Pension fund £16000 to pay just £480 per yr

DD4

I think mark is very young and it shows in almost every post he makes. However, he'll learn.

marklv

DD4 wrote: »

I think mark is very young and it shows in almost every post he makes. However, he'll learn.

Yes, I'm a toddler of 42.

DD4

marklv wrote: »

Yes, I'm a toddler of 42.

Sorry, you come across as rather immature, hence I assumed you were a lot younger than you are. Again, apologies.

jamesd

marklv wrote: »

Do you want people to work until they drop, as in Victorian times? ... In any civilised society the state needs to provide for the needs of its elderly population. And when you retire you don't live 'off the back of other people's labour', you live on the 40+ years of NI contributions you've made.

Well, you hope that the tax payers after you retire will still be willing to continue paying. There's a serious structural issue with the state pensions since the number of people paying the pensions for those who have retired is going to increase significantly. You will be reaching state pension age at the point of maximum demands on younger people to fund it, with all of the baby boomer generation retired and the lower percentage of working people to pay. This structural issue is why the state retirement age is increasing but that's not sufficient alone to cover the change. Immigration also helps, providing an influx of younger people who will be tax payers at the required time.

I certainly agree about not working until you drop and providing a basic minimal level of income, via means tested benefits. The state pensions alone aren't enough to meet that requirement at present, so means testing is required for those who do not have additional pension arrangements. Even more so for the self employed who find that it's not possible to live on only the basic state pension after they neglected their retirement planning.

marklv wrote: »

And do you also honestly believe that bosses would like to have a workforce of ailing 70 somethings or even 80 somethings? I would always refuse to accept geriatrics in my team - come hell or high water.

70 or 80 and physically unable to do the job based on objective tests and job requirements and you and your employer would get away with it, though it doesn't prevent supermarkets from liking older employees, who tend to be stable and happy enough with the work and flexibility.

marklv wrote: »

When people reach a certain age - and in my opinion that age should be 60 - they should stop working, put their slippers on and watch daytime TV. The modern workplace is very aggressive and mentally and physically demanding - no place for the elderly. What you are suggesting is totally unworkable, brutally inhumane and plainly idiotic.

It's also the law and what you're describing at 60 would be blatantly illegal age discrimination and would subject your employer to age discrimination action that they would lose. You'd also end up fired for gross misconduct for breaking the law and creating the liability.

marklv wrote: »

Other sources outside pensions? To me that means either winning the lottery jackpot or inheriting a £1M mansion from the long lost uncle. ... Sorry - I live in the real world.

In the real world stocks and shares ISAs exist. You really should read the sticky discussions of ISA vs pensions for retirement income. Pension has a big advantage up to around £10,000 in total income. Beyond that the edge starts to decrease and ISA gives more flexibility. So you would often want to use a pension to generate enough income for core needs and ISA for flexibility. Anyone looking to retire before age 55 from next April also has to use ISAs as a key part of their retirement planning.

When state pension age arrives, around age 66 or 67 for you, you can expect around £5,000 for the basic state pension and perhaps £2,000 more for the additional state pension, assuming that tax payers are willing to pay enough in NI contributions to pay for it. Anyone retiring before state retirement age will need to provide this income in some other way before it starts. ISAs are likely to be one of the better ways because you can use the capital without limit to supplement income, unlike a pension's income range limits.

marklv

jamesd wrote: »

70 or 80 and physically unable to do the job based on objective tests and job requirements and you and your employer would get away with it, though it doesn't prevent supermarkets from liking older employees, who tend to be stable and happy enough with the work and flexibility.

It's also the law and what you're describing at 60 would be blatantly illegal age discrimination and would subject your employer to age discrimination action that they would lose. You'd also end up fired for gross misconduct for breaking the law and creating the liability.

I am well aware of the law - I was stating an opinion. If I am forced to have oldies in my team, so be it, but I think it will counterproductive and not do much for them either. Of course there are some excellent people who are over the normal retirement age, but what I question is whether they have the ability to cope with stress and long hours. Older people are much more effective as senior executives, as in these roles they can delegate the stressful stuff downwards and concentrate on making decisions.

DD4

I've rapidly come to the conclusion, given the OTT age-ist statements and other inflamitary nonsense spouted by marklv, that he is simply an attention seeking troll. I think I'll give up responding and talk about pensions to my Border Terrier, it will be just as informative and rewarding an experience as doing the same with marklv.

marklv

DD4 wrote: »

I've rapidly come to the conclusion, given the OTT age-ist statements and other inflamitary nonsense spouted by marklv, that he is simply an attention seeking troll. I think I'll give up responding and talk about pensions to my Border Terrier, it will be just as informative and rewarding an experience as doing the same with marklv.

OK - anyone who disagrees with you is a troll, then? Sounds a bit Orwellian to me. Reminds me of the days when Soviet dissidents were put into mental hospitals because only 'insane' people could disagree with the regime.

DD4

I'm happy to have a debate with people who disagree with me, but not with someone who calls anyone over 60 "oldies" and "geriatrics" and that they should be at home wearing their slippers and watching daytime TV. I'm younger than you and would never say that. I've worked with several people in their late 50's and 60's and have gained immensely from their experience.

You're just coming across as a bit of a bitter loser, who feels that old people are getting in the way of his career progression. I have to point out that your attitude is probably the thing that is stopping you getting on, not older people.

You need to think about what you're saying. Engage brain before keyboard.

marklv

DD4 wrote: »

I'm happy to have a debate with people who disagree with me, but not with someone who calls anyone over 60 "oldies" and "geriatrics" and that they should be at home wearing their slippers and watching daytime TV. I'm younger than you and would never say that. I've worked with several people in their late 50's and 60's and have gained immensely from their experience.

You're just coming across as a bit of a bitter loser, who feels that old people are getting in the way of his career progression. I have to point out that your attitude is probably the thing that is stopping you getting on, not older people.

You need to think about what you're saying. Engage brain before keyboard.

You have zero sense of humour. Shame on you.

DD4

marklv wrote: »

You have zero sense of humour. Shame on you.

Which part of your posts were supposed to be funny?