Am I putting enough into my pension pot?

atush

kidmugsy wrote: »

75% has the tax deferred rather than avoided. For someone without an employer contribution it's a gamble that the tax rate you avoid on your contributions is higher than the tax rate you pay on your annuity/withdrawals. As it happens I've won that gamble in that the basic rate of income tax has fallen since I first contributed to a Retirement Annuity Plan. I wouldn't be surprised to see it go back up in future. Would you?

If the person doens't use up their PA in retirement, the 75% can see lower/no tax as well. It all depends on the amt. In the case of the above poster who wants to opt out fo the 3% match employers pension I would assume one that small would be tax free under the PA.

Southend1

atush wrote: »

increadibly stupid to throw away 1-3% of your salary. Opt in.

Then save elsewhere for your retirment, or you wont be able to retire. Consider PPs and S&S isas.

But what about the amount of means tested benefit forfeited due to the private pension provision?

It seems everyone is just advising to take the employer contribution without considering the effect on state benefits.

paparossco

Mr_F_Dorsetty wrote: »

* Always have an 'auto riser' on your pension payments, so they go up year by year obviously. Mostly when young you have better things to do than spend all your time worrying about 50yrs hence... or you should have better things to do imo!"

Good piece of advice. I took out an AVC umpteen years ago at £25pm and it is still at this rate now. I got the statement every year and always meant to up it but somehow never got around to it. I didn't realise you could get an 'auto riser'.

bigadaj

Southend1 wrote: »

But what about the amount of means tested benefit forfeited due to the private pension provision?

It seems everyone is just advising to take the employer contribution without considering the effect on state benefits.

As stated previously these are being phased out, and are unlikely to be around very much by the time the OP retires in a decade or more.

Making some provision is almost always better than making none.

Mr_F_Dorsetty

Southend1 wrote: »

Would Eastcorkram lose more in means tested benefits than he gains in private pension though?

Starting at 55 yrs old or so, the pension will be worth so little that imo, anyone at that age would be better off opting out and to rely on the state provisions they have paid for with decades of National Insurance.

I'm never quite sure why some people think that after paying NI for decades, people should not rely on the state to pay them for what they have paid for?

There is a nasty under current in the UK presently, due no doubt to it being insolvent, that when anyone is seen to be being paid out money by the state they must be attacked as 'morally bankrupt' or some such twaddle.

The UK has a social security system, which they have now changed of course to 'benefits', which is now a dirty word - but why?

I am disabled and I get benefits and so what? I've paid in a fortune over the years, why should I not get what I have paid for?

Therefore shock horror, I do not feel bad, nor morally wrong, nor like scum, nor grateful nor anything else - I expect and demand to be paid what I have paid for, as should anyone else.

The system is there specifically for those who for whatever reason are unable to look after themselves and for pensioners.

What I'd like to know from some of the mob who spit blood at people on benefits is this...

When you insure your car for a year, would you be happy if when you crashed it the insurance company said "well, we made some mistakes with our premiums, so instead of a year you only got 6 months cover, so you're only entitled to 20% of the repair costs - AND be grateful for that, scum!"

You'd be happy with that would you? Because that is exactly what is happening with NI and benefits.

But what about the scroungers they scream - what about them?

In 2011, the last such poll taken that I can find, the public believed that 70% of all Disabled benefit claims were fraudulent. The actual figure was .... 0.4%... so only 69.6% over egged then.

Enough said.

Southend1

Mr_F_Dorsetty wrote: »

Starting at 55 yrs old or so, the pension will be worth so little that imo, anyone at that age would be better off opting out and to rely on the state provisions they have paid for with decades of National Insurance.

I'm never quite sure why some people think that after paying NI for decades, people should not rely on the state to pay them for what they have paid for?

There is a nasty under current in the UK presently, due no doubt to it being insolvent, that when anyone is seen to be being paid out money by the state they must be attacked as 'morally bankrupt' or some such twaddle.

The UK has a social security system, which they have now changed of course to 'benefits', which is now a dirty word - but why?

I am disabled and I get benefits and so what? I've paid in a fortune over the years, why should I not get what I have paid for?

Therefore shock horror, I do not feel bad, nor morally wrong, nor like scum, nor grateful nor anything else - I expect and demand to be paid what I have paid for, as should anyone else.

The system is there specifically for those who for whatever reason are unable to look after themselves and for pensioners.

What I'd like to know from some of the mob who spit blood at people on benefits is this...

When you insure your car for a year, would you be happy if when you crashed it the insurance company said "well, we made some mistakes with our premiums, so instead of a year you only got 6 months cover, so you're only entitled to 20% of the repair costs - AND be grateful for that, scum!"

You'd be happy with that would you? Because that is exactly what is happening with NI and benefits.

But what about the scroungers they scream - what about them?

In 2011, the last such poll taken that I can find, the public believed that 70% of all Disabled benefit claims were fraudulent. The actual figure was .... 0.4%... so only 69.6% over egged then.

Enough said.

Not sure whether that was directed at me but by and large I agree with you. (though I think many motor insurance companies do in fact try to wriggle out of paying claims in full!).

The point I am trying to get across is that eastcorkram may lose more in benefits than he gains by putting a small amount into a private pension for a few years. So he needs to factor this into his decision.

kidmugsy

atush wrote: »

If the person doens't use up their PA in retirement, the 75% can see lower/no tax as well. It all depends on the amt. In the case of the above poster who wants to opt out fo the 3% match employers pension I would assume one that small would be tax free under the PA.

Fair point, but you mustn't assume that eastcorkram actually wants rational advice. He just wants someone to tell him that a blinkered, curmudgeonly, ill informed, cut-off-your-nose-to-spite-your-face- attitude is fine and dandy.

kidmugsy

Mr_F_Dorsetty wrote: »

In 2011, the last such poll taken that I can find, the public believed that 70% of all Disabled benefit claims were fraudulent. The actual figure was .... 0.4%... .

How on earth could anyone know "the actual figure"?

atush

Southend1 wrote: »

But what about the amount of means tested benefit forfeited due to the private pension provision?

It seems everyone is just advising to take the employer contribution without considering the effect on state benefits.

Have you missed the whole bit about the new larger SP that will eliminate many of these benefits such as the Pension credit which will then disappear?

In any case the 55 yr old will have a min period of over ten years to save. So time enough to save up a tidy sum. They certainly wont be able to retire earlier than SPA.

atush

Mr_F_Dorsetty wrote: »

Starting at 55 yrs old or so, the pension will be worth so little that imo, anyone at that age would be better off opting out and to rely on the state provisions they have paid for with decades of National Insurance.

I'm never quite sure why some people think that after paying NI for decades, people should not rely on the state to pay them for what they have paid for?

There is a nasty under current in the UK presently, due no doubt to it being insolvent, that when anyone is seen to be being paid out money by the state they must be attacked as 'morally bankrupt' or some such twaddle.

The UK has a social security system, which they have now changed of course to 'benefits', which is now a dirty word - but why?

I am disabled and I get benefits and so what? I've paid in a fortune over the years, why should I not get what I have paid for?

Therefore shock horror, I do not feel bad, nor morally wrong, nor like scum, nor grateful nor anything else - I expect and demand to be paid what I have paid for, as should anyone else.

The system is there specifically for those who for whatever reason are unable to look after themselves and for pensioners.

What I'd like to know from some of the mob who spit blood at people on benefits is this...

When you insure your car for a year, would you be happy if when you crashed it the insurance company said "well, we made some mistakes with our premiums, so instead of a year you only got 6 months cover, so you're only entitled to 20% of the repair costs - AND be grateful for that, scum!"

You'd be happy with that would you? Because that is exactly what is happening with NI and benefits.

But what about the scroungers they scream - what about them?

In 2011, the last such poll taken that I can find, the public believed that 70% of all Disabled benefit claims were fraudulent. The actual figure was .... 0.4%... so only 69.6% over egged then.

Enough said.

I think you have fallen behind the times, as theings like pension credit will be going in 2 years, so wont be available in 13 years when a 55 yr old male will retire?