Do you hold net positive or negative assets?

lisyloo

On a single wage it's difficult enough to afford housing/a mortgage and maintain it.... pensions are off the radar.

I sympathise if you genuinely can't afford it.
One of the advantages of buying is being in a massively better position once you've reached the end of the term, so perhaps you can start then?

lisyloo

with public pension entitlements included too

You mean expected public pension entitlements.
Is any of it guaranteed? I think the answer is no and it could change and even dissapear for some.

LydiaJ

lisyloo wrote: »

I sympathise if you genuinely can't afford it.
One of the advantages of buying is being in a massively better position once you've reached the end of the term, so perhaps you can start then?

PN owns her house outright but is currently earning very little indeed.

kabayiri

lisyloo wrote: »

I sympathise if you genuinely can't afford it.
One of the advantages of buying is being in a massively better position once you've reached the end of the term, so perhaps you can start then?

We have to face the fact that as a society we will have a sizeable chunk of pensioners with no or poor pensions (beyond state provision). I'm not sure the stakeholder initiative will reverse this situation.

This doesn't mean we can't look for other solutions as a society. We can help pensioners live frugally, and if we encourage better personal health management we can avoid some of the problems.

princeofpounds

You mean expected public pension entitlements.
Is any of it guaranteed? I think the answer is no and it could change and even dissapear for some.

that is true to any type of pension, or indeed any asset. Martians could invade tomorrow and take it all away.


In pensions-speak, I am talking about accumulated benefits obligations, not projected benefits obligations. So the already-acquired entitlements which are about as gold-plated as it gets, even if the schemes change for future years.

PasturesNew

michaels wrote: »

I thought we had had a discussion about that PN.

We did ... and I wasn't really very confident/clear about that scam, and decided I've still got some months to think about it.

PasturesNew

lisyloo wrote: »

... so perhaps you can start then?

Aged, say, 55?

Not worth it.

I did a calculation once, just to see, when I was about 40. Even then it looked like "If you can guarantee to put £100/month into a pension for the next 25 years, without ever missing a payment for any reason at all..... then once you get a pension you'd get £100/month back" - and, I figured, would have £100 taken off any "minimum income guarantee" type of top up deal the Govt might be offering.

lisyloo

I am talking about accumulated benefits obligations, not projected benefits obligations. So the already-acquired entitlements which are about as gold-plated as it gets, even if the schemes change for future years.

Sorry I misunderstood you.
I thought you were referring to state pensions when I think you mean pubic sector workers pensions.

I agree the later are as safe as it gets.
For the former entitlements could change for example we've already seen rises in state pension age and in fact it's highly likely there will be cuts somewhere (maybe means testing).

I do tend to include my pension fund pot as an asset, so I'd say that the notional value of defined benefits scheme are an asset - yes. It's a bit different psycologically because with a defined contributions scheme you do have a physical pot of money so it's a bit more obvious.
I would not tend to include my state pension (I'm not saying that's right, just saying it's what I'd do).

lisyloo

Not worth it.

I agree in your case and sounds like you're pretty clued up already.
I was speaking generally and what I have observed are that those who tuck money away (like yourself in respect of your housing equity) can end up with something significant over a period of time.
Even in your low income case, you will still have a house at the end of it and possibly 40 years of life free of housing costs.
A similat thing can happen with pensions. Those who put in relatively small amounts can end up with a big pot after 40 years, whereas those who seemingly frittered it away (oviously not your case) end up with nothing.
The difference is significant.

antrobus

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Surely you could take a break now cepheus?...

I think you miss the point.

The whole point of posting this poll, is so that the OP can then turn round and argue that, because 90% (or whatever) of the 30 or so respondents claim to have positive net financial assets, that this means that your typical DHPATE contributor is unrepresentative of the public. Therefore it does not matter that the OP keeps on losing every argument.:)