How can Pension companies be allowed to keep you in the dark?

Bazofts_Revenge

I am all for preserving the pension schemes and understand some of the reasons for changes but at the end of the day they sell you something and then change it so you aren't getting what you were sold.

Glad to see no one defending the disparities between Deferred and active pensioners.

As for retiring early why not. Life is for living not going to work. If you can go early do so. My dad died at 72 and never officially retired. I think that is very sad. I've also seen too many ex-colleagues die before retirement or within months of retiring. Mind you there's some old gits that are still going.

I do actually enjoy my current job but once I have an assured income equivalent to my salary then I'm retiring. 60% of the way there so far. I will aim to live forever or die trying

lavandergirl_2

Bazofts_Revenge wrote: »

The Sunday Times this week listed such a case where a depenent partner wasn't given a spouses/dependent pension.

I read that piece in the Money section. It is worth mentioning that partner and the deceased kept separate houses, separate financial accounts and failed to prove to the Trustees that she was financially dependent on the deceased.

atush

pimento wrote: »

Lived in a bigger house,

so highly leveraged

taken more holidays so p*ssed it away in a fun way, put all my cash in a strong box which burnt with the house which wasn't insured in the begining of this post?and then lived off the grid when I retired.

off the grid ie in the dirt, dirt poor growing your own on the burnt out uninsured house ;-)

Perhaps paid for my son to have a private education so that he could keep me in my dotage.

Or maybe he can keep you anyway, but you certainly haven't passed along any financial knowledge from what I have seen so far?

Relying on male children to keep you is a 3rd world concept which has led to population disaster in developing countries like India and china where there are far too few girls/women now (as they were either killed/aborted or adopted out of country as babies) and this has led to a lack of marriageable age women which is leading to the sexual violence/kidnapping/ and other gender problems in these two countries.

OffGridLiving

pimento wrote: »

Lived in a bigger house, taken more holidays, put all my cash in a strong box and then lived off the grid when I retired.

Perhaps paid for my son to have a private education so that he could keep me in my dotage.

Interesting. Can I now ask why you post on a pensions board when you're not interested in retirement planning?

pimento

OffGridLiving wrote: »

Interesting. Can I now ask why you post on a pensions board when you're not interested in retirement planning?

Can I ask why you seem not to have read the whole thread?

pimento

atush wrote: »

Relying on male children to keep you is a 3rd world concept which has led to population disaster in developing countries like India and china where there are far too few girls/women now (as they were either killed/aborted or adopted out of country as babies) and this has led to a lack of marriageable age women which is leading to the sexual violence/kidnapping/ and other gender problems in these two countries.

I only have the one. If he had been a girl I would have said the same. After all, I've been keeping my husband for the past 30 years.

pimento

Seriously though, I towed the party line. Have been in full-time paid employment since I was 18 (except for a couple of years when our son was a baby). Taken out the company pensions, been a good girl, and now it seems like I might have been sold a pup.

Of course my son won't be keeping me. Of course I won't be keeping my money in a steel box; I don't have any spare, it all goes into paying my fares to work and my pension (a bargain at £575 a month). It just seems like this is all smoke and mirrors. You're not telling me that the goodly percentage of people in this country who have made no/minimal provision for their retirement will be allowed to starve? Of course they won't. I'll be paying tax on my pension income to keep them. T'was ever thus.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing.

rpc

They won't be left to starve.

But they probably won't be able to run a car, have cable telly, take the odd holiday, have a choice about where they live, have a choice about a care home if they need it, etc etc.

If you leave your retirement in the hands of the govt only, you will have just enough to scrape a living on. Personally, I would rather have a more fulfilling retirement and am putting away the money to make sure that is (so far as possible) within my control and not left to some politician.

pimento

Or sell everything and buy gold and a gun?



Yes, I'm joking.



I think...

atush

Seriously though, I towed the party line. Have been in full-time paid employment since I was 18 (except for a couple of years when our son was a baby). Taken out the company pensions, been a good girl, and now it seems like I might have been sold a pup.

you weren't sold a pup, you just don't understand what you were sold.

Your main problem seems to be, living a dual income lifestyle on a single income. If you had 2 incomes, your current and retirement life would be more comfortable.