Lease cars and lack of pension provision

[sidicks]

PixelpeepS3 said:

here are some banks & building societies as for pension companies, i'll assume you think none of them went tits up in the last 10 years?

I'm waiting for you to tell me which ones went bust...


By the way:
The majority of the building societies that you refer to merged or were taken over - people with deposits in those institutions did not lose out. They did not really go bust.

Regardless, None of this is relevant for pensions, obviously!

[PixelpeepS3]

sidicks said:

PixelpeepS3 said:

here are some banks & building societies as for pension companies, i'll assume you think none of them went tits up in the last 10 years?

I'm waiting for you to tell me which ones went bust...


By the way:
The majority of the building societies that you refer to merged or were taken over - people with deposits in those institutions did not lose out. They did not really go bust.

Regardless, None of this is relevant for pensions, obviously!

Jesus. More dangerous than someone who knows very little is someone that THINKS they know everything..

Right,

You ask for a list, i give you it, you then tell me that 'the majority were taken over' - yes, because they would have gone bust if someone else hadn't rescued them.

You then (after i supply a list) tell me that's not relevant - why fking ask for it then?

Seriously, stop wasting my time with your denial. Banks have gone bust, pension schemes have crashed, people have lost money - These are facts. i know it, other 'non-experts' also know it.

i'll read your reply but i won't respond to it. i am done. Enjoy the taste of sand.

[sidicks]

PixelpeepS3 said:

Jesus. More dangerous than someone who knows very little is someone that THINKS they know everything..

Right,

It doesn't take much to know more than you about this topic, as evidenced above!

PixelpeepS3 said:

You ask for a list, i give you it, you then tell me that 'the majority were taken over' - yes, because they would have gone bust if someone else hadn't rescued them.

I asked for a list of banks and pension companies who went bust.

You provided a list primarily of building societies which were taken over.

That's not the same thing. HTH

And the thread is about pensions, so which pension companies went bust in the last 10 year?

PixelpeepS3 said:

You then (after i supply a list) tell me that's not relevant - why fking ask for it then?

Which pension companies?

PixelpeepS3 said:

Seriously, stop wasting my time with your denial. Banks have gone bust, pension schemes have crashed, people have lost money - These are facts. i know it, other 'non-experts' also know it.

Who lost money from banks going bust? It certainly wasn't deposit holders.
Some DB Pension schemes have gone bust but that's 100% irrelevant for this discussion
Which 'pension companies' have gone bust?

PixelpeepS3 said:

i'll read your reply but i won't respond to it. i am done. Enjoy the taste of sand.

So no pension companies then?!
Enjoy your ignorance!

[drainbrain]

Well, given how it works, I would be surprised if any annuity company went bust.

Hmm. I suppose it's possible.

Underling: Sir Stuart. Remember that mug who bought one of our annuities with his million pound pension fund last year?

Sir Stuart (CEO of annuity company): fking why?

Underling: He got flattened by a number 11 bus last week.

Sir Stuart: Is he fking dead?

Underling: Yes

Sir Stuart: How much did we pay the fking mug out?

Underling : £37,222

Sir Stuart: Well don't just fking sit there! Phone fking HR Owen and get me a new fking Ferrari la fking Ferrari!

Underling: But Sir Stuart....that costs more than there is left in the mug's fund even when you add what we've increased it by!

Sir Stuart (in a rising rage): Who fking cares what it costs? Who fking cares whatever I decide to spend? We CAN'T go fking bust! The fking Treasury doesn't ALLOW us to go fking bust WHATEVER losses and red numbers we run! Now get the fk out of here and get me that fking Ferrari!!

Underling: Yes, your majesty. To hear is to obey.

Later that evening on TV:

Today the chancellor said he regrets to announce that due to market conditions it has become necessary to bail out Stuart Spendthrift Ltd to the tune of eleventy twelve billion zillion hard earned and grudgingly paid tax credits. This will, of course, mean the nation will have to live through a prolonged period of austerity and compromise. Standards will inevitably fall. And people will have to work longer, harder and reduce their expectations.

On a more positive note, this bail out will prevent Sir Stuart from either having to shut down his casino cum ponzi scheme, erm, I mean annuity company, or compromise his lavishly excessive and indulgent lifestyle in any way at all....

Bust? How can a huge financial institution go bust? Not when we, the prudent and careful savers who created such a huge capitalist colossus are there to give it a huge handout when its main beneficiaries run riot in an orgy of irresponsible greed.

Ps: Greed as we all know is not a criminal offence, so don't start whinging about "wrongdoing"....

[sidicks]

drainbrain said:

Well, given how it works, I would be surprised if any annuity company went bust.

So now you're confusing pension company and an annuity company?

You clearly have no idea about 'how it works'.

drainbrain said:

Bust? How can a huge financial institution go bust? Not when we, the prudent and careful savers who created such a huge capitalist colossus are there to give it a huge handout when its main beneficiaries run riot in an orgy of irresponsible greed.

Ps: Greed as we all know is not a criminal offence, so don't start whinging about "wrongdoing"....

Why do you persist with this ignorant nonsense?

Which annuity companies have received government funding?
Suggest you stick to your dubious Glasgow business dealings!

It really is no wonder people like PixelpeepS3 are confused when there are idiots like you determined to peddle lies and misinformation on forums like this.

Edited by sidicks on Sunday 19th February 16:15

[drainbrain]

Okay Sid. I'll come clean.

There really is no Sir Stuart or annuity company called Stuart Spendthrift Ltd. I made it all up. The Treasury never had to bail it out with taxpayers money due to some greed-based misplaced allocation of funds.

It was all fictitious.

So was the bit about the 'mug' who bought a lifetime annuity for £1M which the company kept having only paid him a few thousand quid before he died.

Pure fantasy........o wait...

[sidicks]

drainbrain said:

Okay Sid. I'll come clean.

There really is no Sir Stuart or annuity company called Stuart Spendthrift Ltd. I made it all up. The Treasury never had to bail it out with taxpayers money due to some greed-based misplaced allocation of funds.

It was all fictitious.

So was the bit about the 'mug' who bought a lifetime annuity for £1M which the company kept having only paid him a few thousand quid before he died.

Pure fantasy........o wait...;)

Why don't you understand what an annuity is?
Which annuity company was bailed out?
What do you think annuity funds invest in?

[TSCfree]

Sorry for the thread drift, quick question.

Si - Crystal ball time. If someone pays into one of these new fangled workplace pensions (Is this contracted out?). Will they receive FULL new state pension at retirement age?

It's not clear on the .Gov site whether 'contracting out' could also apply post 6th April 2016.

[sidicks]

TSCfree said:

Sorry for the thread drift, quick question.

Si - Crystal ball time. If someone pays into one of these new fangled workplace pensions (Is this contracted out?). Will they receive FULL new state pension at retirement age?

It's not clear on the .Gov site whether 'contracting out' could also apply post after 6th April 2016.

No idea, not my area I'm afraid.

Trouble is, those who could answer our question are frequenting the forum less often as they are fed up with having deal with idiots like PixelPeepS3 and Drainbrain who are entirely ignorant on the topic of pensions.

Maybe ask the question in a new thread?

[drainbrain]

sidicks said:

1)Why don't you understand what an annuity is?

2)Which annuity company was bailed out?

3)What do you think annuity funds invest in?

1) I do, I do. I have 2. An annuity is a form of gamble which requires you to be immortal to win. The annuity company/insurer wins if you die. Working out who is more likely to win is not hard. Many people did and shouted loudly about it which led to huge changes in the system being made. Put simply they are a totally legal confidence trick. Aka - a con. Scarcely even believable that until recently they were actually COMPULSORY!!!

2) Bailed out insurers? Every time I look around whichever insurance company I deal with seems to have changed its name. Again and again. I wonder if that's their marketing dept's rebranding? Hmmm. What do you think?

3) Things that profit vastly more than they pay out the punter who gave them the funds to invest in the first place. That's why - until they make a cock of it all and have to get bought out by another one - they own such large prime site properties including the ones they trade from that are staffed by large numbers of very well paid people.

Edited by drainbrain on Sunday 19th February 17:00

[sidicks]

drainbrain said:

1) I do, I do. I have 2. An annuity is a form of gamble which requires you to be immortal to win. The annuity company/insurer wins if you die. Working out who is more likely to win is not hard. Many people did and shouted loudly about it which led to huge changes in the system being made. Put simply they are a totally legal confidence trick. Aka - a con.

Thereby demonstrating you don't have a fking clue.

drainbrain said:

2) Bailed out insurers? Every time I look around whichever insurance company I deal with seems to have changed its name. Again and again. I wonder if that's their marketing dept's rebranding? Hmmm. What do you think?

So no answer here either?

drainbrain said:

3) Things that profit vastly more than they pay out the punter who gave them the funds to invest in the first place. That's why - until they make a cock of it all and have to get bought out by another one - they own such large prime site properties including the ones they trade from that are staffed by large numbers of very well paid people.

A hat trick of nonsense.

Pretty much what I expected.

[craigjm]

Surely the sensible approach is a balancing act? not everyone can afford to shove loads into a pension and even if they did there is no guarantee of massive returns. The other side of the coin is about how long you will be pulling that pension for. Most final salary pensions of the baby boomer generation were calculated on the fact that they were only going to pay them out because you will have kicked the bucket by 75. As people live longer the maths don't add up.

So off to think like a millennial for a minute who may be required to work until they are past 70 to pull a state pension at least you might be tempted to think fk it I'm gonna enjoy my life.

I'm sure we all know of at least someone who saved and saved and saved for that golden retirement only to find either -

a) they didn't make it
b) they keeled over after about 2 years of retirement
c) somebody robbed the pension fund and they all ended up with fk all

I guess its all down to how much you like to take risks and how much you live for today or a tomorrow which may never come

[sidicks]

craigjm said:

Surely the sensible approach is a balancing act? not everyone can afford to shove loads into a pension and even if they did there is no guarantee of massive returns. The other side of the coin is about how long you will be pulling that pension for. Most final salary pensions of the baby boomer generation were calculated on the fact that they were only going to pay them out because you will have kicked the bucket by 75. As people live longer the maths don't add up.

There is no guarantee of massive returns with any investment strategy - at least within a pension wrapper the returns benefit from tax relief and accumulate tax free...

craigjm said:

So off to think like a millennial for a minute who may be required to work until they are past 70 to pull a state pension at least you might be tempted to think fk it I'm gonna enjoy my life.

I'm sure we all know of at least someone who saved and saved and saved for that golden retirement only to find either -

a) they didn't make it
b) they keeled over after about 2 years of retirement
c) somebody robbed the pension fund and they all ended up with fk all

I guess its all down to how much you like to take risks and how much you live for today or a tomorrow which may never come

a) in which case their saved fund is available to dependants
b) they can buy an annuity with a guarantee or choose not to annuitise at all
c) except the DB pension falls into the PPF and 90% of benefits are provided

Most importantly, we shouldn't confuse the vehicle used to save for retirement and the strategy to provide income whilst in retirement!

[craigjm]

Well, Sidicks, you are obviously in the pensions business by the sound of it but i'm not sure your arguments would necessarily wash with a lot of Millennials. I see a lot of young people with no desire to get married, no desire to have kids and a sense of entitlement that life owes them. I can't see the "well you can save and leave it to your dependents if you keel" kind of arguments really getting their juices flowing.

The problem with the pension industry for that generation is that it is still marketed in a very generation X / baby boomer way which is highlighted perfectly by the way you have responded to my post. That is not a dig at you, it is just an observation of the way that you have attempted to justify the opposite of each of my points from a pensions point of view.

If I showed that to a lot of the Millenials that I know their response would be, rightly or wrongly, "old man isn't telling me what to do with my life and my future is fked anyway because he has robbed all our wealth for his own pension and has voted us out of the EU" etc etc blah blah

[sidicks]

craigjm said:

Well, Sidicks, you are obviously in the pensions business by the sound of it but i'm not sure your arguments would necessarily wash with a lot of Millennials. I see a lot of young people with no desire to get married, no desire to have kids and a sense of entitlement that life owes them. I can't see the "well you can save and leave it to your dependents if you keel" kind of arguments really getting their juices flowing.

The problem with the pension industry for that generation is that it is still marketed in a very generation X / baby boomer way which is highlighted perfectly by the way you have responded to my post. That is not a dig at you, it is just an observation of the way that you have attempted to justify the opposite of each of my points from a pensions point of view.

If I showed that to a lot of the Millenials that I know their response would be, rightly or wrongly, "old man isn't telling me what to do with my life and my future is fked anyway because he has robbed all our wealth for his own pension and has voted us out of the EU" etc etc blah blah

It's pretty simple, from becoming an adult, you have (roughly) 40 years to work and then up to another 40 years to live thereafter.
For most people they will only be earning during the first 40 years, so they will have to be putting money aside to fund the last 40 years.

How they choose to do that is up to them and there is a trade-off between enjoying yourself when you are young and making decent provision for your retirement. If you are going to make provision for the future, then it makes sense to do so in a tax efficient way. If you are happy to survive on the basis income provided by the state then you don't need to worry about it, however evidence suggests that the value of what the state will provide is likely to reduce in real terms, not increase.

I'm not sure which of the above you are disagreeing with?

[craigjm]

sidicks said:

craigjm said:

Well, Sidicks, you are obviously in the pensions business by the sound of it but i'm not sure your arguments would necessarily wash with a lot of Millennials. I see a lot of young people with no desire to get married, no desire to have kids and a sense of entitlement that life owes them. I can't see the "well you can save and leave it to your dependents if you keel" kind of arguments really getting their juices flowing.

The problem with the pension industry for that generation is that it is still marketed in a very generation X / baby boomer way which is highlighted perfectly by the way you have responded to my post. That is not a dig at you, it is just an observation of the way that you have attempted to justify the opposite of each of my points from a pensions point of view.

If I showed that to a lot of the Millenials that I know their response would be, rightly or wrongly, "old man isn't telling me what to do with my life and my future is fked anyway because he has robbed all our wealth for his own pension and has voted us out of the EU" etc etc blah blah

It's pretty simple, from becoming an adult, you have (roughly) 40 years to work and then up to another 40 years to live thereafter.
For most people they will only be earning during the first 40 years, so they will have to be putting money aside to fund the last 40 years.

How they choose to do that is up to them and there is a trade-off between enjoying yourself when you are young and making decent provision for your retirement. If you are going to make provision for the future, then it makes sense to do so in a tax efficient way.

I'm not sure which of the above you are disagreeing with?

Im not disagreeing with you at all but then im not 21 and blessed with an outlook where the world owes me. Sometimes when you try and talk to people under 25 about all this kind of stuff you wonder what planet they are on is my point.

[sidicks]

craigjm said:

Im not disagreeing with you at all but then im not 21 and blessed with an outlook where the world owes me. Sometimes when you try and talk to people under 25 about all this kind of stuff you wonder what planet they are on is my point.

Ok, I misunderstood your previous post.

[craigjm]

Thing is if we want young people to think about their future and start saving for it then the language of the industry has to change. It doesn't engage young people and it doesn't create the burning platform that they need to think "right I need to do something about that"

Look at how they are selling car leases to the young and the language used... Just add petrol etc. Now someone my age might think hmm how much does a service cost? how much can i get insurance for? and then consider if the "all inclusive" package is worth it. Lots of young people I know wouldnt do that they think "can I afford the monthly?" and thats it. The marketing and language of the pensions, and to a great extent the financial sector as a whole, needs to change if it is going to engage Millenials.

[sidicks]

craigjm said:

Thing is if we want young people to think about their future and start saving for it then the language of the industry has to change. It doesn't engage young people and it doesn't create the burning platform that they need to think "right I need to do something about that"

Look at how they are selling car leases to the young and the language used... Just add petrol etc. Now someone my age might think hmm how much does a service cost? how much can i get insurance for? and then consider if the "all inclusive" package is worth it. Lots of young people I know wouldnt do that they think "can I afford the monthly?" and thats it. The marketing and language of the pensions, and to a great extent the financial sector as a whole, needs to change if it is going to engage Millenials.

How exactly?

Future investment returns, longevity, interest rates are all highly uncertain.

[TSCfree]

craigjm said:

Im not disagreeing with you at all but then im not 21 and blessed with an outlook where the world owes me. Sometimes when you try and talk to people under 25 about all this kind of stuff you wonder what planet they are on is my point.

Sweeping generalisations aside, a lot of student 21 years old are blessed with owing the world quite lot....It's not surprising those who decide to invest in their future would have little time for pension provisions. It's just not that relevant given the debt they're in.