Franglais:
Roymondo:
Franglais:
Absolutely correct.
Being educated by the state from 5 years to 20 years? Working for the next 50 years (or less for those taking time off for parenting) and then drawing pensions for 20 or thirty years just doesnt add up, without setting aside vast proportions of ones income.
Quite - although “vast proportions” is perhaps over-stating the required contribution level. A good rule-of-thumb is to
take the age you start paying into your pension fund and halve it. Put this % of your pre-tax salary aside each year until you retire.
Yep, Ive seen that idea mentioned before. I do wonder though how good that will hold in the future as life expectancy increases and companies offer less on guaranteed incomes? And many people with growing families would find 15% or more of their pre-tax income "vast" wouldnt they? I reckon many would find 5% “vast”! 
I am 35 and agree with franglais. When the pension was introduced it was an exception to get it. Its only the last 50 years it has become common.
I only do the auto enrolment as I see no point. Any contributions I make will be used to pay the pensions of those retired already. When life expectancy started going up then things should have been done to reduce the cost as we can’t afford to pay people to do nothing for what will be 20-30 years.
Unfortunately we have got good at extending “life” but not “health” so people are living longer but are not fit to work anyway.
The unfunded government pension liabilities may well break the country as the costs for that will start rising sharply from about 2025 if I remember rightly.
I foresee a total civil breakdown as when there are no/few jobs in the future and not enough tax to pay for benefits people will have nothing to lose and that’s when things will get ugly
kcrussell25:
I only do the auto enrolment as I see no point. Any contributions I make will be used to pay the pensions of those retired already.
That simple statement demonstrates breathtaking naivety (or maybe wilfull ignorance). The contributions you make today have nothing at all to do with the payments to current pensioners.
Roymondo:
kcrussell25:
I only do the auto enrolment as I see no point. Any contributions I make will be used to pay the pensions of those retired already.
That simple statement demonstrates breathtaking naivety (or maybe wilfull ignorance). The contributions you make today have nothing at all to do with the payments to current pensioners.
Perhaps I should be clearer, I also didn’t say current, if I join a private scheme for example legal and general they will invest to get me a pension in the 40 plus years time I will hopefully retire.
In for example 10 years someone retires and is expected to live/claim 10 years of pension. Then 15 years later they are still going strong l&g will offer me next to nothing as they will have to plug the gap they were not planning on paying out but have to cover for the person are retired.
Schemes are required to protect those retired at the expense of those still working.
My girlfriend has a final salary pension from a previous job she did and goes on about it. Its not a huge amount as she was only there a few years but the scheme is in huge deficit. As I keep telling her all that pension is worth is the paper its written on until its in her bank account.
I used to work for Sainsbury. Roughly 10 years ago the company scheme was in deficit and the company committed to pumping in extra money and increasing colleague contributions. This would protect the scheme and keep your benefits. Many paid these increases rather than leaving it. A few years later they shut the scheme anyway. I wasn’t in that scheme so unaffected but it signaled the change in the company that has followed since then.
If you are over 50 you might be old enough to get a reasonable pension but anyone below that has no hope. As discussed above we are living to long to put enough aside in our working lives to cover the years in retirement. When auto enrolment came in I read a blog that predicts a huge misselling scandal in the future if these schemes fail after the employer made the arrangements.
Personally if you could tell me invest x per month to get y in retirement (effectively final salary but obviously would be less) and it was guaranteed I would think about it. They won’t so it’s not for me. I will invest elsewhere.
Yip well done, I dun that too. I don’t think we should be paying for the medical anyway.
As I said, breathtaking naivety (or willful ignorance). You appear to completely ignore (or misunderstand) the difference between a “defined benefits” pension scheme and a “defined contributions” plan (which is what the vast majority of company pension schemes are these days).
Roymondo:
As I said, breathtaking naivety (or willful ignorance). You appear to completely ignore (or misunderstand) the difference between a “defined benefits” pension scheme and a “defined contributions” plan (which is what the vast majority of company pension schemes are these days).
I fully understand.
I also see that when the annuity provider becomes out of pocket what they will offer me will crash to make up the shortfall. Also I can see my investment miraculously crashing to prevent me from taking the cash. Assuming that’s still an option.
Asking someone who is 20 (not me I hasten to add) to invest money in a scheme that they can’t access for at least 35 years, has no guaranteed returns, no right to compensation because the figures advised were wildly incorrect and that rules regarding access can be changed with no right to argue is a joke.
If it was an investment called anything other than a pension it would be banned and people would likely be prosecuted
Edit at add; a lot of the older generation were brought up that a pension was the be all and end all and would look after you in old age. That’s no longer the case
No, I don’t think you do understand.
For the avoidance of doubt, I’m not arguing that pension schemes are the be all and end all, the magic bullet or the answer to all our woes. What I am saying is that current contributions do not go to pay the pensions of those already retired. That’s not how it works, and if you think it does work that way then you are mistaken.
sammym:
Reducing medicals is not a great idea. Providing them on the NHS is a much smarter move.
The way things are going population wise we won’t have an NHS in 10-20 years time well certainly not free at the point of use
tommy t:
sammym:
Reducing medicals is not a great idea. Providing them on the NHS is a much smarter move.
The way things are going population wise we won’t have an NHS in 10-20 years time well certainly not free at the point of use
There is a argument that a free medical can often catch things early thus reduce the cost of any further treatment. Don’t think it applies in this case because I wouldn’t consider a HGV Medical a medical… just a cash grab. If they are going to do it then they should at least do a proper medical.
When I done it all it felt like was paying £60 for a doctor to fill out a questionnaire with a few trivial checks to justify the cost.