Nice People Thread Part 9 - and so it continues

LydiaJ

vivatifosi wrote: »

Wow, that's lucky. The set date is 2006 for a lot of schemes, hence most qualifying people are already over 55.

I wish the government would stop tinkering with pensions all the time. It causes so much uncertainty and confusion. Plus it has unintended consequences. As I've said before, our scheme was affected because of changes made in public sector pensions, purely because of the way our scheme was worded 15-20 years earlier.

Tinkering is inevitable, I'm afraid. The alternative would be to jump straight to an affordable set-up in one huge leap that would be so utterly unpalatable to almost everybody that there would be riots etc. But there's no money to sustain it the way it has been. I can't see any other prospect than chipping away at it every so often.

LydiaJ

neverdespairgirl wrote: »

My Dad intends to do 50 years at the Bar, as a minimum - that's take him to the age of 74. So it doesn't seem that odd to me, to be honest. A lot of barristers already work beyond 65 - the QC who lead me in the criminal trial I did earlier this year is nearing 70, I think.

There are other jobs where that's common too. Do you think it's because barristers love their work so much (which is why academics go on working long after "retirement") or because they're self-employed so have the flexibility (like, say, people who clean other people's houses) or because they believe in their work as service to the community (like vicars).

Generali

Surely the way forward with pensions is to have cross party agreement.

For the last century you've just had a series of people BSing about what can be afforded.

vivatifosi

LydiaJ wrote: »

Tinkering is inevitable, I'm afraid. The alternative would be to jump straight to an affordable set-up in one huge leap that would be so utterly unpalatable to almost everybody that there would be riots etc. But there's no money to sustain it the way it has been. I can't see any other prospect than chipping away at it every so often.

I'm talking more about private sector personal pensions. If people are accruing to these, then it shouldn't be down to the government to move the goalposts all of the time, which they do.

I understand that there is an issue with the state pension. I also understand that there are substantial shortfalls in some public sector funds that need to be addressed. However, I have 5 pensions that I have paid into and only one is public sector. Unfortunately though, they b*gger about with stuff and it affects others because of the way they make their rulings.

My biggest pension pot is final salary. I cannot change the amount put in as I am now a deferred member. However, sitting on a fund that should have increased at RPI, the government changes the rules on its schemes and due to wording, I'm now accruing at CPI, with absolutely no ability to change anything. So my scheme will accrue at CPI right up until when I retire, meaning that this pension will be worth less than expected. As a trustee of said scheme, I can say that we took legal advice on this and there is nothing we can do, even though this was not planned for.

michaels

Pensioners vote much more than young people - so the likely agreement is hardly going to be generation neutral....obviously it can't be said but some of the (particularly expensive) extra years of life that medicine/careis bringing seem to have very low quality but that sort of thinking just brings us back to Logan's Run.

Generali

michaels wrote: »

Pensioners vote much more than young people

Perfectly true but then it is quite instructive that the massive demographic bubble that are the Baby Boomers are outnumbered by Gen X due to BBs being older and so having had more opportunities to have died.

The Aussie system works jolly well: 9% of your salary goes into a pension scheme, like it or not. Nobody has a defined benefits scheme, not even Government workers although most Government employees get more than 9% put into their Super:mad:.

If you retire with beggur all in your Super then the Government will provide you with an income of sorts. If you divorce the Super plan is split 50:50 in theory. In practice, she gets the house and he gets the Super. He has to buy a new house and she retires into poverty.

PasturesNew

EdInvestor, now dead, but on the investors' board, told me "If you're not a higher rate tax payer and if your employer isn't paying in, then there's no point starting a pension".

And EdInvestor was, allegedly, a top advisor and writer of financial columns in top financial advice sections in newspapers and fought for women to obtain mortgages in the 1970s

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?t=2320469

vivatifosi

Generali wrote: »

The Aussie system works jolly well: 9% of your salary goes into a pension scheme, like it or not. Nobody has a defined benefits scheme, not even Government workers although most Government employees get more than 9% put into their Super:mad:.

My parents get some Aussie superannuation pension due to their living there during their working lives. I think there is some sort of reciprocal arrangement where you can claim both through the govt, either end (though obviously only one type of contribution for one period). They say they did well out of the super, even though they were only there for a relatively short time.

vivatifosi

PasturesNew wrote: »

EdInvestor, now dead, but on the investors' board, told me "If you're not a higher rate tax payer and if your employer isn't paying in, then there's no point starting a pension".

And EdInvestor was, allegedly, a top advisor and writer of financial columns in top financial advice sections in newspapers and fought for women to obtain mortgages in the 1970s

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?t=2320469

EdInvestor was a legend. There are some real gems out there on the boards. CIS works in council tax and is brilliant at advising people who want to know about the ins and outs of payment. Lincroft used to work for the VOA and is an expert on housing valuation and is really great with council tax appeals. It frustrates me a bit when they are out their slogging their guts out helping people and don't get thanked for it. DunstonH is also great on the pensions front.

Actually, it would be a fitting tribute to finish this thread with our MSE unsung heroes... who else would people nominate?

Generali

Edinvestor was brilliant and I think also posted extensively over at the fool.co.uk website.

I miss Nelly despite the anger and racism.