Pensions Robbery Discussion thread, all viewpoints welcome!

fairleads

chucknorris wrote: »

I'm a recent convert to pensions, previously I thought that for me they were a waste of money. But now I can definitely see the value in them (for me) as a way of increasing the ability to spend capital during my retirement years and use pension income as a hedge against living an exceptionally long time, instead of hanging onto more capital and ending up the richest man in the graveyard.

You've taken one too many to the head Chuck and its skewed your reasoning because you'll now have access to only 25% of your retirement capital.

chucknorris

fairleads wrote: »

You've taken one too many to the head Chuck and its skewed your reasoning because you'll now have access to only 25% of your retirement capital.

How? When only about 5% of our capital will be in a pension?

I wish I could get more in but the teachers pension fund has quite low limits on the amount of additional pension that you can buy.

fairleads

chucknorris wrote: »

How? When only about 5% of our capital will be in a pension?

I wish I could get more in but the teachers pension fund has quite low limits on the amount of additional pension that you can buy.

Apologies, i'd forgotten to account for film revenues.

Andy_L

fwor wrote: »

It didn't work like that with the older BT pension schemes, did it? Despite having a duty to look after the interests of the scheme's members, the Trustees caved in immediately to BT's choice to move from RPI to CPI indexation, even though the government attempted to make clear that it wasn't mandatory to do so for private schemes.

The government was being somewhat disengenious. If the scheme rules stated RPI then the change wasn't mandatory. However, if the scheme rules (like BT's) refered to the legislation then the change to CPI was automatic

casey_junior

atush wrote: »

Good thing we don't have to buy them any longer.



How peoplethis stupidmanage to earn that much amazes me.

Maybe the have worked in the financial sector and know what they are talking about?
Someone must think that they're not stupid if they pay them that much.

atush

Nah, just means whoever hired them is even more stupid. Esp the FS ones, who are apparently PS workers stupid on our dime?

Moby

CLAPTON wrote: »

young people have always had a live for today attitiude and have a curious mixture of believing themselves indestructible but also considering that death is preferrable to being 30. (they learn otherwise fairly quickly of course)

nothing new here and nothing to do with having a materialistic attitudes

Not actually true...if you look at history.I the 1930's, 40's 50's children were expected to have 'adult' attitudes and qualities from very early on in life.....then we had the emancipation of the 60's. Why do you think all the politicians are talking about 'big societies', 'community spirit', 'victorian values' 'corner shop economics etc. They are cynically trying and failing of course to tap into this history.

RenovationMan

Does anyone have details on the number of pensions that have been 'robbed' and how likely it is statistically?

In the past I have likened losing my pension to being hit by a car, it could happen but I'm not going to spend my life living in fear in the house, afraid to walk the streets, just in case. Though statistically I'm assuming that I'm more likely to get hit by a car than lose my pension - perhaps a better analogy would be to get killed in a plane crash?

jamesd

If it's defined contribution it's never happened and the statistical chance is vanishingly small using just one pension company. Using several you can increase the chance of one becoming bankrupt but there's still no chance in law to lose your money unless there is fraud sufficient to exceed the FSCS limit. Since these tings haven't happened it's hard to put a probability on them happening.

RenovationMan

jamesd wrote: »

If it's defined contribution it's never happened and the statistical chance is vanishingly small using just one pension company. Using several you can increase the chance of one becoming bankrupt but there's still no chance in law to lose your money unless there is fraud sufficient to exceed the FSCS limit. Since these tings haven't happened it's hard to put a probability on them happening.

If this is the case, when why are so many people making the same statements about pensions robbery?