Private pension age going up from 55.....
Discussion
richie99 said:
As I was 50 10 days after the one eyed Scottish idiot moved the minimum age from 50 to 55, this is an outrage. It's my money. If I've saved enough to want to take my pension early then that's my business.
Just like the toff English idiot is doing this now! You are spot on, you have saved it do it should be at your disposal when you retire!The traditional pension cannot be sustained. When it was first invented it needed to last 3 to 5 years on average. These days pension would need to last 30 years from contributions from 39 years. Realistically if you paid every penny you ever earned it would not be enough, by a very large margin.
Real inflation is insane and has been for at least 10 years. (Not based on TV and computers like the current version is. Food and fuel costs have increased 10% as a minimum for many years).
The whole system is f@cked. It cannot be sustained even for the privileged few.
Real inflation is insane and has been for at least 10 years. (Not based on TV and computers like the current version is. Food and fuel costs have increased 10% as a minimum for many years).
The whole system is f@cked. It cannot be sustained even for the privileged few.
The_Burg said:
The traditional pension cannot be sustained. When it was first invented it needed to last 3 to 5 years on average. These days pension would need to last 30 years from contributions from 39 years. Realistically if you paid every penny you ever earned it would not be enough, by a very large margin.
Real inflation is insane and has been for at least 10 years. (Not based on TV and computers like the current version is. Food and fuel costs have increased 10% as a minimum for many years).
The whole system is f@cked. It cannot be sustained even for the privileged few.
The conclusion of that being that we've got a system based on a wage system which can't support the population.With wages falling massively in real terms based on rigged price increase figures.As for a pension system based on a life expectancy figure of 90 + that's about as believable as the current 'inflation' rate figures. Real inflation is insane and has been for at least 10 years. (Not based on TV and computers like the current version is. Food and fuel costs have increased 10% as a minimum for many years).
The whole system is f@cked. It cannot be sustained even for the privileged few.
There is a worrying assumption included in these plans - that life expectancy will continue to rise. I'm sure it will at best level off, but it could well come down - the current population of 50/60/70+ year olds probably had a better combination of diet/exercise/healthcare than future generations. Medical science is improving, but there's only so much that can be done for the ever increasing proportion of fat, lazy b
ds, and that could well start to drag down the average.
ds, and that could well start to drag down the average.XJ Flyer said:
lamboman100 said:
XJ Flyer said:
lamboman100 said:
Few people in the UK take their full or partial private pension at 55. The number of people affected by this change is small.
Fact is, Britons are living longer, the working population is aging, and the UK economy is sunsetting. Britain simply cannot afford generous pensions anymore.
Or to put it another way capitalism British style can't deliver.Most people won't live to collect all their investment as it stands now.So how old is everyone supposed to be living and supposed to be working for in this brave new Britain and it's supposedly well performing G8 economy.While if Britain can't afford to pay pensions any more then don't expect or compel people to contribute to the scam.Let them keep ( all of ) their wages and invest them as they wish.In which case pensions would be seen for the rip off scam to benefit the banking sector that they are. Fact is, Britons are living longer, the working population is aging, and the UK economy is sunsetting. Britain simply cannot afford generous pensions anymore.
None of which has anything to do with the rip off idea of pensions which have always been about a scam that's rigged in the pension providers' favour.By making sure that most pension contributors won't see all the money they are due and have invested.Which is the only reason why any provider would have any incentive to be involved.That fact has applied regardless of the state of the economy or wether it's the state pension system or private.Simply because the interests of pension contributors are directly opposed to those of the pension providers.This plan obviously just being yet another symptom and part of all that.
The UK pension providers are not great. Everyone knows that. But, on balance, the level of relative tax-breaks, especially for the rich, more than outweigh the silly charges from some (but not all) pension providers.
There was a time when people worked from the age of 15 to 65, retired, and died at 70.
- There was a time when companies had defined benefit plans that assumed retirement at 65 and 6 or 7 year survival.
-There was also a time when companies expanded so that the active population was always much greater than the retiree population.
-And, of course, there was a time when people did not move from company to company.
None of these now apply.
The reality is that people now need to plan for full time work from 25 to (say 60), assuming university educations etc.
So, their 35 year working life has to support a potential 20 years of retirement plus maybe a few years more for the surviving spouse.
Relying on a pension plan plus the value of your home does not seem at all adequate to me.,
- There was a time when companies had defined benefit plans that assumed retirement at 65 and 6 or 7 year survival.
-There was also a time when companies expanded so that the active population was always much greater than the retiree population.
-And, of course, there was a time when people did not move from company to company.
None of these now apply.
The reality is that people now need to plan for full time work from 25 to (say 60), assuming university educations etc.
So, their 35 year working life has to support a potential 20 years of retirement plus maybe a few years more for the surviving spouse.
Relying on a pension plan plus the value of your home does not seem at all adequate to me.,
RDMcG said:
There was a time when people worked from the age of 15 to 65, retired, and died at 70.
- There was a time when companies had defined benefit plans that assumed retirement at 65 and 6 or 7 year survival.
-There was also a time when companies expanded so that the active population was always much greater than the retiree population.
-And, of course, there was a time when people did not move from company to company.
None of these now apply.
The reality is that people now need to plan for full time work from 25 to (say 60), assuming university educations etc.
So, their 35 year working life has to support a potential 20 years of retirement plus maybe a few years more for the surviving spouse.
Relying on a pension plan plus the value of your home does not seem at all adequate to me.,
Basically the economic system has reached the point where it's no longer capable of providing for the nation's population.- There was a time when companies had defined benefit plans that assumed retirement at 65 and 6 or 7 year survival.
-There was also a time when companies expanded so that the active population was always much greater than the retiree population.
-And, of course, there was a time when people did not move from company to company.
None of these now apply.
The reality is that people now need to plan for full time work from 25 to (say 60), assuming university educations etc.
So, their 35 year working life has to support a potential 20 years of retirement plus maybe a few years more for the surviving spouse.
Relying on a pension plan plus the value of your home does not seem at all adequate to me.,
IE taken as an average at the average wage,let alone for many the minimum wage the population as a whole is a net loss to the economy.Because there's no way that it can earn enough during a working lifetime to cover all the costs of it's housing,education,food,fuel,health care,and retirement provision.If all those costs are passed on,as they should be,into the economy in the form of required incomes and/or owed incomes the economy would collapse.In large part because the global free market economy means that if one country's population won't work for less than it takes to keep it the employers will move the jobs to somewhere where the population will.In which case it's just a matter of time until the whole lot collapses like a pack of cards and we go back to medieval living standards.
As for life expectancy nothing has really changed in that in general the reality is most people will be ( very ) lucky to live for much more than 10-15 years after retirement at 65.While many others will be gone before that if not before 65.However just like the so called 'official' rate of inflation compared to incomes,the idea of increasing life expectancy is just a lie being put out by those who obviously stand to benefit by cutting the returns on pension contributions,to keep more for themselves.
Edited by XJ Flyer on Wednesday 23 July 03:19
XJ Flyer said:
As for life expectancy nothing has really changed in that in general the reality is most people will be ( very ) lucky to live for much more than 10-15 years after retirement at 65.While many others will be gone before that if not before 65.However just like the so called 'official' rate of inflation compared to incomes,the idea of increasing life expectancy is just a lie being put out by those who obviously stand to benefit by cutting the returns on pension contributions,to keep more for themselves.
I am not a fan of the pension industry as I think a lot of their products are designed to benefit the company rather than the policyholder, however it is difficult to support your view that increasing life expectancy is a lie. BBC website said:
The number of people living in the UK aged 100 increased by 73% in the decade to 2012, said the Office for National Statistics (ONS).
In 2012 there were 13,350 centenarians living in Britain, from 7,740 in 2002.
The ONS also said life expectancy in Britain had "reached its highest level on record for both males and females".
A newborn boy could live 78.7 years, and a girl, 82.6 years, if mortality rates stayed the same for 2010 and 2012 in the UK, it said.
Meanwhile, a man aged 65 in the UK could expect to live for 18.2 years, a 40% increase in the 30 years to 2012, and a 65-year-old woman, for 20.7 years, a 25% increase.
That is a substantial increase in 30 years.In 2012 there were 13,350 centenarians living in Britain, from 7,740 in 2002.
The ONS also said life expectancy in Britain had "reached its highest level on record for both males and females".
A newborn boy could live 78.7 years, and a girl, 82.6 years, if mortality rates stayed the same for 2010 and 2012 in the UK, it said.
Meanwhile, a man aged 65 in the UK could expect to live for 18.2 years, a 40% increase in the 30 years to 2012, and a 65-year-old woman, for 20.7 years, a 25% increase.
Link
XJ Flyer said:
Meanwhile the Cons keep telling us how well the economy is performing compared to other developed countries.They can't have it both ways either it's not working or it is.
None of which has anything to do with the rip off idea of pensions which have always been about a scam that's rigged in the pension providers' favour.By making sure that most pension contributors won't see all the money they are due and have invested.Which is the only reason why any provider would have any incentive to be involved.That fact has applied regardless of the state of the economy or wether it's the state pension system or private.Simply because the interests of pension contributors are directly opposed to those of the pension providers.This plan obviously just being yet another symptom and part of all that.
You clearly have no clue.None of which has anything to do with the rip off idea of pensions which have always been about a scam that's rigged in the pension providers' favour.By making sure that most pension contributors won't see all the money they are due and have invested.Which is the only reason why any provider would have any incentive to be involved.That fact has applied regardless of the state of the economy or wether it's the state pension system or private.Simply because the interests of pension contributors are directly opposed to those of the pension providers.This plan obviously just being yet another symptom and part of all that.
Edited by sidicks on Wednesday 23 July 05:34
arp1 said:
So we should be lucky that we are having our existing schemes torn up and be forced onto one that is not fit for purpose and grossly penalises you if and when you cannot meet the requirements? (Going off on a tangent now this thread, apologies)
You should be grateful that accrued benefits are protected and that these changes have gone about 20 years after similar changes in the orivate sector.Plus the scheme that remains is still hugely attractive compared to a) what you pay in and b) what can get afforded by most private sector workers.
XJ Flyer said:
The conclusion of that being that we've got a system based on a wage system which can't support the population.With wages falling massively in real terms based on rigged price increase figures.As for a pension system based on a life expectancy figure of 90 + that's about as believable as the current 'inflation' rate figures.
You clearly know nothing!
sidicks said:
You should be grateful that accrued benefits are protected and that these changes have gone about 20 years after similar changes in the orivate sector.
Plus the scheme that remains is still hugely attractive compared to a) what you pay in and b) what can get afforded by most private sector workers.
Exactly thisPlus the scheme that remains is still hugely attractive compared to a) what you pay in and b) what can get afforded by most private sector workers.
sidicks said:
And they get pensions that are 10-15 times that of typical private sector workers.
You can't deny the fact that their pensions are hugely subsidised by taxpayers.
If the ratio is that large then the retired private sector workers are going to be heavily reliant on benefits - also provided by taxpayers.You can't deny the fact that their pensions are hugely subsidised by taxpayers.
sidicks said:
XJ Flyer said:
So why not leave the age as it is and be honest by calling it what it actually is a tax relief cut in pension provision.Instead of dressing it up to make it look like something else.It is obvious that,for such a scam to work,the next step will be for the government to impose a higher element of compulsory pension payments taken from wages.
If you want free access to your money then invest outside of a pension.Edited by XJ Flyer on Tuesday 22 July 20:38
If you want the benefit of pension relief then you have to accept the restrictions the government imposes.
I hate the concept of paying my hard earned into a pot that someone else has control over.
arp1 said:
richie99 said:
As I was 50 10 days after the one eyed Scottish idiot moved the minimum age from 50 to 55, this is an outrage. It's my money. If I've saved enough to want to take my pension early then that's my business.
Just like the toff English idiot is doing this now! You are spot on, you have saved it do it should be at your disposal when you retire!The argument about the State having a say is one thing, the State then using those powers wisely is another.
Also:
http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/pensions/articl...
The current position is still very favourable compared to what's available and affordable in the private sector.
sidicks said:
Sheepshanks said:
They (firemen, policemen etc) pay in a bigger % of their salaries than typical private sector workers.
And they get pensions that are 10-15 times that of typical private sector workers.You can't deny the fact that their pensions are hugely subsidised by taxpayers.
[report] [news] 05:18
arp1 said:
So we should be lucky that we are having our existing schemes torn up and be forced onto one that is not fit for purpose and grossly penalises you if and when you cannot meet the requirements? (Going off on a tangent now this thread, apologies)
You should be grateful that accrued benefits are protected and that these changes have gone about 20 years after similar changes in the orivate sector.
Plus the scheme that remains is still hugely attractive compared to a) what you pay in and b) what can get afforded by most private sector workers.
Not nearly as attractive as you think, do you really know all there is to know about the schemes?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff