Retirement

[teamsaint]

I cannot imagine how much longer the government of the day (of whatever hue it might be) will be able to maintain this myth of a "pension" (which isn't a pension and never has been one) under the guise of a so-called "state retirement benefit" (which it also isn't to the extent that increasing numbers of people entitled to receive it are not actually "retired", either from choice or necessity or both); it's funded from people's NI taxes just as are all other state benefits and there's no investment involved so that "pensioners" have any opportunity to benefit from "pensions" in which an investment pot has built up over decades. It's a government taxpeyer-funded Ponzi scheme in all but name and has always been such, its once much-vaunted cliché of "ninepence for fourpence" having from its very outset been a something-for-nothing phenomenon. Governments are not best qualified to provide investment products, stll less advice thereon, so they ought to be honest about this and stop pretending to do so.

If its a Ponzi scheme, I'd get out quick

Meanwhile, I'm paying in the thick end of £300 a month, and I'd really like something in return, the pension that previous generations paid for and enjoyed, and that we can very comfortably afford for our people now and in the future especially if we get rid of nonsense like HS2, Nuclear weapons etc etc.

And , unpalatable though it is, I'd even trust the government more that many financial providers.

[richardfinegold]

I have indeed, and did not want to lose 20% in tax, of what I got in state pension. Also, when I do eventually find the need to stop remunerative work, I will need all I can get. I do not especially want to have to take in a lodger to supplement a meagre state pension (due to time spent in higher education as a mature student, and the loss of what civil service pension I would have got when I left the scientific civil service (being non-contributory, you just lose it). I only have a few years of work related pension to top up the state one. That work one is also deferred. Fortunately the house was fully paid for when I inherited it, and I live fairly frugally.

On the frugal part....how much do you spend a year purchasing music? Or have you switched to streaming?

[ahinton]

If its a Ponzi scheme, I'd get out quick

Pity that this is so difficult to do, then.

Meanwhile, I'm paying in the thick end of £300 a month, and I'd really like something in return, the pension that previous generations paid for and enjoyed, and that we can very comfortably afford for our people now and in the future especially if we get rid of nonsense like HS2, Nuclear weapons etc etc.

I wish you luck, but...

And , unpalatable though it is, I'd even trust the government more that many financial providers.

I wouldn't, not only because they don't have the requisite expertise but also because they're not elected and paid to have it - and because they're not licensed and regulated to be a financial provider in the investment sense of the term.

[teamsaint]

I wouldn't, not only because they don't have the requisite expertise but also because they're not elected and paid to have it - and because they're not licensed and regulated to be a financial provider in the investment sense of the term.

yes, the government IS elected to do this stuff, and has experts to implement the scheme, and as for licensing and regulation.....well the government at least makes the rules, even if they are shoddy.

[ahinton]

yes, the government IS elected to do this stuff, and has experts to implement the scheme, and as for licensing and regulation.....well the government at least makes the rules, even if they are shoddy.

If you believe most of that...

No, it's NOT elected to do this kind of thing, because it's not supposed or even expected to be a national investment adviser and it's therefore no particular fault of its own that it isn't one such (unfounded and unfoundable public expectation perhaps being the principal unwitting guilty party here). The government does indeed make the rules to the extent of setting up a financial services regulator to devise and implement them but, in practical reality, that's hardly a success story in anyone's book!

[Bryn]

On the frugal part....how much do you spend a year purchasing music? Or have you switched to streaming?

Oh I have cut back to a considerable degree. I do now often download or stream and with an accumulation of recorded music a copious as I have, I could happily live with that plus Radio 3, friends concerts and the occasional Prom, etc. Getting to and from would be at no cost, though I might have to spend the odd night on night buses.

[teamsaint]

If you believe most of that...

No, it's NOT elected to do this kind of thing, because it's not supposed or even expected to be a national investment adviser and it's therefore no particular fault of its own that it is not one such (unfounded and unfoundable public expectation perhaps being the principal unwitting guilty party here). The government does indeed make the rules to the extent of setting up a financial services regulator to devise and implement them but, in practical reality, that's hardly a success story in anyone's book!

What are you on about? We elect governments to do things like run our pensions. Take our money now, give it back when we are older. Easy.
This is what the people want the government to do. The state pension is very popular. Just ask around.

[Bryn]

I cannot imagine how much longer the government of the day (of whatever hue it might be) will be able to maintain this myth of a "pension" (which isn't a pension and never has been one) under the guise of a so-called "state retirement benefit" (which it also isn't to the extent that increasing numbers of people entitled to receive it are not actually "retired", either from choice or necessity or both); it's funded from people's NI taxes just as are all other state benefits and there's no investment involved so that "pensioners" have any opportunity to benefit from "pensions" in which an investment pot has built up over decades. It's a government taxpeyer-funded Ponzi scheme in all but name and has always been such, its once much-vaunted cliché of "ninepence for fourpence" having from its very outset been a something-for-nothing phenomenon. Governments are not best qualified to provide investment products, stll less advice thereon, so they ought to be honest about this and stop pretending to do so.

It may not fit your definition of pension, but it clearly does fit that of HMG, hence its official name the "State Pension", as given in the government site linked to in #494.

[ahinton]

It may not fit your definition of pension, but it clearly does fit that of HMG, hence its official name the "State Pension", as given in the government site linked to in #494.

...but not, it seems, that of DWP which dispenses these things. That said, whoever defines any of these things in whichever ways that they might at any time choose to do, it must be said that there is a gulf of difference between, on the one hand, an investment product to which investors contribute over years in order to build up a pot that can be vested at a much later date to provide an income in retirement or non-retirement and, on the other, an enforced "contribution" (i.e. a tax obligation) where the amounts paid are never invested in any kind of pension fund for the investor's personal future benefit; would you not agree that these are in principle and practice very different financial instruments indeed?

[Bryn]

...but not, it seems, that of DWP which dispenses these things. That said, whoever defines any of these things in whichever ways that they might at any time choose to do, it must be said that there is a gulf of difference between, on the one hand, an investment product to which investors contribute over years in order to build up a pot that can be vested at a much later date to provide an income in retirement or non-retirement and, on the other, an enforced "contribution" (i.e. a tax obligation) where the amounts paid are never invested in any kind of pension fund for the investor's personal future benefit; would you not agree that these are in principle and practice very different financial instruments indeed?

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/pension

So what is it that you are referring to? A retirement investment fund? Not, apparently a pension as defined in the OED, for instance.

[Lat-Literal]

More bad economic news for the young.

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2017/jul/19/state-pension-age-to-increase-seven-years-earlier-than-planned

and rather unsurprisingly, the rise in life expectancy has begun to level off.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/jul/18/rise-in-life-expectancy-has-stalled-since-2010-research-shows

Still, 20 and 30 somethings are so busy trying to find the rent, or save a 20% deposit for a house on flat incomes, that they are way too busy to worry about what happens when they are 67 or 68 I guess, so that's alright.

These are adjustments based on notions that there won't be a devastating world war or that the robot economy won't generate trillions while enabling people not to work.

It's pragmatic but inevitably based in fantasy because so much of the future is unknown.

What does annoy me is that the Government's insistence that modern health policy is right when the researchers have just said extended lifespans are now being affected.

It isn't so much the outcomes - many are living longer than they wish - as the arrogance.

[ahinton]

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/pension

So what is it that you are referring to? A retirement investment fund? Not, apparently a pension as defined in the OED, for instance.

Yes it is but, whatever you or me or OED or anyone else might call it, that fundamental difference remains, one product type being something in which investors invest and trustees handle for vesting later by the contributors later in their lives and the other being a non-product wherein taxes are exrtracted by government in exchange for some kind of nebulous future "entitlement" on the part of the taxpayers while the funds themselves are never invested by said government but paid out instead to benefits claimants (and not just those claiming so-called state retirement benefits) within weeks of receipt.

[ahinton]

What are you on about? We elect governments to do things like run our pensions. Take our money now, give it back when we are older. Easy.
This is what the people want the government to do. The state pension is very popular. Just ask around.

The only trouble is that this is demonstrably not how it actually works in practice. If people really do expect this, wouldn't they expect the government of the day to invest that money wisely on their behalf for a pension later in life rather than not investing it at all? State benefits being paid to people of and above so-called "state retirement age" are all funded by taxes being collected by government a few weeks before they're paid out; what kind of investment for a pension is that?

Why should taxpayers expect governments to do this properly when that's not what they're in business to do?

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

The only trouble is that this is demonstrably not how it actually works in practice. If people really do expect this, wouldn't they expect the government of the day to invest that money wisely on their behalf for a pension later in life rather than not investign it at all? State benefits being paid to people of and above so-called "state retirement age" are all funded by taxes being collected by government a few weeks before they're paid out; what kind of investment for a pension is that?



Why should taxpayers expect governments to do this properly when that's not what they're in business to do?

I remember when the government took over the Royal Mail pension scheme. They spent it almost immediately on some project or other, and thought this was a good thing.

[MrGongGong]

What does annoy me is that the Government's insistence that modern health policy is right when the researchers have just said extended lifespans are now being affected.

The Government are taking practical steps to halt the extension of lifespans in the form of PIP