Other people's facepalm financial management

[BoRED S2upid]

Zoon said:

BoRED S2upid said:

You pay £48.23 into a pension? Crikey that's not a lot I hope your employer is contributing massive amounts!

Just under £200 a month? Better than nothing I suppose.

Ah. I read that as £48 a month!

[bogie]

BoRED S2upid said:

Zoon said:

BoRED S2upid said:

You pay £48.23 into a pension? Crikey that's not a lot I hope your employer is contributing massive amounts!

Just under £200 a month? Better than nothing I suppose.

Ah. I read that as £48 a month!

£200 a month since age 19 with employer contribution and tax back on top, would be worthwhile

The issue is many of us dont wake up to actually bothering with a pension until in our thirties, then you are playing catchup

...hence the government trying to make it default for all to save

[Downward]

bmwmike said:

I guess we could all work for the public sector.. problem solved !

https://www.jobs.nhs.uk


Plenty of jobs going.

[sidicks]

Downward said:

https://www.jobs.nhs.uk


Plenty of jobs going.

Just not enough private sector employees to pay for their pensions!

[Simpo Two]

sidicks said:

Just not enough private sector employees to pay for their pensions!

Bingo! How many civil servants - which includes teachers, nurses, doctors - can the rest of us afford? Tax freedom day is already up to 3 June https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_Freedom_Day

[CarlosFandango11]

sidicks said:

walm said:

The govt doesn't need to run a surplus - pension costs are a big chunk of the overall public spending each year.
They don't have a "pot" as such that might fall into deficit - they just pay out of the ongoing P&L of the government.
According to this it is 20% of government spending.
(Not saying it isn't going to become a problem but they don't need a surplus to service it - at the moment.)
http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/

The government certainly don't need to run a 'surplus'. However, what they do need to be doing is recognising the actual costs that are being incurred, rather than pretending things are much cheaper than they actually are, leaving the extra costs to be picked up by future generations.

At the moment the combined employee and employer costs are totally insufficient, given the benefits promised.

As most public sector schemes are unfounded, does it matter if current contributions don't cover future benefits?

[h0bbsy]

Sheepshanks said:

In some cases they wouldn't have paid anything at all - the original civil service pension was non-contributory.

I had this as did many others until last April. However I took this into consideration when starting and so accepted a lower starting salary vs private sector

My pay hasn't gone up since 2007 really and the pensions contributions have gone up 500% (they werent totally non contrib)

It's all about understanding the total package and what is provided or what gaps you need to fill. It also went from final to average salary at the same time.

I think there will be more changes down the line hence I started a SIPP last year.

[Fastdruid]

bogie said:

BoRED S2upid said:

Zoon said:

BoRED S2upid said:

You pay £48.23 into a pension? Crikey that's not a lot I hope your employer is contributing massive amounts!

Just under £200 a month? Better than nothing I suppose.

Ah. I read that as £48 a month!

£200 a month since age 19 with employer contribution and tax back on top, would be worthwhile

The issue is many of us dont wake up to actually bothering with a pension until in our thirties, then you are playing catchup

...hence the government trying to make it default for all to save

Trouble is that at 19 £200 is a *massive* amount of money, it would have been 20% of my gross salary at the time. A more realistic amount aged 19 would have been £2-300 a *year* which with the amount of interest earnt barely worth it against what it could be spent on (still obviously worth having the employer contribution though). Plus I can't speak for anyone else but aged 18/19 25 was a life time away, let alone 65!

My approach when I actually thought about it rather than bury my head in the sand because it was so far away was to get life/house in order with a comfortable net wage then to keep upping the pension amount up every year. *Every* payrise now goes into my pension and I just keep the net the same. Come September I'll roll the amount I currently pay for Childcare vouchers into it as well, that in itself is more a month than I've been paying in a *year* in my early twenties and as I've not had that "extra" money I won't miss it.

I figure if I get 2% per year pay rise and keep doing this I'll have a pension that pays at least what I'm on at the moment (if you include the state pension as well), except without a mortgage! I'd obviously hope pay rises aren't only 2% and the figures may move a bit (especially as the various limits will change over time), hopefully up rather than down though.

[sidicks]

CarlosFandango11 said:

As most public sector schemes are unfounded, does it matter if current contributions don't cover future benefits?

Surely we should at least ensure that current contributions (employee plus employer) fund the current benefits, we are building an increasing problem for future generations?!

Edited by sidicks on Saturday 11th June 05:44

[sidicks]

h0bbsy said:

I had this as did many others until last April. However I took this into consideration when starting and so accepted a lower starting salary vs private sector

Indeed, but evidence suggests that for many (but not all), private sector salaries are now broadly the same or lower than equivalent public sector salaries.

h0bbsy said:

My pay hasn't gone up since 2007 really and the pensions contributions have gone up 500% (they werent totally non contrib)

Same for many in the private sector (as far as pay is concerned).
What is your total pension contribution (and what does that mean for the taxpayer subsidy)?

h0bbsy said:

It's all about understanding the total package and what is provided or what gaps you need to fill. It also went from final to average salary at the same time.

You conveniently fail to mention that it went to revalued career average, and that the accrual rate actually increased at the same time..

h0bbsy said:

I think there will be more changes down the line hence I started a SIPP last year.

Let's hope that ALL public sector schemes evolve to something fairer and more sustainable...

[Ozzie Osmond]

sidicks said:

CarlosFandango11 said:

As most public sector schemes are unfunded, does it matter if current contributions don't cover future benefits?

Surely we should at least ensure that current contributions (employee plus employer) fund the current benefits, we are building an increasing problem for future generations?!

And when the Boris Johnson/Nigel Farage axis of stupidy prevents further immigration it will simply accelerate the collapse. UK needs more and more workers at the bottom to fund the exploding number of people retiring at state expense.

[sidicks]

Ozzie Osmond said:

And when the Boris Johnson/Nigel Farage axis of stupidy prevents further immigration it will simply accelerate the collapse. UK needs more and more workers at the bottom to fund the exploding number of people retiring at state expense.

Which 'Brexit' policy is about preventing immigration? Surely you can understand the difference between uncontrolled immigration and controlling immigration (selecting value-adding immigration)?

[Simpo Two]

Ozzie Osmond said:

sidicks said:

CarlosFandango11 said:

As most public sector schemes are unfunded, does it matter if current contributions don't cover future benefits?

Surely we should at least ensure that current contributions (employee plus employer) fund the current benefits, we are building an increasing problem for future generations?!

And when the Boris Johnson/Nigel Farage axis of stupidy prevents further immigration it will simply accelerate the collapse. UK needs more and more workers at the bottom to fund the exploding number of people retiring at state expense.

Most immigrants, if they can get a job, are on about minimum wage. I'l leave you to work out how much income tax they pay. And contra that aginst the cost of extra schooling, health and everything else.

Importing low-paid foreigners to bail out our balance of payments is ridiculous and unsustainable. Who is going to pay for the care of 5M immigrants in 50 years time? Another 50M immigrants? If we got our native lazy bds off benefits and back to work we wouldn't need to import foreigners to do the work for them.

Get a points system, like every other sensible country.

[Jockman]

I think the adjective you all seek is "unsustainable ".

[red_slr]

Simpo Two said:

Ozzie Osmond said:

sidicks said:

CarlosFandango11 said:

As most public sector schemes are unfunded, does it matter if current contributions don't cover future benefits?

Surely we should at least ensure that current contributions (employee plus employer) fund the current benefits, we are building an increasing problem for future generations?!

And when the Boris Johnson/Nigel Farage axis of stupidy prevents further immigration it will simply accelerate the collapse. UK needs more and more workers at the bottom to fund the exploding number of people retiring at state expense.

Most immigrants, if they can get a job, are on about minimum wage. I'l leave you to work out how much income tax they pay. And contra that aginst the cost of extra schooling, health and everything else.

Importing low-paid foreigners to bail out our balance of payments is ridiculous and unsustainable. Who is going to pay for the care of 5M immigrants in 50 years time? Another 50M immigrants? If we got our native lazy bds off benefits and back to work we wouldn't need to import foreigners to do the work for them.

Get a points system, like every other sensible country.

Govt have covered that with the £9/hr min wage... some think they will get an extra £1.50/hr but in reality they will see a fairly small increase in take home but pay quite a bit more in taxes / wpp. The tax situation for a massive % of the work force is going to look very different in another 5 years.

Edited by red_slr on Sunday 12th June 11:11

[Ozzie Osmond]

Simpo Two said:

I'll leave you to work out how much income tax they pay.

• National Insurance
• Council tax
• VAT
• Fuel Duty
• Booze Duty
• Fags duty

These add up to a substantial tax take and fully explain the government's desire to "take more people out of income tax."

Simpo Two said:

If we got our native lazy bds off benefits and back to work we wouldn't need to import foreigners to do the work for them.

I totally agree with that but how on earth is it to be achieved? I've sat in a café with Polish workers taking a short break and they express utter amazement at the chavs hanging around outside with their scratchy attitudes and utter indifference. When they are forced back to work I hope it's working for you - not me!

[sidicks]

Ozzie Osmond said:

Simpo Two said:

I'll leave you to work out how much income tax they pay.

• National Insurance
• Council tax
• VAT
• Fuel Duty
• Booze Duty
• Fags duty

These add up to a substantial tax take and fully explain the government's desire to "take more people out of income tax."

Simpo Two said:

If we got our native lazy bds off benefits and back to work we wouldn't need to import foreigners to do the work for them.

I totally agree with that but how on earth is it to be achieved? I've sat in a café with Polish workers taking a short break and they express utter amazement at the chavs hanging around outside with their scratchy attitudes and utter indifference. When they are forced back to work I hope it's working for you - not me!

As explained previously, these people take out much more in terms of benefits and services compared to the (total) tax that they pay.

[CarlosFandango11]

sidicks said:

CarlosFandango11 said:

As most public sector schemes are unfounded, does it matter if current contributions don't cover future benefits?

Surely we should at least ensure that current contributions (employee plus employer) fund the current benefits, we are building an increasing problem for future generations?!

Edited by sidicks on Saturday 11th June 05:44

No, I don't think current scheme members accruing benefits should fund those reciving benefits. I can't see any reason why those scheme members paying today should be more responsible than anyone else for the cost of benefits handed out by the government many years ago.

[Ozzie Osmond]

sidicks said:

As explained previously, these people take out much more in terms of benefits and services compared to the (total) tax that they pay.

Without getting into a yes/no argument, one has to accept that the people at the bottom - the low paid workers - are "adding value" to the system. If that wasn't the case the economy would shrink, not grow, and there wouldn't be any socialists. It makes no difference where the people at the bottom come from so long as they do enough work for not too much money. The problem is people who live on the state and add no value at all. State pensioners, unemployed, etc - we have to provide 100% of every penny they ever spend and every service they ever use.

[sidicks]

CarlosFandango11 said:

sidicks said:

CarlosFandango11 said:

As most public sector schemes are unfounded, does it matter if current contributions don't cover future benefits?

Surely we should at least ensure that current contributions (employee plus employer) fund the current benefits, we are building an increasing problem for future generations?!

Edited by sidicks on Saturday 11th June 05:44

No, I don't think current scheme members accruing benefits should fund those reciving benefits. I can't see any reason why those scheme members paying today should be more responsible than anyone else for the cost of benefits handed out by the government many years ago.

Sorry, my previous post may have been unclear.

I believe that the current contributions (employee plus employer) should fund the benefits being accrued by those members.