Rise of the one child family. Who will fund the pensions black hole?

drc

PasturesNew wrote: »

You can't fund the theoretical pensions balckhole by producing more kids ... you're just creating a big ponzi scheme as the next lot require more "new joiners"... where would it end?

Robots? Cheap labour and they never go on strike. They are the future. Just ask the Japanese;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MY8-sJS0W1I

bluey890

already enough non jobs - see public sector.

world is now more efficient. no need for old people to work if not so many fake jobs.

chopperharris

\i think we will see an increase on the idea of tax credits for having kids....think baby bounties.

perhaps we will all do a madonna and get some duty free kids?

sh856531

Does anyone think it will ever be possible to gradually move to a system whereby individuals in the UK are expected provided for their own retirement, rather than relying on our children to do it for us?

I understand why the system is the way it is at the moment - clearly when the system was first started up, the only way to get the ball rolling was to provide for the elderly by increasing taxation on those currently working.

But it seems to me to be far more responsible and fairer to expect people to provide for their own retirement. Now clearly there needs to be some protection to look after the vulnerable - those who can't provide for themselves. But in the current system it seems that not only do I have to provide for myself - I also have to provide for the ignorant and lazy. e.g. people who could quite easily have provided for their own retirement but were too ignorant and selfish to do so.

I'm thinking in particular of a couple of IT colleagues of mine. Even though they earn the same as me - they flatly refuse to pay into the company pension scheme because they want to spend their money on other things.

I have the distinct feeling that under the current system, I am having to pay for people like them and I'm not very happy about it...

Am I being unfair?

Best regards all

S

bluey890

sh856531 wrote: »

Does anyone think it will ever be possible to gradually move to a system whereby individuals in the UK are expected provided for their own retirement, rather than relying on our children to do it for us?

I understand why the system is the way it is at the moment - clearly when the system was first started up, the only way to get the ball rolling was to provide for the elderly by increasing taxation on those currently working.

But it seems to me to be far more responsible and fairer to expect people to provide for their own retirement. Now clearly there needs to be some protection to look after the vulnerable - those who can't provide for themselves. But in the current system it seems that not only do I have to provide for myself - I also have to provide for the ignorant and lazy. e.g. people who could quite easily have provided for their own retirement but were too ignorant and selfish to do so.

I'm thinking in particular of a couple of IT colleagues of mine. Even though they earn the same as me - they flatly refuse to pay into the company pension scheme because they want to spend their money on other things.

I have the distinct feeling that under the current system, I am having to pay for people like them and I'm not very happy about it...

Am I being unfair?

Best regards all

S

pensions could become compulsory, 2012 automatic opt in is the first step

see steve bees beehive blog for more information on the 2012 changes

CLAPTON

sh856531 wrote: »

Does anyone think it will ever be possible to gradually move to a system whereby individuals in the UK are expected provided for their own retirement, rather than relying on our children to do it for us?

I understand why the system is the way it is at the moment - clearly when the system was first started up, the only way to get the ball rolling was to provide for the elderly by increasing taxation on those currently working.

But it seems to me to be far more responsible and fairer to expect people to provide for their own retirement. Now clearly there needs to be some protection to look after the vulnerable - those who can't provide for themselves. But in the current system it seems that not only do I have to provide for myself - I also have to provide for the ignorant and lazy. e.g. people who could quite easily have provided for their own retirement but were too ignorant and selfish to do so.

I'm thinking in particular of a couple of IT colleagues of mine. Even though they earn the same as me - they flatly refuse to pay into the company pension scheme because they want to spend their money on other things.

I have the distinct feeling that under the current system, I am having to pay for people like them and I'm not very happy about it...

Am I being unfair?

Best regards all

S

you haven't understood my post

i8change

I think it's a con. Throughout the 80's and 90's lots of people were retired early in their 50's as companys downsized and discussions were about male and female pensions being equalised to 63.
What did they not know then that they know now? If anything an early death awaits the growing numbers of obese.
The population is slowly increasing and if age is a factor we never did live as long as the continentals with their healthier diet. We also have "The least generous pensions in the developed world" as the pensions commision commented.
Apart from the first generation to receive it when State pensions were started, we all pay in for our pensions. Government just wants to kid people to pay in extra for pensions so they can keep wasting money we intended for essentials like pensions on non essentials like child trust funds and other pet social engineering projects.
Remember all French retire at 60 (50 for civil servants!), Italy 58 for all who have paid in enough years and the Germans get huge pensions, put back to 68. Ours are peanuts by comparison.
The reality is that essentials like pensions are affordable but they would rather spend money on non essentials. If they can get you to pay in more of your money they will!

abaxas

i8change wrote: »

I think it's a con. Throughout the 80's and 90's lots of people were retired early in their 50's as companys downsized and discussions were about male and female pensions being equalised to 63.
What did they not know then that they know now? If anything an early death awaits the growing numbers of obese.
The population is slowly increasing and if age is a factor we never did live as long as the continentals with their healthier diet. We also have "The least generous pensions in the developed world" as the pensions commision commented.
Apart from the first generation to receive it when State pensions were started, we all pay in for our pensions. Government just wants to kid people to pay in extra for pensions so they can keep wasting money we intended for essentials like pensions on non essentials like child trust funds and other pet social engineering projects.
Remember all French retire at 60 (50 for civil servants!), Italy 58 for all who have paid in enough years and the Germans get huge pensions, put back to 68. Ours are peanuts by comparison.
The reality is that essentials like pensions are affordable but they would rather spend money on non essentials. If they can get you to pay in more of your money they will!

LOL!

Lets do some basic maths.

40 years putting in 15% of salary into pension
20 years taking 50% of salary as pension.

Pensions are gubbed, give it 10 years there will be mass default. Heaven does not exist.

i8change

abaxus is obviously confused, state pensions do not pay 50% of salary. Also if my basic maths is correct 68-21 (Uni) =47.
Company pensions are a different matter, if the stock market does n't pick up soon I could imagine some going bust.

kabayiri

2 or 3 years back, during 'boom time', the Tonight program had a pension expert advise a bunch of workers on what they needed to pay into a pension to achieve 15K per annum when they retire.

One guy needed to save 250 pm, the other 400pm. Each of them shook their head, realising this was unachievable. Net result? They decided to do nothing.

Maybe we need a different approach.

Make living costs for pensioners much cheaper. Things like support for energy bills, council tax, free public transport.

Then they wouldn't need as much money to live.