"I know this sounds obvious"

atush

PennyForThem wrote: »

The average reading age of the population is ....... 10.


What does that tell you?

That the erosion of education, marriage, and the middle class have destroyed the education of the public?

Why aren't children held back until they can pass? They were when I was younger.

I think the problem is that parents used to teach their children and could read themselves. If the parents cant or dont, what chance do the kids have?

atush

mgdavid wrote: »

entire? - about 1980 IMO
but it was progressive from about 1960...

And between 1960 and now what is the biggest change?

The number of single parent families, the rise of generations on benefits? who cant read or write themselves for 3 generations?

greenglide

who cant read or write themselves for 3 generations?

The low level of achievement of some groups at school isn't new. In the sixties and earlier they were just hidden away in secondary modern schools and moved from there into manual jobs of which there vast a huge supply. The ability to read and write more than a few basic items don't really exist for them.

Since the employers of such large numbers have long since gone we have people who struggle in a world where these skills are vastly more important.

missbiggles1

atush wrote: »

since when has the entire uk population had a 'common sense-ectomy'?

1979......

FatherAbraham

redux wrote: »

Someone bought me a money box when I was a kid. If I took some money out it had less left in there.

So maybe some of these people should blame their parents.

Maybe we can get together and sue our parents for compensation?

Warmest regards,
FA

hugheskevi

As well as the oddities around attitudes to decumulation, one thing I find perplexing is how quite a few folk seem to view pensions at the outset.

I frequently hear people declare that although they haven't had a pension for the first couple of decades of their working life, they now have joined their employer's pension scheme. This is said as though everything is fine now, much as if they were saying that they had never had buildings insurance, but they do now so all is fine.

Of course, in most cases the pension provision is woefully inadequate, but it is still just treated as a binary "have/have not" thing, and if they have a pension, then all is fine.

bigadaj

hugheskevi wrote: »

As well as the oddities around attitudes to decumulation, one thing I find perplexing is how quite a few folk seem to view pensions at the outset.

I frequently hear people declare that although they haven't had a pension for the first couple of decades of their working life, they now have joined their employer's pension scheme. This is said as though everything is fine now, much as if they were saying that they had never had buildings insurance, but they do now so all is fine.

Of course, in most cases the pension provision is woefully inadequate, but it is still just treated as a binary "have/have not" thing, and if they have a pension, then all is fine.

True, but in that scenario the lack of building insurance would have been a benefit, saving in premiums having had no need to claim.

The sums involved in pension provision seem to be totally alien to much of the population. I'd be very much in favour of a true remuneration package being stated for most workers, so that someone with a defined benefit pension for example could see that the fact they are actually well remunerated in comparison with someone who earns a few grand a year more but with minimal dc contributions from their employer.

Pincher

Try looking at it the other way around. When did people have a choice?

Did a miner get a pension before Thatcher? Yes, but they just got some money, if the silicosis didn't get them, and they didn't live very long even if they did. I had a neighbour who worked for Marks and Spencer for many years, bought a house, which she died in around 90 years old. Did she need to do one calculation in the whole process? Marks and Spencer paid the annuity, as they should, and that's it.

People just do what they always did, ASK SOMEBODY. They didn't study in school, and they are certainly not going to start now. Take an evening class in finance? Get a book out from the library? It took me quite a few years to work out why some people don't bother searching (alright Google) for something, instead of firing e-mail and calling everybody they know: they don't understand the search result!

fairleads

"but it is a worry that some of our callers do not seem to grasp that if you take money out of your [pension] policy today, it will pay a lower income in retirement."

I did that, many yrs ago - drew policy / pension money and purchased a second house with the proceeds - no regrets

Pincher

hugheskevi wrote: »

Of course, in most cases the pension provision is woefully inadequate, but it is still just treated as a binary "have/have not" thing, and if they have a pension, then all is fine.

But what is adequate?

Prolonged life expectancy has totally destroyed the equation. One million pound is now touted as the number, to get an index linked annuity.

My mother is just over the limit for Pension Credit, and does not qualify for lots of state benefits. If she had made a little bit less provision, she would have been better off overall. A lot of people are more likely to be border line Pension Credit recipients, then be "adequately" provisioned.

It would be interesting to see how people behave if the government stops paying state pension at age 80, and offer free euthanasia plus cremation instead. Let's face it, Pension Freedom is leading us to millions on Pension Credit.

No exit strategy for Iraq? The people who suffer are just strangers thousands of miles away. No exit strategy for Pension Freedom? On dear.