Derek Hatton Speaks

RenovationMan

ILW wrote: »

No idea, depends how much you have put away for retirement.

I think this is the main problem; people expectations are way too high. Many people think that putting away £100 or so a month for 25 years will allow them to maintain their current standard of living. It won't. Not even close.

My current standard of living will cost me £1700 per month -having stripped out mortgage, kids expenses, work related costs from my monthly outgoings. £1700 per month equates to £20,400 per annum.

Excluding the state pension, to get a £20k pension on an annuity I would need a pension pot of £500,000. Given that the average UK pension pot is £25k, most people are in for a shock.

ruggedtoast

Koicarp wrote: »

Labour will NEVER win whilst the unions are making noise.

If there were an election tomorrow Labour would win by a landslide.

These coalition clowns have managed to achieve the unthinkable, they have made Gordon Brown look like he knew what he was doing.

shortchanged_2

RenovationMan wrote: »

I think this is the main problem; people expectations are way too high. Many people think that putting away £100 or so a month for 25 years will allow them to maintain their current standard of living. It won't. Not even close.

My current standard of living will cost me £1700 per month -having stripped out mortgage, kids expenses, work related costs from my monthly outgoings. £1700 per month equates to £20,400 per annum.

Excluding the state pension, to get a £20k pension on an annuity I would need a pension pot of £500,000. Given that the average UK pension pot is £25k, most people are in for a shock.

Looks like you are living beyond your means RenoMan.

FTBFun

ruggedtoast wrote: »

If there were an election tomorrow Labour would win by a landslide.

These coalition clowns have managed to achieve the unthinkable, they have made Gordon Brown look like he knew what he was doing.

Utter rubbish. There is no way Ed Miliband is going to win an election.

They chose the wrong brother.

ruggedtoast

FTBFun wrote: »

Utter rubbish. There is no way Ed Miliband is going to win an election.

They chose the wrong brother.

Yes, not with either of the Millipedes obviously, but pretty much everybody else.

I think they only chose Ed so he could also make Gordon Brown look like he knew what he was doing until they get someone else for the election. Pretty clever.

StevieJ

Generali wrote: »

"The union leaders are taking people up the garden path. There is no way that people are going to be retiring before age 70 or 75 in 20 or 30 years time". Radio 5, 22nd Dec 2011.

Looks like the Jocks won't be seeing much retirement then :eek:

Life expectancy at birth for men whose deaths were registered by Glasgow City Council between 2007-9 was 71.1 years, 13.3 years less than the 84.4 years recorded by the affluent central London borough.

http://www.smarthealthcare.com/data-shows-glasgow-has-lowest-mortality-age-20oct10

FTBFun

ruggedtoast wrote: »

Yes, not with either of the Millipedes obviously, but pretty much everybody else.

I think they only chose Ed so he could also make Gordon Brown look like he knew what he was doing until they get someone else for the election. Pretty clever.

You've lost me. Labour will win by a landslide if there was an election tomorrow, but without either Miliband brother as leader, except one is?

RenovationMan

shortchanged wrote: »

Looks like you are living beyond your means RenoMan.

What now, or when I retire?

Generali

StevieJ wrote: »

Looks like the Jocks won't be seeing much retirement then :eek:


http://www.smarthealthcare.com/data-shows-glasgow-has-lowest-mortality-age-20oct10

Probably not. If poorer people in Glasgow had less of a propensity to smoke, drink to excess and overeat they'd probably live longer.

It is terrible that so many Glaswegians go before their time. In many cases, the solution is in their own hands. I've struggled and succeeded with giving up smoking and I'm currently struggling to give up drinking so I have sympathy. The fact remains, you have a choice as to whether or not you smoke and if you do you have a 50:50 chance of it killing you before something else does.

StevieJ

Generali wrote: »

Probably not. If poorer people in Glasgow had less of a propensity to smoke, drink to excess and overeat they'd probably live longer.

It is terrible that so many Glaswegians go before their time. In many cases, the solution is in their own hands. I've struggled and succeeded with giving up smoking and I'm currently struggling to give up drinking so I have sympathy. The fact remains, you have a choice as to whether or not you smoke and if you do you have a 50:50 chance of it killing you before something else does.

'If everyone smoked and drank a lot we probably wouldn't have to mess about with the retirement age, catch 22 or a case for regionalised retirement age, after all the annuity providers make allowances.