How big should my pension pot be ?

18911131422

Comments

  • StevieJ
    StevieJ Posts: 20,174
    First Anniversary Combo Breaker First Post
    Forumite
    marklv wrote: »
    Nowhere, just a rumour. But I think it would be native to think that a Tory administration isn't going to make the state pension increasingly less significant.

    I suppose they have history, what does rumour mean in this context (your opinion)?
    'Just think for a moment what a prospect that is. A single market without barriers visible or invisible giving you direct and unhindered access to the purchasing power of over 300 million of the worlds wealthiest and most prosperous people' Margaret Thatcher
  • sounds to me like marklv is making it up as he goes along. It would be political suicide to get rid of the state pension, especially when there are far easier targets they could get rid of first. Child benefit is paid to everyone in this country with a child under the age of 16 (or 18 if in further education), this includes Premiership footballers, merchant bankers and other multi-millionaires. If they can't afford to support their own children without a handout from the tax payer then they shouldn't be having them. Then there is the woeful tax credit system, incapacity benefit with it's lax rulings (though this is being tightened up) and various other benefit packages where some people take out far more than they put in. Unlike the state pension.

    BTW bendix, I think you're foolish to disregard the state pension, especially as you have been contributing to it for so many years. You should take the money and give it to a local charity in the UK, Thailand or wherever you end up.
    "I can hear you whisperin', children, so I know you're down there. I can feel myself gettin' awful mad. I'm out of patience, children. I'm coming to find you now." - Harry Powell, Night of the Hunter, 1955.
  • marklv
    marklv Posts: 1,768 Forumite
    edited 5 September 2009 at 10:12PM
    sounds to me like marklv is making it up as he goes along. It would be political suicide to get rid of the state pension, especially when there are far easier targets they could get rid of first. Child benefit is paid to everyone in this country with a child under the age of 16 (or 18 if in further education), this includes Premiership footballers, merchant bankers and other multi-millionaires. If they can't afford to support their own children without a handout from the tax payer then they shouldn't be having them. Then there is the woeful tax credit system, incapacity benefit with it's lax rulings (though this is being tightened up) and various other benefit packages where some people take out far more than they put in. Unlike the state pension.

    BTW bendix, I think you're foolish to disregard the state pension, especially as you have been contributing to it for so many years. You should take the money and give it to a local charity in the UK, Thailand or wherever you end up.


    I'm not making anything up - I said it's a rumour. There are lots of rumours that emanate from the inner sanctums of Westminster, and many do not run out to be true, but others do. And when I said 'get rid' of the state pension I meant not its total elimination, but its reduction to a means tested 'safety net' benefit for the poorest only. This is certainly a possibility for the future. As for political suicide, well, history is the judge of that.

    Child benefit and tax credits are sensitive areas that touch upon raw nerves. Personally, I wish they would get rid of them, as they just encourage council estate chavs and others from the least intelligent members of our society to breed like rabbits, but Cameron is too much like Blair - he loves being popular. Incapacity benefit is already under fire, but you can't have people in wheelchairs left to starve, can you? The key thing is that the money is paid to the genuinely incapacitated, not just people with backache.
  • StevieJ
    StevieJ Posts: 20,174
    First Anniversary Combo Breaker First Post
    Forumite
    marklv wrote: »
    I'm not making anything up - I said it's a rumour. There are lots of rumours that emanate from the inner sanctums of Westminster, and many do not run out to be true, but others do. And when I said 'get rid' of the state pension I meant not its total elimination, but its reduction to a means tested 'safety net' benefit for the poorest only. This is certainly a possibility for the future. As for political suicide, well, history is the judge of that.
    .

    A brave man who takes on the pensioners just as the baby boomers are taking their place at the table:eek:
    'Just think for a moment what a prospect that is. A single market without barriers visible or invisible giving you direct and unhindered access to the purchasing power of over 300 million of the worlds wealthiest and most prosperous people' Margaret Thatcher
  • marklv
    marklv Posts: 1,768 Forumite
    The Council Tax was political suicide, yet it happened anyway and now people take it for granted. You underestimate the huge capacity the British people have for tolerating (and even supporting) incompetent governments.
  • I smell a Troll.
  • StevieJ
    StevieJ Posts: 20,174
    First Anniversary Combo Breaker First Post
    Forumite
    edited 6 September 2009 at 12:04PM
    marklv wrote: »
    The Council Tax was political suicide, yet it happened anyway and now people take it for granted. You underestimate the huge capacity the British people have for tolerating (and even supporting) incompetent governments.

    You mean the Poll tax :confused: i.e. everyone on the register pays, and no it didn't happen icon7.gif Coucil tax is more or less the same as the old rates system.
    Is this what you call tolerating?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FRj2K0ulD8Q
    'Just think for a moment what a prospect that is. A single market without barriers visible or invisible giving you direct and unhindered access to the purchasing power of over 300 million of the worlds wealthiest and most prosperous people' Margaret Thatcher
  • marklv
    marklv Posts: 1,768 Forumite
    StevieJ wrote: »
    You mean the Poll tax :confused: i.e. everyone on the register pays, and no it didn't happen icon7.gif Coucil tax is more or less the same as the old rates system.
    Is this what you call tolerating?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FRj2K0ulD8Q


    Council Tax is not the same as rates. Rates was fairer because those living in big houses paid more than those living in smaller ones, while with council tax it's based on the relative value of the house, meaning if you live in an expensive part of the country such as the South-East you get hammered.
  • Perfect_Choice
    Perfect_Choice Posts: 36
    First Anniversary First Post
    Forumite
    edited 7 September 2009 at 4:25PM
    “What do you define as a 'typical percentage'? 5%, maybe 7% at the most? This would mean an effective pay cut of 10-12% for most public sector employees. No way would this ever happen. Forget it. I would argue for an employer contribution no less than 15% of salary, and even that would be tough to sell.”

    5% actually is my thought from the employer with employees contributing at least the same to qualify for the employer contribution, with option to pay more if they wish. And the reason why I have picked this figure? It is what I have seen generally in the private sector where I work (across 3 employers over past 15 years - 2 small(400-500 employees) and 1 large(30,000 employees)) so there is certainly not a level playing field if public sector workers think 15% is the minimum, time to get real and realise why workers in the private sector think the public sector with their over generous pension model need to change. Risk and investment needs to moved more to the employee as it cannot be financed long term. Not very pleasant reading I’m sure for some and I would not welcome it if I was their shoes but life is life and it has to change in my view.

    “It's not just the private sector that has taken the pain. In the public sector members have had to increase their contributions significantly in recent years, and the retirement age has moved to 65 from 60.”

    So it should be and more, try having your employer contributing only 5% to your plan and having to work until you drop as some of my colleagues have no plan to retire until they can and that will be beyond 65 for some. Saying that, I would have no issue in pubic sector employees having the right to retire at 55 if they can build up a good enough money purchase pension pot.
  • marklv
    marklv Posts: 1,768 Forumite
    You are living in cloud cuckoo land! Offer a 5% pension contribution to public sector workers and before long you'll have no doctors, nurses, teachers or police. I've never read such utter claptrap in all my life. So what if most private sector employers offer 5% pension contributions? As I said before, why should public sector employees be offered the lowest common denominator?
This discussion has been closed.
Meet your Ambassadors

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 342.5K Banking & Borrowing
  • 249.9K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 449.4K Spending & Discounts
  • 234.6K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 607.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 172.8K Life & Family
  • 247.4K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 15.8K Discuss & Feedback
  • 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards