Please explain the maths (Resolution Foundation)
Discussion
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/mor...
And I quote, as they're moaning about wealth loss through house price decline and reductions in disposable income:
"Looking at pensions, the foundation said that in the pre-pandemic world, a typical worker would need to save around £5,000 a year to achieve an income in retirement worth two-thirds of their income prior to retiring.
But with higher interest rates, the same worker would need to save around £3,000 to achieve that same standard of living in retirement, potentially making it easier for younger cohorts to save sufficiently to enjoy decent living standards in old age."
Is this making really rather a lot of assumptions and forgetting a few things......?
And I quote, as they're moaning about wealth loss through house price decline and reductions in disposable income:
"Looking at pensions, the foundation said that in the pre-pandemic world, a typical worker would need to save around £5,000 a year to achieve an income in retirement worth two-thirds of their income prior to retiring.
But with higher interest rates, the same worker would need to save around £3,000 to achieve that same standard of living in retirement, potentially making it easier for younger cohorts to save sufficiently to enjoy decent living standards in old age."
Is this making really rather a lot of assumptions and forgetting a few things......?
haha, don't know why i clicked on the linky really. Most mainstream news outlets don't seem capable of writing a truly comprehensive article, just barebones without anything to back up their 'headlines' phrases.
At 1st glance that article seems about face:
interest rates may be higher, but inflation has had a huge impact on standard of cost of living, more so than the measely int raises. Unless the pension funds are seriously outperforming ( ie/ by a greater factor than before inflation soared) i cant see how anyone could be better off.
Through the true/actual half life of money, which ( i think) is about 10-11 years for the UK, , it could be argued ( as well as that article explains) that actually more money is needed.
At 1st glance that article seems about face:
interest rates may be higher, but inflation has had a huge impact on standard of cost of living, more so than the measely int raises. Unless the pension funds are seriously outperforming ( ie/ by a greater factor than before inflation soared) i cant see how anyone could be better off.
Through the true/actual half life of money, which ( i think) is about 10-11 years for the UK, , it could be argued ( as well as that article explains) that actually more money is needed.
Gassing Station | Finance | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff