Do it. Everybody needs to do it.
If you mean in the sense that the stock market is a ponzi scheme which needs new suckers, sorry investors to continually buy more shares to prop it up then yes people need to do it.
30/11 Strikes.
- Thread starter wordy
- Start date
If you mean in the sense that the stock market is a ponzi scheme which needs new suckers, sorry investors to continually buy more shares to prop it up then yes people need to do it.
No, what I mean is more than clear. Relying on the state now and particularly in the future is unrealistic and of high risk.
In which ever fashion is beneficial for yourself people should make provision for their retirement.
The markets aren't going to end in our lifetime.
Paying into a pension is also very high risk. You risk that it will be worthless, or worth little. You risk that you would have got the same in means tested benefits from the government meaning that all the money you paid into your pension was wasted, you might as well have thrown it in the bin.
Pensions aren't for everyone and people should think about it carefully and consider their own circumstances, the opportunity cost and the risks they are willing to take.
The risk of doing nothing is the most severe risk with an assured outcome, I never said investments were a guarantee but they are still a wise course.
If you don't need one you don't need one, most will however.
Only if they can afford to save over a certain amount; under that amount they won't be a penny better off if the current type of means testing regime or similar is still in effect when they retire, which I believe it will be.
For example if you can only afford £50 a month or something like that, you really are throwing your money away.
You aren't means tested for your own pension. In any event, those under 30 now should count themself lucky if they have any state pension entitlement in 30 years plus time.
State pension isn't means tested. Other retirement benefits are. For example if you haven't paid any N.I., or insufficient N.I., you will get a reduced, or zero, state pension, but you will get other benefits (pension credit etc.) to make up for it. This is currently above the level of the state pension. Meaning that if you have a small private pension then you get less pension credit. Do you see?
And I do fully assume there will be a state pension and other benefits in 30-40 years. Why, because there will be millions with no or little pension provision, and no government is going to let millions of old people starve to death on the streets are they. I think we can safely assume this.
Last edited:
I never said it was, you were implying your own private pension would be means tested.
I was pointing out that relying on state benefits is a massive risk as we move forward with the demographic and economic trends we have.
Your own private pension is taken into account by the authorities when they means test what state benefits you are entitled to.
Deleted member 66701
Deleted member 66701
Can we?
We've let a million starve on our own doorstep once before.
Last edited by a moderator:
And? This is an irrelevent tangent, there is no reason not to save for your retirement as you keep on harping on at.
Common sense.
Common sense is all very well when it isn't costed...
Yet there are very good reasons which I've explained. And I specifically refer to using a pension fund. Saving in other ways which you yourself control is different and for lower paid people who can't afford to save much, it makes more sense for them to use this method.
I've already countered this nonesense.
Relying on the state is not acceptable and of the highest risks. The markets are going no where and you grossly overestimate the effect of things like pension credits. I did say people should save in which ever manner suits them, but they should save for their retirement if your pension is made up of contributions to a scheme or a portfolio of property and stock and so forth..
I would say that voter engagement is necessary in a "highly democratic" organisation. Obviously you feel otherwise.
When the voting information comes through from the union does it include both sides with no guidance on how the member should vote or does it just have information highly biased towards one side and a suggestion to vote for a strike? If it is the later than I again would question your assertion that the organisation running the vote is "highly democratic".
So far you haven't really given me much worth listening to.
But it isn't nonsense is it.
You ASSUME that there will be no state pension or other benefits in 30-40 years. But if you are wrong, then saving low amounts into a pension is utterly pointless. You would be better to spend it now, or save it as cash or in other forms. Or it will be wiped out by future means testing.
This seems to anger you but why? What I am saying is fully accurate and can be verified by anyone who wants to check out the rules and do a bit of simple arithmetic.
Do you want people to be informed or not? A pension is a big decision, I would hope that people want to make it based on correct information and weigh up all the pros and cons.
Deleted member 66701
Deleted member 66701
First point - it doesn't come from the Union - all ballot materials are vetted and sent out by the elctoral reform services - Unions are not involved in the process other than contributing information to the "voting pack".
Your second point, yes, both sides have the option to include a covering letter outlining thier stance.
When we ran a pay balot in 2009 where we were reconmending rejection, the company included a covering letter so they had their say on why the members should vote for acceptance.
Deleted member 66701
Deleted member 66701
A quality not often displayed in politics.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/victorians/famine_01.shtml