How old will you be when you can retire?

gadgetmind

lisyloo wrote: »

I am not so sure I would have been so pro-active if I hadn't been in that rather traditional environement where I was "taken care of".
For example if I'd been self-employed.

I was self employed (own company) from age 21 to age 31 when the company was acquired. I started my own private pension very early on and did the whole SERPs contract out too. I'm jolly glad that I did because that early money has grown very nicely.

Yes, I could have stuck my head in the sand and taken the money to the pub instead, and it seems that this is a popular approach.

lisyloo

I totally agree with you that a lot of young people could manage their finances better.
I'm just not being so judgemental to say that if I had been born less intelligent, or on the "wrong side of the tracks" or had a less priviliged upbringing that I would have got it right.

Sounds like you've done great gadget mind and good for you, but a few people are coming across as somewhat judgmental.
Not everyone is born equally intelligent, or has equal parenting, equal education etc.
Once we're adults we need to accept responsibility but it's easier for some than others, whether that's a result of nature/nuture or both.

But I think we all agree that many people could manage their finance better - that's a given.

michaels

lisyloo wrote: »

I totally agree with you that a lot of young people could manage their finances better.
I'm just not being so judgemental to say that if I had been born less intelligent, or on the "wrong side of the tracks" or had a less priviliged upbringing that I would have got it right.

Sounds like you've done great gadget mind and good for you, but a few people are coming across as somewhat judgmental.
Not everyone is born equally intelligent, or has equal parenting, equal education etc.
Once we're adults we need to accept responsibility but it's easier for some than others, whether that's a result of nature/nuture or both.

But I think we all agree that many people could manage their finance better - that's a given.

Moving way off topic here, but I wnder if it is because we are now a much richer society and use that wealth to give our children an easier upbringing than we had. If you have grown up knowing that money is scarce, the each time you choose to purchase 'A' you are fore-going 'B' and if you want some present you are goign to have to work for it yourself with a paper round or Saturday job then you have much more respect/understanding of what it feels like to have little/no money and thus to budget carefully not just today but for the future. Compare this to the situation where money/good have been doled out when needed and there is less understanding of its value?

N1AK

gadgetmind wrote: »

and it alarms me that someone could think that an 8% contribution will gave a good outcome.

It alarms me but being alarmed isn't solving the issue someone putting in 8% for most of their working life will still have a considerably larger income than someone putting in nothing when they retire and there is a vast proportion of the working population contributing nothing to pensions.

If someone is earning £10k pa then just living within that budget is tough. Rent/mortgage, bills, food are a huge part of your budget. Telling someone in that situation that if they live on £9k a year instead so that in 40 years they won't be quite so poor probably doesn't motivate them.

coastline

Looking at the chart below...although its from 2007 not many will have had a decent pay rise since....you can see millions of people earn less than £400 a week.
Realistically most people will only top up the basic state pension along the way with pensions or savings..
£100 a week on top of the state pension will be an improvement on the current situation for many people.
Its only 30-40 years ago since final salary pensions were in full swing ...now phased out in most places.

wotsthat

N1AK wrote: »

If someone is earning £10k pa then just living within that budget is tough. Rent/mortgage, bills, food are a huge part of your budget. Telling someone in that situation that if they live on £9k a year instead so that in 40 years they won't be quite so poor probably doesn't motivate them.

There are always going to be people who can't reasonably expected to save a meaningful amount for retirement but if they can save something it might just get them above the benefits threshold. That would be beneficial for the taxpayer of the day - not exactly motivational for our saver though.

I don't really care whether people end up with a lower income than they hoped in retirement - by and large that's their choice. I happen to be making efforts to take responsibility for myself which is difficult enough without having to take responsibility for other people as well.

Loughton_Monkey

michaels wrote: »

Moving way off topic here, but I wnder if it is because we are now a much richer society and use that wealth to give our children an easier upbringing than we had. If you have grown up knowing that money is scarce, the each time you choose to purchase 'A' you are fore-going 'B' and if you want some present you are goign to have to work for it yourself with a paper round or Saturday job then you have much more respect/understanding of what it feels like to have little/no money and thus to budget carefully not just today but for the future. Compare this to the situation where money/good have been doled out when needed and there is less understanding of its value?

Probably on the right lines, but less to do, I think, with the fact that we are richer today overall. We need to look comparatively.

Even in 'my day' - from a quite poor background - there were other kids with richer parents. People like me were envious about their new bikes (rather than 2nd hand) and perhaps their smart coat (instead of cheap duffle coat) or nice shoes (not "Tuf" moulded ones....)

I strongly suspect those kids may have generally earned more, but probably 'blew it' rather more, not having as keen an eye to value as people like me.

What happens when a serial 'spender' grows up, throwing cash at new cars, new bikes/laptops for the kids.... I don't know. With two generations like that does it become a genetic disorder? Within my close family and circle of friends, I have known loads of people, of all generations, generally 'poor' but with a "disease" that dictates that it's simply impossible to have £100 in a bank account. An amount like that just must be spent. And when these people want £200 to decorate their house, or to spend on stuff for Christmas, they wonder why they haven't got it and are fixated only on how they can 'borrow' it.

One of these (generation below us), for instance, had five children. Lived mainly on benefits. Would list what the kids wanted for Christmas but strongly insisted on getting the stuff herself, so all Mrs LM had to do was send the money. Routine visits certainly confirmed the kids got the presents, but my theory was that all the stuff came from the Littlewoods catalogue on a 20-week 'drip'.

kabayiri

wotsthat wrote: »

...
I don't really care whether people end up with a lower income than they hoped in retirement - by and large that's their choice. I happen to be making efforts to take responsibility for myself which is difficult enough without having to take responsibility for other people as well.

You have to look at what works for people too.

Take my relative who is no longer with us.

If you asked "the council" they would say this person had nothing to speak of. This would explain the fairly nice provided bungalow, the roof being redone, new boiler, new windows etc etc.

If you asked people who knew this person, they would have an inkling this person had money squirrelled away. They would be right too.

I suspect there are quite a number in a similar position. The big state supports you if you need it, in a way it builds a dependency culture. There are sections of society who still don't trust being open to banks and authorities. They would rather keep it under wraps.

kabayiri

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

...
What happens when a serial 'spender' grows up, throwing cash at new cars, new bikes/laptops for the kids.... I don't know. With two generations like that does it become a genetic disorder? Within my close family and circle of friends, I have known loads of people, of all generations, generally 'poor' but with a "disease" that dictates that it's simply impossible to have £100 in a bank account. An amount like that just must be spent. And when these people want £200 to decorate their house, or to spend on stuff for Christmas, they wonder why they haven't got it and are fixated only on how they can 'borrow' it.
...

The problem is that these people have been a key driver in fuelling the consumer driven economy we have today.

If they all stopped buying iPhones and Ugg boots then there would be no jobs for their mates working in shops/etc delivering and selling these goods.

grizzly1911

wotsthat wrote: »

There are always going to be people who can't reasonably expected to save a meaningful amount for retirement but if they can save something it might just get them above the benefits threshold. That would be beneficial for the taxpayer of the day - not exactly motivational for our saver though.

I don't really care whether people end up with a lower income than they hoped in retirement - by and large that's their choice. I happen to be making efforts to take responsibility for myself which is difficult enough without having to take responsibility for other people as well.

It is only their choice if they can make that choice.

"Just" getting you off the benefits threshold often puts you into a position being considerably worse off than if you had done nothing.

I am not condoning it or recommending it just that many people fall into that trap. Especially those who have simply saved a reasonable amount and simply aren't entitled to anything.

Perhaps that threshold needs to tapper as the UB is supposed to do. It may give more incentive to those on the margins.

I know you don't care about these people but they are often the ones who have tried rather than those who have p*ssed it up the wall who will do significantly better than them.