You Think Thailand Is Bad? Try The Uk Pensions Lot!

[msg362]

OOPS what have I started?

Just for the record, my UK pensions are taxed in the UK, I don't use any UK services- health/ social security etc so I don't understand why I am not entitled to the state pension and the increases that I paid in for for so many years. The only point I was trying to make was that,with all the fancy computer systems there, the offices can't speak to each other. Here, I think they have carrier pigeons/ drums/ lots of people with cleft sticks that seem to work and seem to be more reliable. ( another feeble attempt at a joke before I get flamed!!)

[StreetCowboy]

OOPS what have I started?

Just for the record, my UK pensions are taxed in the UK, I don't use any UK services- health/ social security etc so I don't understand why I am not entitled to the state pension and the increases that I paid in for for so many years. The only point I was trying to make was that,with all the fancy computer systems there, the offices can't speak to each other. Here, I think they have carrier pigeons/ drums/ lots of people with cleft sticks that seem to work and seem to be more reliable. ( another feeble attempt at a joke before I get flamed!!)

To be honest, a cleft stick isn't funny till someone takes the wrong end of it.

I only add sarcasm warnings when there is a genuine danger to others associated with people missing the sarcasm.

You're right about the pensions, though. I think I would prefer something like the Singaporean MPF, where each person's contributions are earmarked for his own benefit in his own fund. But instead, in Britain, we chose to pay today's pensioners from the earnings of tomorrow's pensioners, with reckless disregard to whether our children would be able to afford such generosity in the future.

I always think it is quaint that so often in Thailand one has to go back to one's own village / branch / immigration office to do whatever administrative task.

SC

[MJo]

"Tucking away 5% of their income" to a private pension provider will provide even those on average salaries a pitiful pension!

Times have changed and, now that companies rarely provide the sort of pensions I was lucky enough to enjoy, the private pension providers are making the most of it by charging outrageous fees.

True. 10% is better and increased over time, but over 40 years even 5 points will do it. In fact, start early enough and you can stop contributing at 40 and still get on ok.

Fees? I pay 0.5% management fee. Hardly punitive.

On the 'average' UK salary you believe a 5% pension contribution will pay for a reasonable pension??

Check out how much the same amount paid towards a private pension plan in other EU countries will provide compared to the same amount paid in to a Brit pension provider...

Do you have a clue how pension funds work? They are based on contributions which are then invested in the assets you choose - bonds, cash, shares etc.

Given that, the only way EU countries would provide better returns is if they are invested in different assets but, again, this would be the choice of you and me.

Seriously take some personal responsibility.

I'm from one of those EU countries that have massive "pension bomb" ticking and hanging over my head.

I pay compulsory 5% or so towards state pension. Almost 7% with other "social security" payments. Get's taken out from my salary direct with taxes. Only problem is that it's not towards my own pension. It funds pensions for that large group of people born after WW2 that are now about to retire.

In 30 years when it should be my time i doubt there is anyone left to pay for mine. Most likely end up working until 70 and even then receiving massively reduced amount compared to present day pensions.

The thing is that this large group of 60 somethings are in power, just due to the fact that there is too many of them for the younger ones to vote out. And there is no chance they go and cut their own pensions or raise the age limits now. Instead they dump it on their kids and grandchildren.

I reckon this is an issue pretty much everywhere in western world including UK.

And this is what i worry the most being 30 something. Fortunately my work gives me options to save on my own (pay twice) or work overseas removing myself from my home country system and take care of it myself all the way.

Edited February 21, 2012 by MJo

[MAJIC]

Here's all those 21 year olds earning 20 grand.

Nick Clegg is launching the plan to tackle rising levels of youth unemployment

Firms and charities are to be invited to bid for a payment-by-results scheme to try to get "Neet" teenagers into work or training, in a project launched by Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg.

The £126m scheme is aimed at 55,000 teenagers in England with poor qualifications who are currently not in education, employment or training.

Mr Clegg says it will help youngsters "into the world of work".

But Labour says the project is "too small and much too late".

Chris Keates, leader of the Nasuwt teachers' union, accused Mr Clegg of being responsible for an increase in Neets by scrapping the Education Maintenance Allowance.

'Ticking time bomb'

Mr Clegg described the problem of rising youth unemployment as a "ticking time bomb".

"Sitting at home with nothing to do when you're so young can knock the stuffing out of you for years," he said.

"We urgently need to step up efforts to ensure some of our most troubled teenagers have the skills, confidence and opportunities to succeed.

"Many of them will have complex problems: truancy, teenage pregnancy, a lack of GCSEs and health problems."

Mr Clegg said to see teenagers who have left school with no qualifications "slumped on the sofa in front of the telly is not only tragic for them... but it stores up huge problems for the future if we don't help them now".

He said it was also about getting "crucial early years in a child's life at school right" to "save on so much heartache later".

"If you start early it then allows children to start their school career with a sense of enthusiasm for learning," he said.

The scheme, part of the Youth Contract announced in the autumn, will invite bids for contracts worth up to £2,200 for each teenager who can be sustained in work, education or training for 12 months.

The target group will be 16- to 17-year-olds without any GCSEs at C grade or above.

The aim is for long-term savings from an early intervention.

Almost one in five young people aged between 16 and 24 are classified as Neet - with the most recent figure standing at 1,163,000.

This response from the government is aimed at teenagers at the lower end of this age range who are already at risk of "disengagement" from the world of work.

The organisations that win these contracts will have a free hand to decide their approach - with the emphasis on rewarding a successful outcome.

Payments will be staggered, so that the full amount will be paid only to contractors when young people have remained in work or training for a year.

The funding will reflect the highest level of Neet youngsters in this age group - with £14m available in the West Midlands, where 11.5% of 16- to 17-year-olds are in this category.

The project has been challenged by the ATL teachers' union, which accused the government of damaging the chances of teenagers "by dismantling the careers and advice service and abolishing the education maintenance allowance".

"We have deep misgivings that getting charities and businesses to provide support for unemployed youngsters outside the education system will undermine the likelihood of success," said ATL officer Adrian Prandle.

Shadow work and pensions secretary Liam Byrne also said the Youth Contract would not help most young unemployed people.

Mr Byrne said of Mr Clegg: "He promised big answers to the problem of youth unemployment yet what we have got today is something that won't help 95% of Britain's young unemployed.

"This is much too small and much too late to tackle a problem that is likely to cost our country £28bn over the next 10 years.

"The government needs to bite the bullet and put in place a sensible tax on bankers' bonuses in the next budget to help get 100,000 young people back to work."

'Job snobs'

Meanwhile, Work and Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith has branded critics of the government's separate work experience scheme for young jobseekers as "job snobs".

The scheme offers unpaid work placements in stores such as Tesco and Maplin to 18- to 24-year-olds who have been unemployed for more than three months.

Mr Duncan Smith said in the Daily Mail: "The implicit message behind these attacks is that jobs in retail, such as those with supermarkets or on the High Street, are not real jobs that worthwhile people do.

"How insulting and demeaning of the many thousands of people who already work in such jobs up and down the country.

"I doubt I'm the only person who thinks supermarket shelf-stackers add more value to our society than many of those 'job snobs' who are pontificating about the government's employment policies."

We have had all this work for Training and no pay under previous Tory Rules,all that happened was Employers took advantage for the one year "Training" period,which was really free labour,and then showed the youngsters the door,and then took on a new "Slave by it's correct name" what a farce,it must be difficult for Tesco to train up Shelf Stackers,poor dears have only got 4,000 plus Superstores Worldwide,generating billions in profits,so I can see why they can't afford to pay Trainees.

[StreetCowboy]

Here's all those 21 year olds earning 20 grand.

Nick Clegg is launching the plan to tackle rising levels of youth unemployment

Firms and charities are to be invited to bid for a payment-by-results scheme to try to get "Neet" teenagers into work or training, in a project launched by Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg.

The £126m scheme is aimed at 55,000 teenagers in England with poor qualifications who are currently not in education, employment or training.

Mr Clegg says it will help youngsters "into the world of work".

But Labour says the project is "too small and much too late".

Chris Keates, leader of the Nasuwt teachers' union, accused Mr Clegg of being responsible for an increase in Neets by scrapping the Education Maintenance Allowance.

'Ticking time bomb'

Mr Clegg described the problem of rising youth unemployment as a "ticking time bomb".

"Sitting at home with nothing to do when you're so young can knock the stuffing out of you for years," he said.

"We urgently need to step up efforts to ensure some of our most troubled teenagers have the skills, confidence and opportunities to succeed.

"Many of them will have complex problems: truancy, teenage pregnancy, a lack of GCSEs and health problems."

Mr Clegg said to see teenagers who have left school with no qualifications "slumped on the sofa in front of the telly is not only tragic for them... but it stores up huge problems for the future if we don't help them now".

He said it was also about getting "crucial early years in a child's life at school right" to "save on so much heartache later".

"If you start early it then allows children to start their school career with a sense of enthusiasm for learning," he said.

The scheme, part of the Youth Contract announced in the autumn, will invite bids for contracts worth up to £2,200 for each teenager who can be sustained in work, education or training for 12 months.

The target group will be 16- to 17-year-olds without any GCSEs at C grade or above.

The aim is for long-term savings from an early intervention.

Almost one in five young people aged between 16 and 24 are classified as Neet - with the most recent figure standing at 1,163,000.

This response from the government is aimed at teenagers at the lower end of this age range who are already at risk of "disengagement" from the world of work.

The organisations that win these contracts will have a free hand to decide their approach - with the emphasis on rewarding a successful outcome.

Payments will be staggered, so that the full amount will be paid only to contractors when young people have remained in work or training for a year.

The funding will reflect the highest level of Neet youngsters in this age group - with £14m available in the West Midlands, where 11.5% of 16- to 17-year-olds are in this category.

The project has been challenged by the ATL teachers' union, which accused the government of damaging the chances of teenagers "by dismantling the careers and advice service and abolishing the education maintenance allowance".

"We have deep misgivings that getting charities and businesses to provide support for unemployed youngsters outside the education system will undermine the likelihood of success," said ATL officer Adrian Prandle.

Shadow work and pensions secretary Liam Byrne also said the Youth Contract would not help most young unemployed people.

Mr Byrne said of Mr Clegg: "He promised big answers to the problem of youth unemployment yet what we have got today is something that won't help 95% of Britain's young unemployed.

"This is much too small and much too late to tackle a problem that is likely to cost our country £28bn over the next 10 years.

"The government needs to bite the bullet and put in place a sensible tax on bankers' bonuses in the next budget to help get 100,000 young people back to work."

'Job snobs'

Meanwhile, Work and Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith has branded critics of the government's separate work experience scheme for young jobseekers as "job snobs".

The scheme offers unpaid work placements in stores such as Tesco and Maplin to 18- to 24-year-olds who have been unemployed for more than three months.

Mr Duncan Smith said in the Daily Mail: "The implicit message behind these attacks is that jobs in retail, such as those with supermarkets or on the High Street, are not real jobs that worthwhile people do.

"How insulting and demeaning of the many thousands of people who already work in such jobs up and down the country.

"I doubt I'm the only person who thinks supermarket shelf-stackers add more value to our society than many of those 'job snobs' who are pontificating about the government's employment policies."

We have had all this work for Training and no pay under previous Tory Rules,all that happened was Employers took advantage for the one year "Training" period,which was really free labour,and then showed the youngsters the door,and then took on a new "Slave by it's correct name" what a farce,it must be difficult for Tesco to train up Shelf Stackers,poor dears have only got 4,000 plus Superstores Worldwide,generating billions in profits,so I can see why they can't afford to pay Trainees.

The proposed "deadwoods cluttering up the workplace" scheme is not for the benefit of the emploeyr, its for the benefit of the employee; for them to demonstrate that they can hold down a job and get a reference when they apply for a waged position. As I was reading the post you quoted, I thought "Goodness me, you'd be a brave man to take one of them on...". As far as I can tell, we have managed to develop in Britain a culture where people no longer strive to succeed, and are not willing to strive to succeed. Personally, I blame the parents...

When I was much younger than I am today, I shared a house with a teacher, who blamed the Comprehensive education of the parents.

Out of interest, how many of the game shows and reality shows on TV require any real effort on the part of their participants; and in particular, constructive effort or problem solving? I'm not so interested in the answer that I would actually do the research and watch game shows myself...

SC

[chiangmaibruce]

Well it's certainly been interesting to follow discussions on both this and the other UK pension thread now running in this forum. A lot of views and plenty of postings in a short period of time - clearly this is an issue of concern to many expats. And the polarised views too.

To me the issue is not one of "in a perfect world people shouldn't be reliant on govt pensions", but rather is the current system in the UK (& elsewhere) logical and fair? I don't think it is. A lot of people go off on the tangent that "what do people expect, there's only so much money ..." etc. Well that would make sense if paying citizens who move offshore for most or all of the year the same amount of pension actually cost the community more. But the thing is, it doesn't. It costs less ... because of the additional benefits they forego and the services they no longer use.

So if it's not economics that's really driving these 'reforms' then what is it? Politicians having a popularist free kick at a group of disparate people many of whom no longer even vote? Jealousy about the lifestyle they have chosen. Ignorance of the benefits of treating people equally? What? And are these the sorts of factors that YOU want driving public policy in your country? So you're young or have a bundle in the bank? Good on you buddy. Back the pollies, or roll over on this, and think about what might come rolling your way next time around.

Edited February 21, 2012 by chiangmaibruce

[ludditeman]

Some interesting ideas but based on fauly logic. As a man in the UK, if you ever have sex with a woman you in effect own nothing and can save nothing. If she becomes pregnant she can take your home, your savings and most of any pension you ever make from you. No way around it apart from to never have sex with a woman or get a vasectomy at a young age.

Edited February 21, 2012 by ludditeman

[theblether]

This is probably too late but I'll tell you the advice my father gave me, the same advice I give to my children.

"do not expect the government to do anything for you - don't put your hand out unless it is the last option you have and if you do put your hand out be aware anything the government does give you comes with barbed hooks attached'"

Oh... and .... "Pay attention at school"

Will you please stop being so sensible!!!......do you not understand you are wasting people's enjoyment here!!

you know the ..................."Not Happy Until Unhappy"........... brigade

[msg362]

Some interesting ideas but based on fauly logic. As a man in the UK, if you ever have sex with a woman you in effect own nothing and can save nothing. If she becomes pregnant she can take your home, your savings and most of any pension you ever make from you. No way around it apart from to never have sex with a woman or get a vasectomy at a young age.

I like this. It's amazing how an OP on failure to pay a pension can get to sex with women, fascinating!

[exeter]

I dont know when the current rule about "no inflation increases" came about but thats the current state of affairs and whichever lot are in power do not seem interested in doing anything about it. If you are thinking you can not say and still get your increases is it a goer? Well some seem to think the Govt is not linked up in the admin dept to notice. The govt frighten people by telling them they will catch you and its fraud ( note several MP's have beem with their expenses claims and using their position ( fraud bit that is) Tv Licence letters ( oustide agancy Capita ) all desingned to hope the majority are honest. The chances are that someone will call a freephone number eventually and shop you, you can guess who but will never know for sure, so, what to do is up to you because when you start claiming that is likely when it will be earmarked for no increases, you might a couple of years grace whilst you decide where you will live most of the year but thats all.

Fairness has no place here, the current situation is as is. Get on with life, unless you know a Joanna Lumley who is willing to fight on your/our behalf becausr realistically that is the only way within the rules that things will change.

[bendix]

I dont know when the current rule about "no inflation increases" came about but thats the current state of affairs and whichever lot are in power do not seem interested in doing anything about it. If you are thinking you can not say and still get your increases is it a goer? Well some seem to think the Govt is not linked up in the admin dept to notice. The govt frighten people by telling them they will catch you and its fraud ( note several MP's have beem with their expenses claims and using their position ( fraud bit that is) Tv Licence letters ( oustide agancy Capita ) all desingned to hope the majority are honest. The chances are that someone will call a freephone number eventually and shop you, you can guess who but will never know for sure, so, what to do is up to you because when you start claiming that is likely when it will be earmarked for no increases, you might a couple of years grace whilst you decide where you will live most of the year but thats all.

Fairness has no place here, the current situation is as is. Get on with life, unless you know a Joanna Lumley who is willing to fight on your/our behalf becausr realistically that is the only way within the rules that things will change.

Come again?

[exeter]

I dont know when the current rule about "no inflation increases" came about but thats the current state of affairs and whichever lot are in power do not seem interested in doing anything about it. If you are thinking you can not say and still get your increases is it a goer? Well some seem to think the Govt is not linked up in the admin dept to notice. The govt frighten people by telling them they will catch you and its fraud ( note several MP's have beem with their expenses claims and using their position ( fraud bit that is) Tv Licence letters ( oustide agancy Capita ) all desingned to hope the majority are honest. The chances are that someone will call a freephone number eventually and shop you, you can guess who but will never know for sure, so, what to do is up to you because when you start claiming that is likely when it will be earmarked for no increases, you might a couple of years grace whilst you decide where you will live most of the year but thats all.

Fairness has no place here, the current situation is as is. Get on with life, unless you know a Joanna Lumley who is willing to fight on your/our behalf becausr realistically that is the only way within the rules that things will change.

Come again?

Which particular word are you having difficulty understanding?

As a NZ chappie this is unlikely to have anyeffect on you anyway, maybe you should get out more and leave the keyboard, I am off for a bike ride now.

[bendix]

I dont know when the current rule about "no inflation increases" came about but thats the current state of affairs and whichever lot are in power do not seem interested in doing anything about it. If you are thinking you can not say and still get your increases is it a goer? Well some seem to think the Govt is not linked up in the admin dept to notice. The govt frighten people by telling them they will catch you and its fraud ( note several MP's have beem with their expenses claims and using their position ( fraud bit that is) Tv Licence letters ( oustide agancy Capita ) all desingned to hope the majority are honest. The chances are that someone will call a freephone number eventually and shop you, you can guess who but will never know for sure, so, what to do is up to you because when you start claiming that is likely when it will be earmarked for no increases, you might a couple of years grace whilst you decide where you will live most of the year but thats all.

Fairness has no place here, the current situation is as is. Get on with life, unless you know a Joanna Lumley who is willing to fight on your/our behalf becausr realistically that is the only way within the rules that things will change.

Come again?

Which particular word are you having difficulty understanding?

As a NZ chappie this is unlikely to have anyeffect on you anyway, maybe you should get out more and leave the keyboard, I am off for a bike ride now.

Point of order. I'm a British chappie. And a NZ chappie. But born and bred in whingeland.

[phupaman]

Hi all.

My friend in England paid for many years for a private pension with a large insurance company, , The deal was he paid a large sum every month and he would get 35,000 pound at age 65 and approx 250 pound per week,

When he was approaching 65 the news was on every day predicting doom and gloom for his pension provider company,

When he became due his pension , his lump sum dropped from 35.000 to 11.000 and his promised 250 per week became 60 per week, He told me that all together he had paid in more than 60 ,000 pound over the years,and wish he never bought it.

He had no legal recourse at the time, He knows that he and many thousand of other pensioners were well and truly shafted,.

phupaman

[bendix]

Hi all.

My friend in England paid for many years for a private pension with a large insurance company, , The deal was he paid a large sum every month and he would get 35,000 pound at age 65 and approx 250 pound per week,

When he was approaching 65 the news was on every day predicting doom and gloom for his pension provider company,

When he became due his pension , his lump sum dropped from 35.000 to 11.000 and his promised 250 per week became 60 per week, He told me that all together he had paid in more than 60 ,000 pound over the years,and wish he never bought it.

He had no legal recourse at the time, He knows that he and many thousand of other pensioners were well and truly shafted,.

phupaman

Then he didnt have a clue what he was buying. I suspect he wasn't 'told'he would get 35000 plus 250 per week. Instead, he would have been shown models that projected that amount based on certain assumptions to do with market performance of the underlying assets.

If he took his pension when the markets collapsed (during a sharemarket slump for example) that would affect his return. If he chose to realise the pension at that time rather than wait for a recovery, that's his choice.

I'm sorry but too many people complain about being shafted by pensions when what has really happened is that they simply either don't know or don't care or are too lazy to understand and actively monitor the most important financial decision of their lives.

[nong38]

I dont know when the current rule about "no inflation increases" came about but thats the current state of affairs and whichever lot are in power do not seem interested in doing anything about it. If you are thinking you can not say and still get your increases is it a goer? Well some seem to think the Govt is not linked up in the admin dept to notice. The govt frighten people by telling them they will catch you and its fraud ( note several MP's have beem with their expenses claims and using their position ( fraud bit that is) Tv Licence letters ( oustide agancy Capita ) all desingned to hope the majority are honest. The chances are that someone will call a freephone number eventually and shop you, you can guess who but will never know for sure, so, what to do is up to you because when you start claiming that is likely when it will be earmarked for no increases, you might a couple of years grace whilst you decide where you will live most of the year but thats all.

Fairness has no place here, the current situation is as is. Get on with life, unless you know a Joanna Lumley who is willing to fight on your/our behalf becausr realistically that is the only way within the rules that things will change.

Come again?

Which particular word are you having difficulty understanding?

As a NZ chappie this is unlikely to have anyeffect on you anyway, maybe you should get out more and leave the keyboard, I am off for a bike ride now.

Point of order. I'm a British chappie. And a NZ chappie. But born and bred in whingeland.

I understand what is being said, does anyone know when the decision to freeze pension was taken? I dont.

I see all options that people could take and realistically it is not going to change any time soon is it, so lets just get on with life, the increase next year is going to be a piddling amount by the look of it, inflation down to 3.6%.

I have an equal concern with how things are rising here, fuel going up and the govt giving the nod for more, ghosh anyone who got the raise to 300 bts a day and lot did not will soon see no benefit at all and foreign investors might be looking around for a new green field, one that does not flood.

Tourists will also notice the difference. Just had a week in Pattaya and the number of buses that did not want to go past the Dolphin Roundabaout north for 4 fares, even though they were empty must show how well off they are or how good they are finances, your choice. A number at the hotel I stayed at also saying the same thing, "Vietnam has nice beaches." Well time will tell if the Golden Goose is nearing the oven, for sure the Govt and some business's will never believe that, but with interest rates being lowered and prices going up this is the other side of the coin to losing the annual pension increase.

Edited February 22, 2012 by nong38

[true blue]

Hi all.

My friend in England paid for many years for a private pension with a large insurance company, , The deal was he paid a large sum every month and he would get 35,000 pound at age 65 and approx 250 pound per week,

When he was approaching 65 the news was on every day predicting doom and gloom for his pension provider company,

When he became due his pension , his lump sum dropped from 35.000 to 11.000 and his promised 250 per week became 60 per week, He told me that all together he had paid in more than 60 ,000 pound over the years,and wish he never bought it.

He had no legal recourse at the time, He knows that he and many thousand of other pensioners were well and truly shafted,.

phupaman

Then he didnt have a clue what he was buying. I suspect he wasn't 'told'he would get 35000 plus 250 per week. Instead, he would have been shown models that projected that amount based on certain assumptions to do with market performance of the underlying assets.

If he took his pension when the markets collapsed (during a sharemarket slump for example) that would affect his return. If he chose to realise the pension at that time rather than wait for a recovery, that's his choice.

I'm sorry but too many people complain about being shafted by pensions when what has really happened is that they simply either don't know or don't care or are too lazy to understand and actively monitor the most important financial decision of their lives.

im not sure which planet you live on,but people take there pension when they need it,ie when the reach retirement age,and if your managed or equity fund you have your funds in take a dive,and your units,depreaciate dramatically,you have to bite the bullet,you could propaly,look at a open market option,and hope??to get a better return on your fund,or as you advocate,starve to death and wait till the market has a upturn. which to my knowledge is still in a slump,since the very late 90s

[true blue]

Bendix, first let me congratulate you on paying off your first mortgage at such a young age, no doubt this probably set you on the road to financial stability and the chance to have spare cash to top up your pension.

However you state earlier about any young man earning 20.000 per year should be able to save enough to have a decent private pension, problem is not many people can earn that amount in the Uk these days at that age and as for getting on the housing ladder, well am pretty sure its not as easy as it probably was for you back in 80's

You benefited greatly from a booming housing market and invested wisely, so hats off to you, am in a similar position myself, but to say its as simple as just putting a small amount away each month in a PP is off the mark. The charges you enjoy for one are not like that now.

Sure there are plenty of people in the UK that think the world owes them a living , but it's a minority and some of your comments are insulting to the majority of hard working people struggling to make ends meet right now.

Two points, mate.

Firstly the 0.5% management fee I pay on my pension plan is still the same. It is low because it is a passive scheme - i don't change much with it. Even the more actively managed schemes provided by my pension company - Winterthurlife - have fees of only 1.5%, hardly a lot of money to pay.

Secondly, I stand by my 5% figure. People do not stay at the same salary for ever. It grows. If you go to any pensions calculator (there are hundreds on the internet) you will see the effects of saving 5% of your salary (which increased over the 45 years of working life, remember) invested and getting an average 7% return per annum has on the final pension pot figure.

Investing for a pension is about doing a little over a long time frame. Time is your friend.

no pension company in uk will give you 7% return,in fact i doubt any in the world would,and compounded to boot,baa,

[inthepink]

Why did you baa at the end of your post? Are you a sheep?

[bendix]

Bendix, first let me congratulate you on paying off your first mortgage at such a young age, no doubt this probably set you on the road to financial stability and the chance to have spare cash to top up your pension.

However you state earlier about any young man earning 20.000 per year should be able to save enough to have a decent private pension, problem is not many people can earn that amount in the Uk these days at that age and as for getting on the housing ladder, well am pretty sure its not as easy as it probably was for you back in 80's

You benefited greatly from a booming housing market and invested wisely, so hats off to you, am in a similar position myself, but to say its as simple as just putting a small amount away each month in a PP is off the mark. The charges you enjoy for one are not like that now.

Sure there are plenty of people in the UK that think the world owes them a living , but it's a minority and some of your comments are insulting to the majority of hard working people struggling to make ends meet right now.

Two points, mate.

Firstly the 0.5% management fee I pay on my pension plan is still the same. It is low because it is a passive scheme - i don't change much with it. Even the more actively managed schemes provided by my pension company - Winterthurlife - have fees of only 1.5%, hardly a lot of money to pay.

Secondly, I stand by my 5% figure. People do not stay at the same salary for ever. It grows. If you go to any pensions calculator (there are hundreds on the internet) you will see the effects of saving 5% of your salary (which increased over the 45 years of working life, remember) invested and getting an average 7% return per annum has on the final pension pot figure.

Investing for a pension is about doing a little over a long time frame. Time is your friend.

no pension company in uk will give you 7% return,in fact i doubt any in the world would,and compounded to boot,baa,

Seriously, you don't have a clue, do you?

It is not about pension companies 'giving' you 7%. The pension fund doesn't GIVE you a return. The assets you invest in provide the return.

Let me try to make this simple for you. When you hand your monthly pension contribution to a pension fund, they will invest in one or more managed funds based on whatever assets you choose - they could be shares, bonds, property, cash . . whatever. Even gold, if you like.

If the markets go up, your pension pot increases. If it goes down, they decrease.

It is universally accepted - and historically proven to be accurate - that over a long period, sharemarket funds return around 7% per annum as a minimum. Some years they will fall 20%. Others they will rise 40%. In just the first six weeks of 2012, sharemarkets around the world have risen nearly 13%. My personal pension fund has risen in value by 15% this year already, but of course it fell in the second half of last year. It is nothing to do with the pension company and EVERYTHING to do with the assets I - ME - chose to invest in.

Long term investments in bonds can generate 5-6%. Property around 7% etc etc.

Christ alive - it's like dealing with children.

Edited February 22, 2012 by bendix

[bendix]

im not sure which planet you live on,but people take there pension when they need it,ie when the reach retirement age,and if your managed or equity fund you have your funds in take a dive,and your units,depreaciate dramatically,you have to bite the bullet,you could propaly,look at a open market option,and hope??to get a better return on your fund,or as you advocate,starve to death and wait till the market has a upturn. which to my knowledge is still in a slump,since the very late 90s

Yes, markets can dive when you are nearing retirement. That is unfortunate.

That is why it is important to be actively interested in your pension fund and monitor it. A smart person - if you know what one of those is - will look at how long they have to retirement and adjust their asset strategy accordingly.

It is prudent to be heavily invested in shares and risky assets while you still have 10-20 years to retire, because you can risk the bad years and take advantage of the good years. As you get closer to retirement (say 5-10 years) you should adjust your portfolio to include a bigger propotion of safer assets like bonds or defensive shares. And within 5 years of retirement you should move out of shares and into cash investments, bonds, gilts, treasuries etc.

It's really not that hard, if you take an interest.

And there's the rub. People can't be bothered to take an interest, and instead blame the pension provider instead of t hemselves.

[thaibeachlovers]

I wish that everybody who has a UK state pension was entitled to the same where ever they choose to live,but with the current economic struggle things are only going to get worse,I pay my taxes and NI in the UK still,I'm 32 and worked since I left school,but the government want me to work until I am 67 or likely 70 for my pension is that fair.

Well, the government is borrowing huge amounts to pay for all the unemployable youths to have the dole instead of making them shape up and go get a job. Not to mention the money hole of incompetence and corruption in the NHS ( I worked in it 10 years so I know that it is ). And need I mention the illegal immigrants etc?

Sort out just those, and there might be some money to spare to pay a decent pension.

The whole system is mind bogglingly stupid anyway- I was working, but still got free bus pass, free prescriptions and winter fuel payment ( I didn't take it ) despite not paying for electricity in my accomodation, just because I turned 60. Multiply me by hundreds of thousands, and that's millions of misspent money.

As a wise person once said- life isn't fair!

[thaibeachlovers]

im not sure which planet you live on,but people take there pension when they need it,ie when the reach retirement age,and if your managed or equity fund you have your funds in take a dive,and your units,depreaciate dramatically,you have to bite the bullet,you could propaly,look at a open market option,and hope??to get a better return on your fund,or as you advocate,starve to death and wait till the market has a upturn. which to my knowledge is still in a slump,since the very late 90s

Yes, markets can dive when you are nearing retirement. That is unfortunate.

That is why it is important to be actively interested in your pension fund and monitor it. A smart person - if you know what one of those is - will look at how long they have to retirement and adjust their asset strategy accordingly.

It is prudent to be heavily invested in shares and risky assets while you still have 10-20 years to retire, because you can risk the bad years and take advantage of the good years. As you get closer to retirement (say 5-10 years) you should adjust your portfolio to include a bigger propotion of safer assets like bonds or defensive shares. And within 5 years of retirement you should move out of shares and into cash investments, bonds, gilts, treasuries etc.

It's really not that hard, if you take an interest.

And there's the rub. People can't be bothered to take an interest, and instead blame the pension provider instead of t hemselves.

Not sure what you're saying. Can people putting money into a pension fund dictate where their money is invested? I wouldn't have thought so. One reason that I wouldn't use a private fund.

Look at Iceland; their supposed knowledgeable investors lost it all on gambling on the US market, and we know what a scam that was now. If the "experts" can get suckered, what chance does the average person have?

[thaibeachlovers]

I dont know when the current rule about "no inflation increases" came about but thats the current state of affairs and whichever lot are in power do not seem interested in doing anything about it. If you are thinking you can not say and still get your increases is it a goer? Well some seem to think the Govt is not linked up in the admin dept to notice. The govt frighten people by telling them they will catch you and its fraud ( note several MP's have beem with their expenses claims and using their position ( fraud bit that is) Tv Licence letters ( oustide agancy Capita ) all desingned to hope the majority are honest. The chances are that someone will call a freephone number eventually and shop you, you can guess who but will never know for sure, so, what to do is up to you because when you start claiming that is likely when it will be earmarked for no increases, you might a couple of years grace whilst you decide where you will live most of the year but thats all.

Fairness has no place here, the current situation is as is. Get on with life, unless you know a Joanna Lumley who is willing to fight on your/our behalf becausr realistically that is the only way within the rules that things will change.

Come again?

Which particular word are you having difficulty understanding?

As a NZ chappie this is unlikely to have anyeffect on you anyway, maybe you should get out more and leave the keyboard, I am off for a bike ride now.

Point of order. I'm a British chappie. And a NZ chappie. But born and bred in whingeland.

So what chance do you two Kiwis give NZ with 40% on a benefit, and still paying the DPB to teenagers to stupid to use contraceptives? Even the US has started talking about stopping paying benefits to girls that won't put the father's name on the birth cert ( so the state can get child payments from the fathers ). Up to me it'd be the Thai way!

[thaibeachlovers]

I wish that everybody who has a UK state pension was entitled to the same where ever they choose to live,but with the current economic struggle things are only going to get worse,I pay my taxes and NI in the UK still,I'm 32 and worked since I left school,but the government want me to work until I am 67 or likely 70 for my pension is that fair.

I somehow doubt that you will get any UK State pension when you eventually retire!

But, I hope I am proven wrong.

Hmmmm. So do you expect all the unfortunates that end up with zero income to go away and die quietly? Or is there some alternative.

[inthepink]

I wish that everybody who has a UK state pension was entitled to the same where ever they choose to live,but with the current economic struggle things are only going to get worse,I pay my taxes and NI in the UK still,I'm 32 and worked since I left school,but the government want me to work until I am 67 or likely 70 for my pension is that fair.

Well, the government is borrowing huge amounts to pay for all the unemployable youths to have the dole instead of making them shape up and go get a job. Not to mention the money hole of incompetence and corruption in the NHS ( I worked in it 10 years so I know that it is ). And need I mention the illegal immigrants etc?

Sort out just those, and there might be some money to spare to pay a decent pension.

The whole system is mind bogglingly stupid anyway- I was working, but still got free bus pass, free prescriptions and winter fuel payment ( I didn't take it ) despite not paying for electricity in my accomodation, just because I turned 60. Multiply me by hundreds of thousands, and that's millions of misspent money.

As a wise person once said- life isn't fair!

How are illegal immigrants costing the government money?

[bendix]

Not sure what you're saying. Can people putting money into a pension fund dictate where their money is invested? I wouldn't have thought so. One reason that I wouldn't use a private fund.

Look at Iceland; their supposed knowledgeable investors lost it all on gambling on the US market, and we know what a scam that was now. If the "experts" can get suckered, what chance does the average person have?

Of course they can.

When you join a private pension fund you get a wide range of choices of investment to place it in - some will be aggressive based around overseas shares, emerging markets etc, and others will be defensive and geared towards bonds, cash etc. Some might be local, some might be international. As you go through life and get closer to retirement age, your risk profile will fall so you should shift to defensive funds.

It's not about being suckered or being an average person having no chance. EVERYONE should educate themselves about basic investment. Your pension fund is the most important financial decision you make.

I am absolutely incredulous that people don't seem to have a clue about even the most basic financial information here.

Edited February 22, 2012 by bendix

[thaibeachlovers]

I wish that everybody who has a UK state pension was entitled to the same where ever they choose to live,but with the current economic struggle things are only going to get worse,I pay my taxes and NI in the UK still,I'm 32 and worked since I left school,but the government want me to work until I am 67 or likely 70 for my pension is that fair.

Well, the government is borrowing huge amounts to pay for all the unemployable youths to have the dole instead of making them shape up and go get a job. Not to mention the money hole of incompetence and corruption in the NHS ( I worked in it 10 years so I know that it is ). And need I mention the illegal immigrants etc?

Sort out just those, and there might be some money to spare to pay a decent pension.

The whole system is mind bogglingly stupid anyway- I was working, but still got free bus pass, free prescriptions and winter fuel payment ( I didn't take it ) despite not paying for electricity in my accomodation, just because I turned 60. Multiply me by hundreds of thousands, and that's millions of misspent money.

As a wise person once said- life isn't fair!

How are illegal immigrants costing the government money?

Seriously? Unless you are from a country that does not have a tidal wave of illegals, you must never read a newspaper not to know that!

[thaibeachlovers]

Not sure what you're saying. Can people putting money into a pension fund dictate where their money is invested? I wouldn't have thought so. One reason that I wouldn't use a private fund.

Look at Iceland; their supposed knowledgeable investors lost it all on gambling on the US market, and we know what a scam that was now. If the "experts" can get suckered, what chance does the average person have?

Of course they can.

When you join a private pension fund you get a wide range of choices of investment to place it in - some will be aggressive based around overseas shares, emerging markets etc, and others will be defensive and geared towards bonds, cash etc. Some might be local, some might be international. As you go through life and get closer to retirement age, your risk profile will fall so you should shift to defensive funds.

It's not about being suckered or being an average person having no chance. EVERYONE should educate themselves about basic investment. Your pension fund is the most important financial decision you make.

I am absolutely incredulous that people don't seem to have a clue about even the most basic financial information here.

If it is possible for the so called financial "experts" to get suckered, how can those of us that have no financial education going to know. How many clever people did Bernie fool?

As for myself, I don't trust any financial foolery- it's all gambling with crooks ( bankers/ financiers ) holding the winning cards. Up to me, 99% of Wall St financiers would be in jail.

I just put my money in the bank- it's guaranteed by the government, and I get some interest.

However, if everyone was like me, there'd be no derivatives market with the inevitable financial meltdown. Better world all round.

[inthepink]

I wish that everybody who has a UK state pension was entitled to the same where ever they choose to live,but with the current economic struggle things are only going to get worse,I pay my taxes and NI in the UK still,I'm 32 and worked since I left school,but the government want me to work until I am 67 or likely 70 for my pension is that fair.

Well, the government is borrowing huge amounts to pay for all the unemployable youths to have the dole instead of making them shape up and go get a job. Not to mention the money hole of incompetence and corruption in the NHS ( I worked in it 10 years so I know that it is ). And need I mention the illegal immigrants etc?

Sort out just those, and there might be some money to spare to pay a decent pension.

The whole system is mind bogglingly stupid anyway- I was working, but still got free bus pass, free prescriptions and winter fuel payment ( I didn't take it ) despite not paying for electricity in my accomodation, just because I turned 60. Multiply me by hundreds of thousands, and that's millions of misspent money.

As a wise person once said- life isn't fair!

How are illegal immigrants costing the government money?

Seriously? Unless you are from a country that does not have a tidal wave of illegals, you must never read a newspaper not to know that!

If you mean people that are currently staying illegally in the country, they wouldn't be able to claim benefits etcetera - that's what I meant.