Young save more for pension than any other group

chucknorris

Apart from a minor private pension that I started when I was 18 and ended a couple of years later (only currently a £48k pot) I didn't invest in pensions until 3 years ago when I was 53, but I now invest the max annual allowance (between buying additional pension in the teachers' pension and my SIPP). Building up my pension is the main reason that I am not retiring just yet, because I think that pensions are great value, and this just about tips the scales in favour of carrying on working when I am thinking whether I should retire or not.

Jack_Johnson_the_acorn

I contribute 4% but my employer contributes 16.9% I think..... I hear my colleagues complain that our pensions are being reduced but when I ask around everyone says to stay in the pension as it's still pretty good. It's one of those things I have never looked into but just accepted that I should save into.

Slightly_Squiffy

The UK needs to move towards the Australian system. Over there jobs are advertised as salary + compulsory superannuation (pension), generally upwards of 15%. It's taken out of your gross salary like a tax and you can say how you want it held...either in cash earning a little interest, stocks and bonds or a mix of both. When you go for a job you know your salary, then the pension is on top, not taken out of that figure.

I don't have a pension and husband will be slowing his payments down to the minimum required under the new rules (he works for one of the big 4). To us, the money is worth more when it's overpaying our mortgage than in a pension fund, when you consider our mortgage interest rate.

CLAPTON

Slightly_Squiffy wrote: »

The UK needs to move towards the Australian system. Over there jobs are advertised as salary + compulsory superannuation (pension), generally upwards of 15%. It's taken out of your gross salary like a tax and you can say how you want it held...either in cash earning a little interest, stocks and bonds or a mix of both. When you go for a job you know your salary, then the pension is on top, not taken out of that figure.

I don't have a pension and husband will be slowing his payments down to the minimum required under the new rules (he works for one of the big 4). To us, the money is worth more when it's overpaying our mortgage than in a pension fund, when you consider our mortgage interest rate.

why do you think that we should move towards the compulsory Australian model, when you and your OH are doing the exact opposite?
are you a politician : do as I say, not as I do?

somethingcorporate

Jack_Johnson_the_acorn wrote: »

I contribute 4% but my employer contributes 16.9% I think..... I hear my colleagues complain that our pensions are being reduced but when I ask around everyone says to stay in the pension as it's still pretty good. It's one of those things I have never looked into but just accepted that I should save into.

Defined contribution or defined benefit? your's sounds like the latter where there is no real employer contribution based on your contribution, they just have a set of obligations and contribute in totality based on what they need to meet it.

Conrad

This doesn't surprise me Graham, it dovetails with the experience of several journalists such as The Guardians John Harris that found young people have moved sharply to the right, being much more liable to expect to provide for themselves through good decision making rather than having the nanny state reward them for poor life choices.


This is anecdotal from people like Harris and no doubt the 'official statistics' crowd will dismiss is it as they always do, but sound and widespread anecdote often leads the curve whereas official stats reflect old received wisdoms.
It was personal anecdote from people such as that female American FA questioning Bernard Madoff and then the wider Banking industry that were the canneries in the coalmine, far more accurate than the landscape of experts with their backwards looking stats that failed to spot the coming credit crunch.


Same with care home abuse - officialdom never captured the reality of what was happening. Personal anecdote was dismissed by the sneering classes.


Huge numbers have seen the very real downside effects of mass immigration whilst the stat brigade are satisfied with charts produced by lofty out of touch academics that never see the reality of life for say a British carpenter trying to secure work.


WW1 Tommie's had masses of anecdote as to the failings of battle planning but of course the experts and generals far away knew better. Who can argue with a bar chart?

Masomnia

wotsthat wrote: »

Hmm. So are the young saving more for retirement than any other group?

it sounded unlikely at the OP and you seem to be confirming it.p

Young workers are.

Of course young people are less likely to be in work given that it's next to impossible to get into a good career without going to university and taking on £40,000's worth of debt these days, so many more will be students.

Plus we still have very high levels of youth unemployment, as people are competing with economic migrants, and fall into the trap of needing experience to get a foot in the door anywhere.

Graham_Devon

wotsthat wrote: »

Hmm. So are the young saving more for retirement than any other group?

it sounded unlikely at the OP and you seem to be confirming it.p

I'm not sure what you appear so confused about. Afterall, this is just you being difficult..... truthfully, you get it.

Of those young who work, they save more into a pension.

You can have both high youth unemployment and young workers paying more into pensions as a percentage of their income than other groups.

It's not difficult.

chucknorris

wotsthat wrote: »

Hmm. So are the young saving more for retirement than any other group?

it sounded unlikely at the OP and you seem to be confirming it.p

That headline also surprised me, but look at the detail again:


More than 60pc of those under 30 are now saving adequately for their retirement, putting away an average of 13pc of their salary – higher than any older age group.


I don't think that it is saying that they invest more £'s, I think that it is saying that they invest a higher % (although that still surprised me). I would expect that the over 30's would earn more than the under 30's, so it is possible that the over 30's are investing more but with a lower % of their salary.

SeduLOUs

I had a look at my partner's payslip recently and he has been auto-enrolled into a company pension scheme paying in ees of £7 a month, with ers contributions of £9 per month on ~£1100 gross so I can't imagine what long term value it might have but it's obviously going to be pathetic.

I have asked him to get some more information from employer, but will probably get him to opt out and we will look at other alternatives.

I currently pay in 6.5% and employer puts in 14% to the NHS scheme so it's a stark contrast!