We're Not Saving Enough for Retirement

[Lex]

The people of Coventry & Warwickshire are saving nowhere near enough: http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/new...irees-11008510

[rebbonk]

I wonder if this is the prelude to means testing for the state pension?

[Lex]

I often despair of what I'm going to do when I retire; I'm putting as much as I can afford in my pension scheme, but it'll never be enough to provide me with a decent pension, and I have doubts about the state pension existing when I eventually retire.

[rebbonk]

I'm currently on a private pension and have a few investments, so I'm not doing too bad. I certainly don't starve! I won't get a state pension until I'm 66.

I've been on to both of my kids to start pension plans, but I'm wasting my breath.

I foresee the state pension (as we know it) disappearing completely for those just joining the workforce, and being severely cut back and delayed for those halfway through their working life.

But if you look at it, the state pension scheme is nothing more than a giant Ponzi. If you or I were to start anything like it, we'd go to prison.

[cathidaw]

The people of Coventry & Warwickshire are saving nowhere near enough: http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/new...irees-11008510

I'm always surprised at articles like this.We read all the time about how most people are struggling-even with a job and have only enough money to cover living costs let alone save for a pension.The majority of the working class are are now worse off than the '50s when we thought we were on the 'up' and better off than ever before.
I do believe the succeeding governments want to take us back to the early 1900's- and keep us 'to heel-Carlisle's words during Irish famine years. 'Getting above their station, we need to bring them to heel' he said meaning- keep them poor.
One and a half million starved to death.
Now there is a rumour that 'they'are talking about clamping down on food banks. As Cameron said , they are not necessary.

[rebbonk]

Whilst I'll largely agree with you Cathidaw, I think one of the biggest issues today is the "I want in now" attitude. You and I would wait to have things and be prepared to go without. Many (most?) today won't and so they take on lots of debt and then require two wages coming in, just to keep their heads above water.

When I married, I refused to have my wife's wages taken into account for the mortgage. - Just as well the way things ended up! And when I bought my present place, I refused to take Mrs Rebbonk's income into account. Again, another good move as she lost her job within 12 months and was then diagnosed with systemic sclerosis.

The upshot of my later thinking was that I cleared the mortgage within 12 years, and was able to give up work and support the two of us when Mrs Rebbonk needed help.

[cathidaw]

I fully agree that the 'want it now' ethic is partly to blame but it has happened and this is the mess we are in.May be the 'want it now's ' have learned their lesson, I hope so , but doubt it .People forget so easily. But it does not mean they should be left to starve as punishment.
I shall mull this over while I'm away in Cornwall for the next week.

[rebbonk]

I agree, nobody should starve. In fact, that people do so in this country is a dreadful indictment. But I think we need to do more to encourage personal responsibility. Why should the state (i.e. you and I) pick up the bill for those that have simply squandered their assets away? I often relate the tale of two neighbours working side by side in a local factory. One is responsible and saves, the other doesn't and spends every penny he has. The factory closes and they both lose their jobs; who gets the most support and help? Is that fair?

We're about to see a similar situation with pensions. People can get their whole pot out at once. What will happen when that pot is spent? - I believe the state will not make good in this case. So do people starve?

Not easy answers and I certainly don't have them.

Have a nice time, and I look forward to more discussions on your return.

[Lex]

I often relate the tale of two neighbours working side by side in a local factory. One is responsible and saves, the other doesn't and spends every penny he has. The factory closes and they both lose their jobs; who gets the most support and help? Is that fair?

That reminds me of the recent uproar when George Osbourne - after the government spent years banging on about getting people back into work - decided to cut working tax benefits. Strangely, he changed his mind.