State pension to be £7.5k in today's money
Discussion
Countdown said:
I think even that will be too much for the State to afford.
People should assume no State pension and much lower State spending in future
+1. That is the mindset i am going on. I do not think i will ever see one. I believe most of my council tax will also be used to pay for public sector pensions also. People should assume no State pension and much lower State spending in future
Grim.
Countdown said:
I think even that will be too much for the State to afford.
People should assume no State pension and much lower State spending in future
Very much. Nobody will though. Hopefully they've costed this out on the basis of everyone living to 100, it's getting that way now. People should assume no State pension and much lower State spending in future
Regardless of that, cutting out all of the stupid second pensions, top-ups and allowances will save a fair bit of cash. £7.5k is workable provided you aren't paying for rent or mortgage - Locally that would be another £5k p/a; to have a salary giving £7.5k after rent you are looking at around £15k, which is low but not the lowest possible given the minimum wage.
Take out the expense of commuting and I think you'd be alright for the odd pint down the local and cinema on Tuesdays when it's cheap.
bobbylondonuk said:
what we need is to report current benefits as an annual figure. For too long we have been fed on how little increases per weak can make huge differences in the results of welfare.
7.5k/person as a cash allowance paid from the state is not a bad figure!
Both of those things. 7.5k/person as a cash allowance paid from the state is not a bad figure!
If you had to entirely fund that sum yourself the 7.5K/person/year at current rates off your own back means saving (in today's value) a 'pot' of about 140K+ Many, as in rather more than 50% of, members of UK society wouldn't get anywhere near that ( and it's obviously no great riches)
Ballpark sums taking a flat rate for the simplicity of calculation, though percentage-wise it doesn't change much on the back om my envelop with a fuller correction for inflation vs interest:. Assume saving 10% of (generous take on current median) £25K salary for 40 years:
40*2k5 = 100K, annuity offer 6% max, = 5-6K /year pension in today's value. Probably less if you're a non-smoking married bloke in good health etc.
So yes - big alterations must lie ahead.
Edited by Huff on Sunday 13th January 01:24
Welshbeef said:
Plus most are married or have two pensions so yep it's not mega money but enough to ensure you are not
So start saving make those second and third pensions pay. Always take the company contributory pension it will all help come the day you have to face the income cliff.
Without wishing to be too controversial, unless the UK actually does live within its means as a whole and government expenditure is controlled I do question whether any pension in 30 year + will have any real value to the pensioner?So start saving make those second and third pensions pay. Always take the company contributory pension it will all help come the day you have to face the income cliff.
I am NOT advocating a spend, spend, spend. totally careless approach for individuals. But this government has yet to bring expenditure to an affordable level or indeed to approaching an affordable level. There could be a change in two years to Labour and Millipede and Balls Up WILL spend spend spend.
If that happens then stability in the UK will diminish and the realistic values of all pensions in the future will be questionable, at best. Although I think that public awareness of the problem is growing I remain to be convinced that politicians are actually capable of the serious work required to pull the UK back from disaster.
Modern politicians do not make difficult choices. That is why we are in dire straits. I cannot see that approach changing. Fluff and bluff yes. Actually facing real problems? Unlikely.
If anyone can't figure out the way our economy is going then they are a bit simple: http://www.debtbombshell.com/
More cuts are needed, the current ones barely scratch the surface.
More cuts are needed, the current ones barely scratch the surface.
davepoth said:
Very much. Nobody will though. Hopefully they've costed this out on the basis of everyone living to 100, it's getting that way now.
In 2010, average life expectancy at birth across the UK, for both men and women, rose by another four months to 78.2 and 82.3 years respectively
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-15372869
If you have no other income, then this won't be the only benefit you recieve in old age.
My father in law hasn't worked on the past 25 years, he has been living on benefits for that entire time. A few years ago he passed retirement age, and his lifestyle hasn't changed. He lives a perfectly normal life.
My father in law hasn't worked on the past 25 years, he has been living on benefits for that entire time. A few years ago he passed retirement age, and his lifestyle hasn't changed. He lives a perfectly normal life.
Interesting to see how this was presented in the media, and the relatively little coverage it got.
The Telegraph called it a 'tax increase' although of course it was nothing of the sort.
It is one of the final nails in the coffin for the contributory principal of national insurance and (combined with the changes brought in by Gordon Brown) will represent both a fall in retirement income for non contracted out workers on decent salaries and a rise in national insurance in the present for workers who are contracted out.
The Telegraph called it a 'tax increase' although of course it was nothing of the sort.
It is one of the final nails in the coffin for the contributory principal of national insurance and (combined with the changes brought in by Gordon Brown) will represent both a fall in retirement income for non contracted out workers on decent salaries and a rise in national insurance in the present for workers who are contracted out.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff