Is it possible to become a millionaire (or near to) through investments?

talexuser

bowlhead99 wrote: »

By the time we actually get half a century into the future to 2060, the "£8bn a year saving" probably won't exist as demographics always differ from projections.

Now that I wholeheartedly completely agree with!

talexuser

bowlhead99 wrote: »

and 70% to 75% of both genders will be better off.

I don't understand that since DWP themselves have said that only 30 to 40% will get the full new pension on changeover, and other articles in the past have disputed that number, saying even lower from independent pension experts. Mind you, as you say yourself, to predict £s so many years into the future when governments can tinker with any levels at will as circumstances change is probably arguing about angels on the head of a pin.

bowlhead99

talexuser wrote: »

, so I found a 35 year example from the DWP themselves showing just how poor the new system could be once transition is removed.

No, you showed someone who was £50 worse off under transition who would get a small state pension (if we didn't give him best of both worlds treatment, which we do) because he and his employers had paid a load of NI money into a separate private plan instead of giving it to the government.

Under the new system once nobody has any transition, it will not be possible to put a load of NI money onto a separate personal plan instead of giving it to the government.

The idea that now he gets £125 but without transition gets £75 implies that £50 has been lost once we're done with transition. It hasn't really, and when you ignore the smoke and mirrors created by the ability to contract out, it just looks like he's missing out on a few pounds that would have gone into his state second pension thanks to Brown's initiative for low earners.

Of course, separately he drops down the rest of the amount to £155 from £180 or whatever just like I drop down to £155 from my £280 or whatever, but that's a consequence of letting really really needier people go up from £115 to £155. We can't afford to give everyone a flat £180 so he gets £155 like everyone gets.

Is this "worse off" than before? Well yes, but 2050 retirees can't expect to get what 2010 retirees got because demographics have changed for the worse and it is, as Banana said, a kind of Ponzi.

talexuser

Ok, badly worded, but he could just as well have been convinced to take out an expensive personal pension where any extra benefits were minimised due to mis-selling, poor performance and high charges.

BananaRepublic

talexuser wrote: »

Yes, but you have no idea how many this will apply to compared with the number who lose out. You ridiculed the article 20 year example, when they said as the years increased the loss increased too, so I found a 35 year example from the DWP themselves showing just how poor the new system could be once transition is removed. The other points I pretty much agree with because they are all different subjects to the low paid are all better off.

You are the one arguing that the poorest will lose out, so I was hoping you would give some semi decent analysis to back up your views. You may be right but without some analysis it's just your say so which is not convincing. I did not ridicule the 20 year example, I just questioned the relevance of 20 years. I note that the Guardian article quotes Frank Field as broadly approving of the changes, and he is not known for favouring the rich.

talexuser

BananaRepublic wrote: »

You are the one arguing that the poorest will lose out,

No, I have never written anywhere "the poorest will lose out", I linked to an article from pension experts calculating 20 million low paid workers will lose out, that does not exclude some other low paid gaining, just not all of them.

BananaRepublic

talexuser wrote: »

No, I have never written anywhere "the poorest will lose out", I linked to an article from pension experts calculating 20 million low paid workers will lose out, that does not exclude some other low paid gaining, just not all of them.

Sorry, since you argued that 20 million low paid workers will lose out, you need to provide support for that argument. It is all very nice repeatedly using the phrase "pension experts" but without knowing exactly what they calculated, with what assumptions, it's impossible to respond as the claim is meaningless. I'm not saying it is wrong, I'm saying it is too vague to be informative. Incidentally 20 million is a huge figure, so they probably do not mean the same as me when I use the term low paid. They surely mean the mid range i.e. not road sweepers and not accountants. I was referring to the poorest who arguably need help the most. And they might have averaged over a huge group, with the highest paid losing lots, and the lowest gaining. Again, we need details. As it is the article reads like a party political handout.

talexuser

Fair enough, I'm quoting a firm of pension experts who I believe are more likely know more about the subject than you, other articles are warning that many thousands or even millions expecting £155 are not going to get it. I could just as well ask you to prove " the new scheme is better for low paid workers" since that is just as meaningless as any other blanket statement without detail and qualifications. We're going round in circles now so better agree to disagree. We shall see when the new system kicks in just how satisfactory the vast majority reckons it is.

bowlhead99

talexuser wrote: »

Ok, badly worded, but he could just as well have been convinced to take out an expensive personal pension where any extra benefits were minimised due to mis-selling, poor performance and high charges.

Haha yes, I guess you are right that most of the people who contracted out of full national insurance contributions to fund a DB or DC pension, had that saved money put into a scheme that dwindled away to nothing rather than ended up being worth something.

So you are probably right that the official DWP example proves your point that that low income earners will be - for example - left on a paltry £75 a week instead of £125pw (40% below old system) after they've paid in 35 years full contributions and we have finished transition so there are no lifetime 'contracting out' periods to distract us.

[/sarcasm]

Glen_Clark

I haven't even looked at my State Pension entitlement. I am more concerned about whether the Government will have money to pay it. G Osborne talks of 'Recovery and 'Growth', maintaining the highest military spending in Europe with all the braggado of a country with a Sovereign Wealth Fund. But the reality is that whilst countries like Norway invested their North Sea Oil Money wisely, Britain has wasted all ours so there is nothing in the kitty to pay our pensions but a pile of debts which Osborne has doubled in 5 years to fund his obsessive housing market interventions. We depend on youngsters working and paying taxes to fund our pensions. But with young professionals paying over half their salary to rent a shoe box they might just go abroad where property prices are in proportion to the rest of the economy. Leaving us with all the low skilled immigrants who need housing benefits to make up their wages to the level of rents - let alone pay taxes to pay off our debts and fund our pensions.