| Pensions 10:14 - May 28 with 4625 views | chicoazul |
In an idle moment I reviewed my pensions.
According to my calculations if I retire at 67 per the current rules, with my work public sector pension and my old age pension I will retire with an income of 85% of what I earn now. I’ll be retired all being well for at least 15 years. I don’t earn much now but it’s enough and I’m happy.
My point is, this is surely unsustainable. Is this country completely screwed economically forever? |  |
| |  |
| Pensions on 10:26 - May 28 with 2785 views | nodge_blue |
Whats unsustainable? The state part of your retirement make up?
That may well be unsustainable.
The private part isnt cos its your and your employers money. Thats totally up to you. |  |
| |
| Pensions on 10:26 - May 28 with 2781 views | usm |
The state pension is unsustainable, the NHS is unsustainable, the benefit system is unsustainable, defined benefit pension schemes (Final Salary) are unsustainable. They all
have been for years and its been known for years.
So YES is the answer to your question. |  |
| |
| Pensions on 10:27 - May 28 with 2767 views | Radlett_blue |
The triple lock is absolutely unaffordable, given the demographics of the UK. But no government wants to be the one which removes it. The Tory/Liberal coalition instituted it in 2010 & it was an act of complete madness, linking pension improvements to the HIGHEST of 3 different measures of inflation.
The sticking plaster solution has been to keep pushing out the qualifying age, but when you do anything like that you attract a media storm of criticism as you create short term losers e.g. the WASPI women. |  |
| |
| Pensions on 10:29 - May 28 with 2760 views | ArnoldMoorhen |
The pensionable age will just keep shifting upwards.
I also don't think those of us who grew up in the 1970's and 80's, with all manners of sugary food and drink on tap, and weird concoctions with all sorts of colourings and additives, will live as long as the people currently around 100, who lived through a decade of economic depression, in homes without central heating and with outdoor toilets, and who consumed minimal amounts of sugar until rationing ended when they were in their 30's.
And, to be really bleak (and you heard it here first) I am anticipating an epidemic of asbestosis-like lung diseases from micro-fibres at some point in the next 30 years.
Human beings always find new ways to die. |  | | |
| Pensions on 10:32 - May 28 with 2722 views | DanTheMan |
| Pensions on 10:27 - May 28 by Radlett_blue |
The triple lock is absolutely unaffordable, given the demographics of the UK. But no government wants to be the one which removes it. The Tory/Liberal coalition instituted it in 2010 & it was an act of complete madness, linking pension improvements to the HIGHEST of 3 different measures of inflation.
The sticking plaster solution has been to keep pushing out the qualifying age, but when you do anything like that you attract a media storm of criticism as you create short term losers e.g. the WASPI women. |
And it also ignores the fact that despite people living long, our bodies don't actually age slower.
State pension would still be salvageable but we'd need to adjust our demographics slowly enough for it to work economically.
Which would basically only be achievable by using immigration, and we all know how much everyone loves that. |  |
| |
| Pensions on 10:42 - May 28 with 2654 views | Radlett_blue |
| Pensions on 10:29 - May 28 by ArnoldMoorhen |
The pensionable age will just keep shifting upwards.
I also don't think those of us who grew up in the 1970's and 80's, with all manners of sugary food and drink on tap, and weird concoctions with all sorts of colourings and additives, will live as long as the people currently around 100, who lived through a decade of economic depression, in homes without central heating and with outdoor toilets, and who consumed minimal amounts of sugar until rationing ended when they were in their 30's.
And, to be really bleak (and you heard it here first) I am anticipating an epidemic of asbestosis-like lung diseases from micro-fibres at some point in the next 30 years.
Human beings always find new ways to die. |
Longevity in the UK has been increasing steadily for over 100 years, thanks to better healthcare & improved working conditions. The improvement is now tailing off, partly because of diminishing returns. The sugar issue will actually cause more problems as Type 2 diabetes is growing hugely & the effects of it will bring much more cost onto the NHS.
Asbestosis is a horrible disease, but it is only killing about 5,000 people a year. | |
| |
| Pensions on 10:43 - May 28 with 2629 views | SuperKieranMcKenna |
| Pensions on 10:32 - May 28 by DanTheMan |
And it also ignores the fact that despite people living long, our bodies don't actually age slower.
State pension would still be salvageable but we'd need to adjust our demographics slowly enough for it to work economically.
Which would basically only be achievable by using immigration, and we all know how much everyone loves that. |
It hasn’t been achievable so far with record population growth, with constant ‘black holes’. You need to be in the top 40pc of earners to be a net contributor to the state (and that doesn’t include dependents). Plus for every one million of population growth, you need more than 1 million to pay their pensions, it’s just kicking the can down the road and hardly in line with sustainability of the environment.
It won’t be a popular decision, but the state pension has to be means tested for the poorest only. Shift the burden to the private sector, and spend the money on improving healthcare (if we had a functional health system, more people could get back to work and contribute tax, and work for longer). | | | |
| Pensions on 10:51 - May 28 with 2568 views | thebooks |
Why are they unsustainable? |  | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Pensions on 10:52 - May 28 with 2545 views | thebooks |
| Pensions on 10:43 - May 28 by SuperKieranMcKenna |
It hasn’t been achievable so far with record population growth, with constant ‘black holes’. You need to be in the top 40pc of earners to be a net contributor to the state (and that doesn’t include dependents). Plus for every one million of population growth, you need more than 1 million to pay their pensions, it’s just kicking the can down the road and hardly in line with sustainability of the environment.
It won’t be a popular decision, but the state pension has to be means tested for the poorest only. Shift the burden to the private sector, and spend the money on improving healthcare (if we had a functional health system, more people could get back to work and contribute tax, and work for longer). |
“You need to be in the top 40pc of earners to be a net contributor to the state.”
Erm, that’s not how state finances work. It is how rightwing economic framing of it works though. | | | |
| Pensions on 10:55 - May 28 with 2501 views | Radlett_blue |
| Pensions on 10:43 - May 28 by SuperKieranMcKenna |
It hasn’t been achievable so far with record population growth, with constant ‘black holes’. You need to be in the top 40pc of earners to be a net contributor to the state (and that doesn’t include dependents). Plus for every one million of population growth, you need more than 1 million to pay their pensions, it’s just kicking the can down the road and hardly in line with sustainability of the environment.
It won’t be a popular decision, but the state pension has to be means tested for the poorest only. Shift the burden to the private sector, and spend the money on improving healthcare (if we had a functional health system, more people could get back to work and contribute tax, and work for longer). |
Government measures usually have unintended consequences.
Means testing the State pension would create huge outrage among the short term losers, while it arguably would be a disincentive for poorer people to save at all.
The softer way of doing this is not to increase the absolute number & let inflation erode away the value of the benefit, This is similar to not increasing the tax allowances each year. Step one is to get rid of the triple lock, but hard to see an unpopular Labour government doing that, with Santa Farage making all sorts of unaffordable promises. | |
| |
| Pensions on 10:56 - May 28 with 2489 views | SuperKieranMcKenna |
| Pensions on 10:52 - May 28 by thebooks |
“You need to be in the top 40pc of earners to be a net contributor to the state.”
Erm, that’s not how state finances work. It is how rightwing economic framing of it works though. |
Of course it is - you either raise money through taxes, or borrowing externally. Currently we are spending more on servicing our debt than on our education system. Surely therefore it’s better to have more net contributors to state finances (as per Scandanavia where taxes are typically higher).
Perhaps you could explain to me how it works otherwise? | | | |
| Pensions on 10:57 - May 28 with 2484 views | PrideOfTheEast |
| Pensions on 10:55 - May 28 by Radlett_blue |
Government measures usually have unintended consequences.
Means testing the State pension would create huge outrage among the short term losers, while it arguably would be a disincentive for poorer people to save at all.
The softer way of doing this is not to increase the absolute number & let inflation erode away the value of the benefit, This is similar to not increasing the tax allowances each year. Step one is to get rid of the triple lock, but hard to see an unpopular Labour government doing that, with Santa Farage making all sorts of unaffordable promises. |
Yes and again the political system needs to change for the modern challenges. We’re walking eyes open into an absolute disaster across all the things that seem to matter to people. | | | |
| Pensions on 11:07 - May 28 with 2428 views | Radlett_blue |
| Pensions on 10:56 - May 28 by SuperKieranMcKenna |
Of course it is - you either raise money through taxes, or borrowing externally. Currently we are spending more on servicing our debt than on our education system. Surely therefore it’s better to have more net contributors to state finances (as per Scandanavia where taxes are typically higher).
Perhaps you could explain to me how it works otherwise? |
the higher earners actually make a net contribution to the country' finances and the top 40% is about right. Hence immigration isn't the sole answer to our demographic issues - getting immigrants to do low paid jobs while others sit on benefits isn't great.
The Scandinavian model of higher taxes & better public services seems to have worked well for Denmark & Sweden, but they are very different countries from Britain & I think the cultural change would be too great a shock to be palatable, but the reality is that we are going to have to get used to higher taxes in Britain & the money cannot be found just from the super rich. | |
| |
| Pensions on 11:20 - May 28 with 2361 views | nrb1985 |
| Pensions on 10:56 - May 28 by SuperKieranMcKenna |
Of course it is - you either raise money through taxes, or borrowing externally. Currently we are spending more on servicing our debt than on our education system. Surely therefore it’s better to have more net contributors to state finances (as per Scandanavia where taxes are typically higher).
Perhaps you could explain to me how it works otherwise? |
I argued in vain in a recent thread that we should be expanding the tax base and encouraging the wealthy to come in rather than doing everything possible to chase them off.
In an economy that hasn’t grown organically for 20 years, I would have thought that would seem a sensible thing to do.
I was accused of shilling for the rich though and the people I work for were even described as “rich cnts” by another enlightened poster.
Hey ho. | | | |
| Pensions on 11:26 - May 28 with 2327 views | naa |
| Pensions on 10:27 - May 28 by Radlett_blue |
The triple lock is absolutely unaffordable, given the demographics of the UK. But no government wants to be the one which removes it. The Tory/Liberal coalition instituted it in 2010 & it was an act of complete madness, linking pension improvements to the HIGHEST of 3 different measures of inflation.
The sticking plaster solution has been to keep pushing out the qualifying age, but when you do anything like that you attract a media storm of criticism as you create short term losers e.g. the WASPI women. |
It's worse than that. It's two measures of inflation and then a fallback figure that might be above both. Why on earth does it need to be higher than inflation! It's not a performance related payrise. | | | |
| Pensions on 11:28 - May 28 with 2313 views | Meadowlark |
How come the rest of Europe manages to look after its elderly population better than us? One of the reasons that the triple lock was introduced was to try to catch up with the rest of Europe. We haven't done so.
I'll tell you what is not sustainable. The increasing gap between the richest and the poorest and the fact that the richest and their associated companies do not contribute their fair share. |  | | |
| Pensions on 11:34 - May 28 with 2267 views | Radlett_blue |
| Pensions on 11:28 - May 28 by Meadowlark |
How come the rest of Europe manages to look after its elderly population better than us? One of the reasons that the triple lock was introduced was to try to catch up with the rest of Europe. We haven't done so.
I'll tell you what is not sustainable. The increasing gap between the richest and the poorest and the fact that the richest and their associated companies do not contribute their fair share. |
Britain has, since the advent of Thatcherism, been fundamentally a relatively low tax country. This naturally produces less government revenue to be spent on entitlements & services. Everyone will have a different view on this, but the UK electorate have shown a huge reluctance to vote for a party which promises to increase taxation in order to improve public services, however they may respond to opinion polls on this single issue. See John Smith's (honest) Shadow Budget, which arguably cost Labour the 1992 General Election. | |
| |
| Pensions on 11:44 - May 28 with 2209 views | SaleAway |
| Pensions on 11:28 - May 28 by Meadowlark |
How come the rest of Europe manages to look after its elderly population better than us? One of the reasons that the triple lock was introduced was to try to catch up with the rest of Europe. We haven't done so.
I'll tell you what is not sustainable. The increasing gap between the richest and the poorest and the fact that the richest and their associated companies do not contribute their fair share. |
Denmark has just upped its retirement age....
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvg71v533q6o
The biggest issue is that the generation x, have benefited from getting on the housing ladder when it was affordable, and will also probably inherit well from silent generation/ boomer parents with huge equity.... so there's a generation who may well retire early with decent wealth, but which will again reduce the state incomings over the next 15/20 years....
I'm 47, but don't plan on working much past 57, when I can access my private pension. If I continued on my current trajectory and worked until 67, I'd retire on an income of significantly more than I am now , and with no kids, that seems somewhat pointless. | |
| |
| Pensions on 11:57 - May 28 with 2132 views | Radlett_blue |
| Pensions on 10:51 - May 28 by thebooks |
Why are they unsustainable? |
The State pension costs over £136bn a year, over 11% of government spending & with the demographics & the triple lock, this will inevitably keep increasing. The solutions to fund them will be tax increases or cut back on expenditure elsewhere. | |
| |
| Pensions on 12:01 - May 28 with 2083 views | SaleAway |
| Pensions on 11:57 - May 28 by Radlett_blue |
The State pension costs over £136bn a year, over 11% of government spending & with the demographics & the triple lock, this will inevitably keep increasing. The solutions to fund them will be tax increases or cut back on expenditure elsewhere. |
or keep pushing back the retirement age | |
| |
| Pensions on 12:05 - May 28 with 2056 views | BloomBlue |
Pension (state) age will continue to increase. Isn't Denmark already going to increase its state age to 70? The same will happen here very soon. |  | | |
| Pensions on 12:21 - May 28 with 1980 views | Radlett_blue |
| Pensions on 12:05 - May 28 by BloomBlue |
Pension (state) age will continue to increase. Isn't Denmark already going to increase its state age to 70? The same will happen here very soon. |
Yes, the Danes have done that. Sensibly, they also offer an early retirement scheme whereby those doing physically demanding jobs can retire early. Great scheme if everyone plays it fair but in Greece, for example, they defined hairdressing as a hazardous occupation, which helped the country go bust (as well as Greeks not paying their taxes). | |
| |
| Pensions on 12:28 - May 28 with 1956 views | Churchman |
| Pensions on 11:28 - May 28 by Meadowlark |
How come the rest of Europe manages to look after its elderly population better than us? One of the reasons that the triple lock was introduced was to try to catch up with the rest of Europe. We haven't done so.
I'll tell you what is not sustainable. The increasing gap between the richest and the poorest and the fact that the richest and their associated companies do not contribute their fair share. |
Yes, funny how the rest of Europe can sustain it and we can’t. You are right - triple lock came in to try and catch up a bit. Measurement across countries isn’t easy because the way in which pensions in different countries works varies. Maybe low state provision in the U.K. is because retirees are viewed as a drain on the economy. Parasites. Hooray for the Spartans and the cold hillside when the fogeys have stopped contributing.
Yet the old fogeys are contributing. What most of the ancients spend goes back into the economy, unlike the uber rich where it’s often salted away abroad.
Disgracefully, the gap between rich and poor is increasing and the wealthy pay what on average, 10% tax? Government response was and is to get rid of 1000s of tax inspectors. That should help close the tax gap. I’m sure that is a concern to the multi millionaire politicians - not.
Interesting table on what you need to retire. The figures are net.
https://www.retirementlivingstandards.org.uk/details
The most state pension you can get is £11973.00pa. If that’s your only income, good luck living on that. |  | | |
| Pensions on 12:32 - May 28 with 1941 views | Radlett_blue |
| Pensions on 12:28 - May 28 by Churchman |
Yes, funny how the rest of Europe can sustain it and we can’t. You are right - triple lock came in to try and catch up a bit. Measurement across countries isn’t easy because the way in which pensions in different countries works varies. Maybe low state provision in the U.K. is because retirees are viewed as a drain on the economy. Parasites. Hooray for the Spartans and the cold hillside when the fogeys have stopped contributing.
Yet the old fogeys are contributing. What most of the ancients spend goes back into the economy, unlike the uber rich where it’s often salted away abroad.
Disgracefully, the gap between rich and poor is increasing and the wealthy pay what on average, 10% tax? Government response was and is to get rid of 1000s of tax inspectors. That should help close the tax gap. I’m sure that is a concern to the multi millionaire politicians - not.
Interesting table on what you need to retire. The figures are net.
https://www.retirementlivingstandards.org.uk/details
The most state pension you can get is £11973.00pa. If that’s your only income, good luck living on that. |
Yes, unlike the Scandies, Britain has gone down the inequality route & while I'm no Socialist, I think it's gone much too far. You cannot redress the situation by taking the very rich because (1) there aren't enough of them & (2) they can move offshore. So the only way to do it is to tax the middle class/upper earners more heavily & governments have been reluctant to do this as they won;t then get voted in, especially with populists like Farage promising tax cuts AND higher spending. | |
| |
| Pensions on 12:47 - May 28 with 1847 views | BloomBlue |
| Pensions on 11:28 - May 28 by Meadowlark |
How come the rest of Europe manages to look after its elderly population better than us? One of the reasons that the triple lock was introduced was to try to catch up with the rest of Europe. We haven't done so.
I'll tell you what is not sustainable. The increasing gap between the richest and the poorest and the fact that the richest and their associated companies do not contribute their fair share. |
But is that comparing the same models across European countries?
I only ask because earlier this year on the wireless the pension topic was discussed and people were moaning why do countries in Europe provide better pensions. Well a French guy phoned in and said he envied the UK model. He said in France to get a full state pension you have to work for at least 42 years, whereas in the UK it's only 35 years. His point was maybe if the UK followed the same French model of 42 years, peoples UK pension would match French. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
