We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
Debate House Prices
In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
How old will you be when you can retire?
Comments
-
Loughton_Monkey wrote: »I think we're flogging a dead horse with claptrap.
You and I can live well in retirement with our funded schemes, happy in the knowledge that we boosted the "Investment" part of GDP rather than the "Consumption" component of GDP.
He can live in retirement by "spending GDP" [as he puts it.]
The sole purpose of 'investment ' in capital goods is to able to produce and hence consume more later.
I doubt you have any knowledge of how your pension pot increased the quantity of real investments goods: it probably was lent to the government over the last 40 years and so the return is being funded by today's taxpayers.0 -
grizzly1911 wrote: »Governments of all persuasions defer the true costs of many inniatives pensions are just one of those costs.
They could fund them in advance but that merely increases debt today that will need to be serviced tomorrow.
Privatisation (and private sector outsourcing) has only made savings by and large by erroding pay and benefits of the workforce. It may not happen on day one because of TUPE but it will be engineered swiftly thereafter. The pension liabilities are usually retained by the old employer.
Reducing future pension payments for all is only adding to future funding problems for society as a whole whilst reducing consumption now, through increased contributions, as well. Benefit costs will increase and taxation will fall. Both could be altered to reduce the shortfall but only demonstrates we are in decline.
Pensions aren't the problem they are a symptom.
Not really sure what you are now going on about. Are you now agreeing with me?0 -
The sole purpose of 'investment ' in capital goods is to able to produce and hence consume more later.
I doubt you have any knowledge of how your pension pot increased the quantity of real investments goods: it probably was lent to the government over the last 40 years and so the return is being funded by today's taxpayers.
It's only loaned to the government if the fund you invest in has an element of bond/gilt investment or it is a bond/gilt fund. If you invest in individual shares, you can target exactly the company or industry sector you wish to support.
I get the impression you don't really know much about investing Clapton, I'd suggest you learn unless you want to spend your old age in poverty. A bit of time spent reading about investing now could return dividends in the future.0 -
It's only loaned to the government if the fund you invest in has an element of bond/gilt investment or it is a bond/gilt fund. If you invest in individual shares, you can target exactly the company or industry sector you wish to support.
I get the impression you don't really know much about investing Clapton, I'd suggest you learn unless you want to spend your old age in poverty. A bit of time spent reading about investing now could return dividends in the future.
I am addressing the general economic situation about the vast majority of pension funds and savings for 'old age' and that in general funded schemes or unfunded schemes are both paid for by future generation in equal measure.
So people who think that all our future pension problems would be solved by creating funded schemes are incorrect.
In general annuities (which make up the vast majority of paying private pensions) are 'invested ' in government gilts and so the pension payments are directly paid out of taxation.
Our friend Loughton Monkey wrote
The vast bulk of the rest of UK debt is owned by pension funds. So technically not owed to UK citizens directly, but ultimately on our behalf.
As for my knowledge of personal investing I'm glad to say my portfolio of both individual shares and Unit Trusts is doing very nicely thank you. My old age will be well funded by pensions, my stocks and shares portfolio, property and cash.
However, I don't pretend that when I bought my shares in Shell any of the money actually ended up as an increase in Shell's capital investment : they were merely exchanged with another 'saver' and the ownership of Shell changed very slightly.
Unless you are buying into IPOs or corporate bonds you aren't really targeting investment in the industry but merely transferring ownership.
Just to repeat I am not saying that a sensible individual should not have pensions or 'investments' in S&S etc but what I'm saying is that all will eventually be paid for by the future generations just as we are funding the economical inactive now.
As the man said, it's not personal just business.0 -
Not really sure what you are now going on about. Are you now agreeing with me?
No.
Ever lower returns in the future, for all, are only delaying the inevitable.
What next DC lite, followed by DC ultra lite."If you act like an illiterate man, your learning will never stop... Being uneducated, you have no fear of the future.".....
"big business is parasitic, like a mosquito, whereas I prefer the lighter touch, like that of a butterfly. "A butterfly can suck honey from the flower without damaging it," "Arunachalam Muruganantham0 -
grizzly1911 wrote: »No.
Ever lower returns in the future, for all, are only delaying the inevitable.
What next DC lite, followed by DC ultra lite.
I've no idea what you're talking about again, you seem to start constructing nonsensical posts. To be honest with you Griz, I often hesitate to get into a discussion with you because of this. I'll try one last time, please try and keep on topic and make direct answers to direct questions.
Let's take it one step at a time, as I'm not sure what you are disagreeing with. Here we go....
Are you staying that unfunded defined benefit pensions are OK?0 -
I've no idea what you're talking about again, you seem to start constructing nonsensical posts. To be honest with you Griz, I often hesitate to get into a discussion with you because of this. I'll try one last time, please try and keep on topic and make direct answers to direct questions.
Let's take it one step at a time, as I'm not sure what you are disagreeing with. Here we go....
Are you staying that unfunded defined benefit pensions are OK?
I will try writing more slowly perhaps that would help.
If you have they have one then people will be happy.
Depends what the benefits are and how they can be ammended or withdrawn. If they are properly funded why shouldn't they be?
Are you saying they aren't because you can't get one?
We have moved from DB to DC where do we go next when DC can't be funded either?"If you act like an illiterate man, your learning will never stop... Being uneducated, you have no fear of the future.".....
"big business is parasitic, like a mosquito, whereas I prefer the lighter touch, like that of a butterfly. "A butterfly can suck honey from the flower without damaging it," "Arunachalam Muruganantham0 -
grizzly1911 wrote: »If you have they have one then people will be happy.
Sorry, but this is what I'm talking about. Gibberish.grizzly1911 wrote: »Depends what the benefits are and how they can be ammended or withdrawn.
Are you saying they aren't because you can't get one?
I'm also struggling with your sentences here too. Are you saying that as long as you get a defined benefit pension, then you don't care who has to fund it?
I'm saying they aren't [ok] because I do care who funds it. Please re-read my earlier posts for details.0 -
grizzly1911 wrote: »...If you have they have one then people will be happy.
yeah but, no but, yeah but, no but......
?????!!!!!?????grizzly1911 wrote: »We have moved from DB to DC where do we go next when DC can't be funded either?
An unfunded DC scheme is a contradiction in terms.0 -
grizzly1911 wrote: »We have moved from DB to DC where do we go next when DC can't be funded either?
DC pensions are funded by the individual (and often his employer). If they are not funded then the individual does not have a pension. The only person who is impacted is the individual himself, unlike with DB pensions where underfunding/underperformance impacts the taxpayer (Public sector) or the individual's employer (Private sector). If the employer is impacted, it often means that they have to invest into the DB pension at the expense of investing into their business, impacting jobs.
It's not rockets science, Griz.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.1K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.3K Spending & Discounts
- 245.2K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.9K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.5K Life & Family
- 259K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards