65. however, twice his arangements have gone tits up and now if he works until 70 it will be worth around £70pw.

I think i would be better off building up savings to be honest, however having the discipline to do that is the hard thing.

 

[FryattFox]

You seem to think that local government pensions are always paid by "the tab being sent down the line". I can assure you that it is not so. The local government fund from which my pension is paid is fully funded from the contributions made by employees and employers and has to invest in the markets in such a way that it can meet its obligations.

Is there not a (growing) deficit at the moment though?

 

[bocadillo]

Indeed. Although my motive isn't because its 'too easy' to put it off.

I wasn't meaning to suggest that *you* were taking an easy option. Just that there is an option which I believe should not exist.

My dad had a pension that he was led to believe would give him a comfortable retirement at 65. however, twice his arangements have gone tits up and now if he works until 70 it will be worth around £70pw.

I don't think anybody will be anything other than sad to hear that. Now if only successive governments had not mucked around with pension schemes and had required other schemes to have become more robust...

I think i would be better off building up savings to be honest, however having the discipline to do that is the hard thing.

Simply saving does not get you any contribution from your employer. Nor does it attract valuable tax relief. It also means that you have to do it all yourself and you already know about the will-power bit.

For some time people thought that putting there money into property was the answer. The way the housing market is now, many of those same people are wondering if it ever was.

 

[bocadillo]

Is there not a (growing) deficit at the moment though?

Not according to the most recent annual report, except in a small section which relates to people who retired some time ago and who were employed by two now defunct local authorities. The overall picture is one of healthy growth. Of course the scheme does not have to pay salesmen; nor does it have to pay dividends to shareholders.

 

[Feriol]

I wasn't meaning to suggest that *you* were taking an easy option. Just that there is an option which I believe should not exist.

I know, i didn't take it personally. just clarifying that my motive wasn't because i couldn't be bothered. more disillusioned

I don't think anybody will be anything other than sad to hear that. Now if only successive governments had not mucked around with pension schemes and had required other schemes to have become more robust...

Indeed. Until we have some stability, it's impossible to have any confidence

Simply saving does not get you any contribution from your employer. Nor does it attract valuable tax relief. It also means that you have to do it all yourself and you already know about the will-power bit.

For some time people thought that putting there money into property was the answer. The way the housing market is now, many of those same people are wondering if it ever was.

It must also take a lot of will power to trust your money to a system that has consistently let people down.

 

[Han]

There's an awful lot in here about defined benefit schemes, which I assume is what Feriol's Dad was exposed to. Boc seems to have done a pretty good job of answering the silly points.

It's a shame that today's pensions are tarred with the same brush as these ancient schemes that went 'tits up' all too often (although as pointed out, there is a fair level of protection against this now). It's people hearing horror stories from their seniors that puts people off 90% of the time.

And to reply to Ferilol's very last point, there is no one system that drives all pensions. Each policy, each scheme, each company and each provider is different.

 

[FryattFox]

Not according to the most recent annual report, except in a small section which relates to people who retired some time ago and who were employed by two now defunct local authorities. The overall picture is one of healthy growth. Of course the scheme does not have to pay salesmen; nor does it have to pay dividends to shareholders.

Oh.

 

[Han]

What is needed is for better arrangements to be made in that private sector and that will involve many changes - not least the need to ensure that people contribute to their future from the start of their working lives; a feature which is sadly lacking in the private sector, where people find it just too easy to put preparations for their retirement off until never.

The new auto-enrolment rules should at least raise awareness, even if the sums saved are minimal. For those that do not know, the vast majority of uk employees will automatically be enrolled into their company pension scheme by the end of 2016. They will also have to contribute, unless (or until) they opt out.

 

[Han]

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

For the same reason (in part) that annuity rates are low - people are living longer and healthier lives. The longer people live, the more it costs, the more money has to be pumped in to the pot.

[I may be wrong] Also, when the public sector pensions were set up with such good benefits, they were seen as compensation for the lower average wage compared to the private sector. In the public sector people are now earning more than they used to in comparison to the private sector (maybe even more?).

If I were to save up to provide myself with a benefit equal to the Teachers Pension Scheme, I would have to save something like 25% of my salary each year.

 

[Han]

I hope I get something back out of it to stick into a frozen pension I have with Scottish Widows, but I'm not hopeful of receiving anything decent. The company that is looking after it now are very slow at informing the members of what is happening.

If the benefits are taken over by another company, or the PPF then you should seek advice before moving it out to your private pension.

 

[drew]

http://www.amazon.com/Storm-Proof-Your-Money-Portfolio/dp/0470482680

I just got done reading this book, it was bought for me by my FIL so a lot of it is US based however it does give very good examples about the money we waste continually on stupid things rather than putting away into a pension.

I think in the next 18-24months employers will have to offer a pension scheme, it would be crazy not to take them up on it. http://www.businesslink.gov.uk/bdot...773&r.l3=1073912964&r.s=tl&topicId=1084109972