Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Money Frugality

Will you get your state pension? Age 70 by 2060!

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Money Frugality said:

Better hope your all saving in SIPP's, ISA's & Workplace pensions. Mind you, PPs are due to be capped to 10 years below the state pension age? Retire or die. 

E.g: Average life expectancy in Manchester - 70.2

https://www.ft.com/content/050fe9aa-fcf4-11e6-8d8e-a5e3738f9ae4

I avoid paying anything into pensions.Its too easy for them to move that age back when you can get at them.They are happy to pay for 15 million to retire at 16 years old,but not for people to retire at 65 who have worked for 40 years.ISAs are far better.Many plan to use the lump sum from a pension to pay off the mortgage.Its gone from 50 to 57 already.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Avoid workplace pensions too.  Mine, which I have paid shed loads into has recently moved my retirement age to sync with the state retirement age.  Bitter? Me? Of course not. 

My daughter has started work recently and wants advice re the company pension scheme. I am at a total loss as to what to advise given the way in which the rules are arbitrarily changed  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, One-percent said:

Avoid workplace pensions too.  Mine, which I have paid shed loads into has recently moved my retirement age to sync with the state retirement age.  Bitter? Me? Of course not. 

My daughter has started work recently and wants advice re the company pension scheme. I am at a total loss as to what to advise given the way in which the rules are arbitrarily changed  

 

Personally, I'm going for a mix of both. There are obvious tax advantages (currently) with company pensions - plus any matching contributions - but I'm also saving in ISAs to tide me over until I can get at it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, One-percent said:

Avoid workplace pensions too.  Mine, which I have paid shed loads into has recently moved my retirement age to sync with the state retirement age.  Bitter? Me? Of course not. 

My daughter has started work recently and wants advice re the company pension scheme. I am at a total loss as to what to advise given the way in which the rules are arbitrarily changed  

Unless it's a defined benefit scheme it'll be a pot that you can transfer out into a SIPP either when you change jobs or *periodically while in that job.

*MrsLTSs last company pension scheme was with the peoples pension  (b c & e) which to me sounds patronising, it's like saying the pension of the 99%. Unbelievably out of the million people in the scheme she (I) was the only person that requested transfer outs periodically  (there was no form and we were told as such) and she (I) had to push for this to happen using there own literature/wording/small print. 

In the news today diet based cancers are up 4 fold amongst those under 50. Peak life expectancy has passed and it's downhill for now. Some cancer rates are now at levels not seen since the 1800s.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, StainlessSteelCat said:

Personally, I'm going for a mix of both. There are obvious tax advantages (currently) with company pensions - plus any matching contributions - but I'm also saving in ISAs to tide me over until I can get at it. 

 

3 minutes ago, longtomsilver said:

Unless it's a defined benefit scheme it'll be a pot that you can transfer out into a SIPP either when you change jobs or *periodically while in that job.

*MrsLTSs last company pension scheme was with the peoples pension  (b c & e) which to me sounds patronising, it's like saying the pension of the 99%. Unbelievably out of the million people in the scheme she (I) was the only person that requested transfer outs periodically  (there was no form and we were told as such) and she (I) had to push for this to happen using there own literature/wording/small print. 

In the news today diet based cancers are up 4 fold amongst those under 50. Peak life expectancy has passed and it's downhill for now. Some cancer rates are now at levels not seen since the 1800s.

Thanks.  It's not defined benefits.  She did get a forecast of 24 pounds a month.  I think the scales fell from her eyes at that point which prompted the question as to what to do.

the response I wanted to make was, pi$$ it away and enjoy life. However I was brought up to live within my means and save for the future. I think I was badly advised :huh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, One-percent said:

Avoid workplace pensions too.  Mine, which I have paid shed loads into has recently moved my retirement age to sync with the state retirement age.  Bitter? Me? Of course not. 

My daughter has started work recently and wants advice re the company pension scheme. I am at a total loss as to what to advise given the way in which the rules are arbitrarily changed  

You're muddling them.

Id guess yours is a Defined Benefit pension, where theres no direct, individual pot.

DB are at the whim of the DB sponsor, in your case the HE pension people.

The problem, with DB is if they get the sums wrong the pain fall on the people who have not retired.

It can be worse - Ive heard of some where a small, funded DB scheme has been moved to a larger, underfunded scheme, then the sponsoring compnay has gone bust, taking money with it.

DB pensions are better regulated now - see the fuss about BHS. Problem is I dont think there are any active DB pensions any more.

Problems with DB pensions arenot equitable. People who have retired are treated better than those who have not. You can get the case of someone who was pensioned off at 55, having his pension protected after 20_ years of drwaing more than he ever put in, at the expense of someone whos paid in for 30 years but not yet retired.

DB shortfalls must be done more failry. Sponsroign compnay is beeaten for the cash and all pensioners benefits are cut.

Defined Contribution are a different scheme. Each is held inidividually.

Most companies top up. I put 10% of my wages in, my company puts in another 8%.

At the grand old age of 45, Ive got a fund of around 450k.

Roughly, you need to be saving ~20% of your gross to return on 2/3 salary after 40 years.

I wnet to A DC pension ASAP, rather than joining an old companies DB scheme as I expected Id only work for the compnay for a short time. I wish I had joined it. I reckon my 3.5 years of benefits would cost them about ~40K to buy out today.

I also joined expecting the annuitity requirement to be dropped/lessened at some point, which it has. Im also expecting bonf yield to return to a more normal level by the time I retire.

Your daughter will be offerred a DC scheme. If it comes with a company topup then Id recommend she takes them up on it. Get her to do 7% of gross, she wont miss it if shes never had it.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, spyguy said:

You're muddling them.

Id guess yours is a Defined Benefit pension, where theres no direct, individual pot.

DB are at the whim of the DB sponsor, in your case the HE pension people.

The problem, with DB is if they get the sums wrong the pain fall on the people who have not retired.

It can be worse - Ive heard of some where a small, funded DB scheme has been moved to a larger, underfunded scheme, then the sponsoring compnay has gone bust, taking money with it.

DB pensions are better regulated now - see the fuss about BHS. Problem is I dont think there are any active DB pensions any more.

Problems with DB pensions arenot equitable. People who have retired are treated better than those who have not. You can get the case of someone who was pensioned off at 55, having his pension protected after 20_ years of drwaing more than he ever put in, at the expense of someone whos paid in for 30 years but not yet retired.

DB shortfalls must be done more failry. Sponsroign compnay is beeaten for the cash and all pensioners benefits are cut.

Defined Contribution are a different scheme. Each is held inidividually.

Most companies top up. I put 10% of my wages in, my company puts in another 8%.

At the grand old age of 45, Ive got a fund of around 450k.

Roughly, you need to be saving ~20% of your gross to return on 2/3 salary after 40 years.

I wnet to A DC pension ASAP, rather than joining an old companies DB scheme as I expected Id only work for the compnay for a short time. I wish I had joined it. I reckon my 3.5 years of benefits would cost them about ~40K to buy out today.

I also joined expecting the annuitity requirement to be dropped/lessened at some point, which it has. Im also expecting bonf yield to return to a more normal level by the time I retire.

Your daughter will be offerred a DC scheme. If it comes with a company topup then Id recommend she takes them up on it. Get her to do 7% of gross, she wont miss it if shes never had it.

 

 

Ta.

the pension scheme I'm in is one of the few that is fully funded. It has a surplus and is in a healthy position. My view is that the move is purely ideological and political. Keeping in the good books of the paymaster government and not wanting finger pointing of how generous it all is.

im not convinced that dc is any better. All it would take is a crash in the underlying investments and it will disappear quicker than Les on a nicking spree. 

Bottom line I guess is that I don't trust tptb or banks, insurance, pension companies etc.  Strangely, my gran, who would have lived through the Great Depression had a healthy scepticism for the establishment.  Like many of her generation, she would rather hold her assets in hard currency and suchlike, not trusting it to the banks.  I kind of see why now 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, longtomsilver said:

Unless it's a defined benefit scheme it'll be a pot that you can transfer out into a SIPP either when you change jobs or *periodically while in that job.

*MrsLTSs last company pension scheme was with the peoples pension  (b c & e) which to me sounds patronising, it's like saying the pension of the 99%. Unbelievably out of the million people in the scheme she (I) was the only person that requested transfer outs periodically  (there was no form and we were told as such) and she (I) had to push for this to happen using there own literature/wording/small print. 

In the news today diet based cancers are up 4 fold amongst those under 50. Peak life expectancy has passed and it's downhill for now. Some cancer rates are now at levels not seen since the 1800s.

Yout sure? Cancer is an old persons disease mainly.

In the 1800s people were lucky to live beyond 50.

1950/60s - Male expected life exp ~68

Life expectancy started rising in the late 70s, by about 2 years every decade. Mainly down to less smoking., better diet, better medicine - bar the NHS, less dangerous, manual jobs.

Someone dying in their mid 80s today would have had a life expectancy at birth of 70. Thats an extra 15 years, almost double what theyd expect.

Some social groups are seeing notable rise in mortaility - diets have improved soo much that the amount people eat is know a bit problem.

espite what Labour say, this is all self inflicted. If the current land whales and fat ar5e single mums had got a job rather than spending their days munching Greggs they live another 5-10 years.

Partner works at a school. The cancer rate of women in their 40s their is shocking. No, its not because they are women, its because the 10% of the staff who've come down with cancer are morbidly obese - think big women in Mumus.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, hotairmail said:

It won't affect Glasgow's east end....They're already dying on average at 54 years of age, 9 years lower than the average male in India.

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/men-in-glasgows-east-end-have-life-988632

But, but the government says we are all living longer. Are we not to believe them?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, One-percent said:

Ta.

the pension scheme I'm in is one of the few that is fully funded. It has a surplus and is in a healthy position. My view is that the move is purely ideological and political. Keeping in the good books of the paymaster government and not wanting finger pointing of how generous it all is.

im not convinced that dc is any better. All it would take is a crash in the underlying investments and it will disappear quicker than Les on a nicking spree. 

Bottom line I guess is that I don't trust tptb or banks, insurance, pension companies etc.  Strangely, my gran, who would have lived through the Great Depression had a healthy scepticism for the establishment.  Like many of her generation, she would rather hold her assets in hard currency and suchlike, not trusting it to the banks.  I kind of see why now 

Id guess that too.

This will be a HE fund I guess.

Fully funded ones are few and far between.

Your retirement age will be taked to make those in unfunded scemes look less bad.

The whole unfunded pension thing is a scam.

You can have a PAYG scheme, where pensions are paid out of current subs. The prob,e there is that the pension payouts cannot be guarentted and would have to move down as people live longer than expected, or people no longer join.

All publci schemes should be funded, with the cost falling yearly. People would have a truer idea of how much public services cost - at the moment, due to unfunded pensions. the cost of public sector workers is actually 30-40% than when people are lead to believe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we'll end up heading back to an extended family scenario whereby those in work look after those not (in the main). Not entirely a bad thing IMO. The main issue being that this is the reason that so many immigrants from 'underdeveloped' nations are in the habit of  having large families. The last thing this island needs is even more people. Two children is enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, spyguy said:

Id guess that too.

This will be a HE fund I guess.

Fully funded ones are few and far between.

Your retirement age will be taked to make those in unfunded scemes look less bad.

The whole unfunded pension thing is a scam.

You can have a PAYG scheme, where pensions are paid out of current subs. The prob,e there is that the pension payouts cannot be guarentted and would have to move down as people live longer than expected, or people no longer join.

All publci schemes should be funded, with the cost falling yearly. People would have a truer idea of how much public services cost - at the moment, due to unfunded pensions. the cost of public sector workers is actually 30-40% than when people are lead to believe.

All this knocking of public service pensions is a little disingenuous. Yes, times have changed but when I first started working in the public sector (and I do work, honest) , the wages commensurate with the private sector were lower.  The argument was that that the conditions were slightly better and so was the pension.  

Fast forward a number of years, those in the private sector have, on the whole, been totally shafted. Then, they look at those in the public sector and scream it's not fair 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Maynardgravy said:

I think we'll end up heading back to an extended family scenario whereby those in work look after those not (in the main). Not entirely a bad thing IMO. The main issue being that this is the reason that so many immigrants from 'underdeveloped' nations are in the habit of  having large families. The last thing this island needs is even more people. Two children is enough.

The issue with this is that people have been actively encouraged to 'get on their bike' (tebbit) and move for work.  So, many people live far away from support networks and are incredibly isolated when it comes to drawing on support 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, One-percent said:

 

Thanks.  It's not defined benefits.  She did get a forecast of 24 pounds a month.  I think the scales fell from her eyes at that point which prompted the question as to what to do.

the response I wanted to make was, pi$$ it away and enjoy life. However I was brought up to live within my means and save for the future. I think I was badly advised :huh:

1

If you're going to start a pension, it's probably better to start earlier. I do wonder what percentage of her salary she is contributing to get a forecast of £24/month and whether that's inflation linked etc.  But there might be other things she is more interested in spending her money on at her age. I didn't seriously start contributing to mine until the house was bought and paid for. Last few years have been 70%+, but now I'm pretty at the place I want to be - I will probably ramp it down again. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, One-percent said:

The issue with this is that people have been actively encouraged to 'get on their bike' (tebbit) and move for work.  So, many people live far away from support networks and are incredibly isolated when it comes to drawing on support 

Absolutely. It's a situation i find myself in with my own parents.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, StainlessSteelCat said:

If you're going to start a pension, it's probably better to start earlier. I do wonder what percentage of her salary she is contributing to get a forecast of £24/month and whether that's inflation linked etc.  But there might be other things she is more interested in spending her money on at her age. I didn't seriously start contributing to mine until the house was bought and paid for. Last few years have been 70%+, but now I'm pretty at the place I want to be - I will probably ramp it down again. 

She is 23 in her first corporate job, so the pay is low, thus contributions corresponding low.  Her employer is good actually at looking after their staff and puts a percentage in the pot.  It's dc, so no guarantee on final payout.  Whether it is index linked, I'm not sure.

my issue with advising is a complete lack of trust. A decision is made today on what is on the table, but in ten, twenty, fifty year's time, these contractual promises can and will be reneged on. At least that is my experience. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Maynardgravy said:

Absolutely. It's a situation i find myself in with my own parents.

And I think for many.  I was lucky? As both my parents died without needing support at the end. I was dreading the day that I had to make the kind of decisions many have to make from the opposite end of the country. It is all well and good for government to,suggest that we should be responsible for supporting older family members after they have encouraged people to move for work.  

They don't do joined up,thinking well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, One-percent said:

 She did get a forecast of 24 pounds a month.

To get £24/month after 45 years (assuming 67 retirement age) should only require £10/month contribution. Check what percentage being paid in is and what the admin fees are as that 'quote' is extremely poor. Total pot value would be about 9K to provide that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, One-percent said:

All this knocking of public service pensions is a little disingenuous. Yes, times have changed but when I first started working in the public sector (and I do work, honest) , the wages commensurate with the private sector were lower.  The argument was that that the conditions were slightly better and so was the pension.  

Fast forward a number of years, those in the private sector have, on the whole, been totally shafted. Then, they look at those in the public sector and scream it's not fair 

Im not knocking.

Publci pensions should be funded. The pension cost should be accrued yearly.

Pension make a significant cost of public sector. For a WPC the pension used to be about 50% of her salary.

For a teacher, the cost is about 25% of salary.

Once you factor in pnesion costs, a lot of public services look very very expensive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, spyguy said:

Im not knocking.

Publci pensions should be funded. The pension cost should be accrued yearly.

Pension make a significant cost of public sector. For a WPC the pension used to be about 50% of her salary.

For a teacher, the cost is about 25% of salary.

Once you factor in pnesion costs, a lot of public services look very very expensive.

Apologies spy, not a go at you, my comment was in general that public sector pensions are knocked. Government is the worse offender.

the pensions might be expensive but so are public services. 

The issue for me is that when I started my career and signed the contract, the pension was part of the package and a substantial amount of my salary was taken off me to pay for the pension.  It has now been reneged on.  

It is not the fault of ordinary fairly low level staff that those making the decisions have fecked up and not invested it properly. What were the people in charge of looking after the pension paid for?   If pension promises are reneged on, those in charge of it should be made to pay back all their salaries. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Will I be collecting a Pension in 2060 ?

No. I will be dead.

BTW 2015 was a bumper year for death in the UK with biggest increase since the 1967-68 flu outbreak.

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/bulletins/deathsregistrationsummarytables/2015#deaths-increase-in-2015

Edited by stormymonday_2011

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, longtomsilver said:

Unless it's a defined benefit scheme it'll be a pot that you can transfer out into a SIPP either when you change jobs or *periodically while in that job.

This is what I've been doing; I've found company pensions terrible for fund choices and even the decent passive funds they rebrand with their pension name at the front and stick an extra 1-2% on top of the original fund charge **PER ANNUM**! It will eventually get to a point where the contributions from the company aren't worth the extra charges.

Workplace pensions are only good for the free contributions up to a certain level. Any job change gets slid into the good old HL SIPP with access to funds with sub .5% charges.

 

It's bloody theft. 

2 hours ago, spyguy said:

Most companies top up. I put 10% of my wages in, my company puts in another 8%.

At the grand old age of 45, Ive got a fund of around 450k.

Roughly, you need to be saving ~20% of your gross to return on 2/3 salary after 40 years.

Lucky you, most companies max out at 5% matching. Best I've had is 10% for 5 that was great for the year I was there. Swiftly transferred into my SIPP afterwards, just in time for brexit, thank you very much. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The ONS weekly returns of deaths are clearly showing an uptrend in mortalities in the UK. From October to December 2016 it was running at about 6% more than the 5 year moving average for the same periods and so far in 2017 it is about 9% above that average. Add those figures in with 2015 spike in deaths and it seems there is some tentative evidence mortality rates are rising in the UK.  If this is correct then it will sooner or later start to impinge on life expectancy figures. Should that happen then I think we ought to start treating the Pension projections being bandied about at the moment with some caution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   32 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.