How much will your monthly pension be?

@vincent1989

So say that and give current pensioners a triple locked pension (massively increasing pension costs over a decade, something which was never promised to pensioners when they were 30) which forces the government to go back to the "youth" and tell them that because we were so generous to the current pensioners that we have to be even leaner with you?

The state pension as it stands will collapse and no amount of tweaking the age (unless you take it really high so very few people get it) will fix the spending that is happening today.

The 50+ generation which currently decide elections don't really care either because they don't want to lose that generosity. After all they earned it, don't care that future pensioners also earned theirs, or that public services are being cut (apart from the NHS ofc, because they might actually need that now that they are getting old).

I'm generalising, but you get the point.
 
Hikari Kisugi said:
Blame the DUP, the tories wanted to dump the triple lock, the DUP blocked it. Messy.
Click to expand...

It isn't necessarily a party thing. Labour also have a massive older voter base. Unfortunately its a generational bias that exists in politics around the world. It always results in the current generation taking from the next. The same will be true when young people today decide the future of the young people of tomorrow. That's why people in power need to be smart and reject populist ideas when experts say it is bad.

Another good example is Medicare in the US. Pretty good health insurance for all over 65s drawing away government spending from everyone else.

https://www.medicare.gov/sign-up-ch...medicare/whats-medicare/what-is-medicare.html
 
muon said:
@vincent1989

So say that and give current pensioners a triple locked pension (massively increasing pension costs over a decade, something which was never promised to pensioners when they were 30) which forces the government to go back to the "youth" and tell them that because we were so generous to the current pensioners that we have to be even leaner with you?

The state pension as it stands will collapse and no amount of tweaking the age (unless you take it really high so very few people get it) will fix the spending that is happening today.

The 50+ generation which currently decide elections don't really care either because they don't want to lose that generosity. After all they earned it, don't care that future pensioners also earned theirs, or that public services are being cut.
Click to expand...

I can't disagree. I can only assume what they're doing with the workplace pension auto enrollment is to mitigate that to some extent.

In my eyes it should work this way:

current generation (my generation :( ) pays the price, we pay in to a pension pot via direct taxation (as we currently do) which pays for current pensioners, we also pay in to a separate, privately managed pension for our own pension and the pension age goes up, say to 70 (though frankly what jobs are suitable for many 70 year olds is anyone's guess, but not too much different to 68 anyway). When we reach pension age the next generation would be free from the burden of paying for my generation, taxation would be reduced, or maintained and redirected and the next generation are left with their privately managed pension payments only.

Incredibly simplistic would probably take multiple generations and is reliant on the government not reducing taxation now (which they are) increasing pension above inflation (which they are) or taking people out of taxation altogether (which they are). someone in parliament needs to start taking tough decisions even if it means election losses, but then which turkey would seriously vote for Christmas.

What other way is there? I don't think it's fair to pull the rug out from under my parents who paid tax and NI in good faith. If someone promises you x and it seems a good deal then you take it. The average man is not privy to, nor would they understand the complexities of the governments balance sheet, it's reckless for politicians to pray on peoples desire for a comfortable life without making them aware of the impact on their children.

I'd rather suffer than let my child if the choice was laid out in plain English but it never is.
 
No one is talking about pulling the rug out from those who can't afford it though.

The sensible thing to do would be to have a sliding scale of pensions where you could actually increase the pension for those solely relying on the state pension (so they dont have one of the lowest in the developed world) which reduces on a sliding scale depending on other income and assets.

Exactly what Australia did although they had to water down a lot of it because of the strong voter base of current pensioners and those approaching retirement.

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...-the-new-means-test-for-the-aged-pension-fair
 
Hikari Kisugi said:
I think modern lifestyle, mixed with sedentary teens, overweight obese diabetics will lead to a reduction in the eventual life expectancy, coupled with an increasing retirement age of 70 for that group will solve much of this issue itself.
Click to expand...

maybe, on the other hand you could end up with an increase in % of people claiming for disability benefits (or JSA) in their 50s and 60s... manual workers won't be able to carry on in their usual jobs and people tend to have the attitude that they don't want to retrain, do something new etc..

I guess there are only so many vacancies available in B&Q

I think welfare will be stretched and we'll need to make further cuts as a higher portion of the population will want to claim and rely on a smaller % of actual tax paying workers. I suspect this means the state pension will shrink and/or there will be increasing pressure for some serious means testing.

Basically I'm not planning to rely on it but rather will treat the state pension as a nice bonus if it is still around as something everyone is eligible for when I retire.
 
muon said:
No one is talking about pulling the rug out from those who can't afford it though.

The sensible thing to do would be to have a sliding scale of pensions where you could actually increase the pension for those solely relying on the state pension (so they dont have one of the lowest in the developed world) which reduces on a sliding scale depending on other income and assets.

Exactly what Australia did although they had to water down a lot of it because of the strong voter base of current pensioners and those approaching retirement.

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...-the-new-means-test-for-the-aged-pension-fair
Click to expand...

No but you are talking about changing something people have been paying in to on the assumption that they receive a certain benefit at the end of it which I don't feel is right. That's why I say have a two tier system, stop making additional promises to the 'old' tier and let them ride it out to 68 with the double or triple lock (personally I think they should just be happy with inflationary rises but that'll never happen now) and have a second tier which could well be on a sliding scale that provides more to those who need it, less to those who don't or whatever sustainable structure is decided on with the downside that the first x number of generations from the 'new' tier have to also make contribution for their parents and grandparents.
 
vincent1989 said:
No but you are talking about changing something people have been paying in to on the assumption that they receive a certain benefit at the end of it which I don't feel is right. That's why I say have a two tier system, stop making additional promises to the 'old' tier and let them ride it out to 68 with the double or triple lock (personally I think they should just be happy with inflationary rises but that'll never happen now) and have a second tier which could well be on a sliding scale that provides more to those who need it, less to those who don't or whatever sustainable structure is decided on with the downside that the first x number of generations from the 'new' tier have to also make contribution for their parents and grandparents.
Click to expand...

in reality though they've not 'payed into' anything - it isn't like there is a big pot of money waiting for them to collect a pension from but they're reliant on future tax payers... the vast majority will not have been net contributors to the tax system (relative to spending per tax payer) through their lives - they've simply paid their taxes (including a tax that has some weak link to social security)

I don't think it is wrong to start slashing the amount paid out or to introduce some form of means testing
 
I'm 28, can't exactly see myself ever having a state pension.

Plan is to retire at 55 with whatever the pension limit is mortgage free with another house earning rent.

Partner has the same ambitions.

Two people in their 50s with capped pensions should mean a relatively comfortable life mortgage free.
 
There will be some wonder drug in 20 years time that means we get to live for 1000 years, no need to worry about pension, we will all be working for the next 800 years :-P
 
LeMson said:
There will be some wonder drug in 20 years time that means we get to live for 1000 years, no need to worry about pension, we will all be working for the next 800 years :p
Click to expand...
I be almost 70 by then...

No way would I like to stay 70 years old for 1000 years.....;)
 
MonkeyMan said:
Ha I think my current pension will pay out about £200 per year and considering I'm in my 30's with no chance of buying a property any time soon I think retirement might consist of me swallowing a shot gun. :o

Or worse.... working at B&Q :(
Click to expand...

I considered it and started a private pension with my employer. It was a very good deal and I would have retired with quite close to my final salary after paying for 40 years with additional voluntary contributions. Then they closed it and made the replacement worse and worse and worse and the cost of it higher and higher and higher and I realised that it had become worthless. My projected pension after 40 years of payments wouldn't be enough to feed a dog decently. So I cut my losses and came out of it, essentially writing off 10 years of payments since they had become almost worthless.

Nowadays, useful pensions are only for people who are at least quite wealthy. They're simply not affordable for people who aren't. It's not like the past, when even someone working full time on low wages could build up a reasonably decent pension.

Maybe the state will keep me when I'm old. Maybe I'll just die. Nothing I can do about it.
 
Mr^B said:
How do you access the money without paying huge amounts of tax on it?
Click to expand...

it probably isn't actually a pension but literally returns from some investment or small business he's referring to as his 'pension'

the poster in question is a bit misleading at times re: his choice of words/claims - he was/is a full time student and so claimed to be 'retired' at 30 something in another thread, also claimed to be offered a 'senior lecturer' position while still an undergrad etc...

what he says and what others might think certain terms actually mean are seemingly rather different
 
Meh whatever about retirement.
I'm 36 and couldn't care less about retirement. I'll just top myself when I'm 60, 65 max. Then give my sisters 3 kids my inheritance rather than waste it in health or care home fee's.

If I have any kids then that's a different scenario. But, I can't see me having any kids from now on. A big part of me now feels too old for that stuff.
 
Mr^B said:
Most pension calculators assume that you'll get 5% return on your investment.

My fund selection (BlackRock Consensus 85) has had about 10% average return for the past 5 years, but I still calculate my final pot based on 5% growth.

NEST use a fairly standard list of pension fund managers, so it'll depend entirely on what risk profile/fund you pick as to what returns you could get.
Click to expand...

My pension in my old company almost doubled from £3k to circa £6k last year, pretty pleased! (i was only there 18 months)

I pay 18% with company contributions which should be an ok amount (I'm nearly 26)..

Does anyone understand the employer payment value to civil service pensions? Ie employee pays something like 2% and what value does employer add? (on new pension type) is it worth topping up a civil service pension?
 
dowie said:
it probably isn't actually a pension but literally returns from some investment or small business he's referring to as his 'pension'

the poster in question is a bit misleading at times re: his choice of words/claims - he was/is a full time student and so claimed to be 'retired' at 30 something in another thread, also claimed to be offered a 'senior lecturer' position while still an undergrad etc...

what he says and what others might think certain terms actually mean are seemingly rather different
Click to expand...

Ah, I see, that makes sense I guess. I wasn't aware of the wider context.

:)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom