MSE News: Pensions Minister: 'no straws to clutch to' for WASPI campaigners

OldBeanz

Does this mean that this is the last WASPI thread?

Mortgagefreeman

OldBeanz wrote: »

Does this mean that this is the last WASPI thread?

I think you might be clutching at straws.

Mortgagefreeman

Two separate reports for the government have raised the possibility that millions of people may have to work longer to qualify for a state pension.

An analysis for the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) has suggested that workers under the age of 30 may not get a pension until the age of 70.

A second report, by John Cridland, proposes that those under the age of 45 may have to work a year longer, to 68.
The government is due to make a decision on both reports by May.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-39352654

The GRASPI's should be happy they'll all be getting their State Pension by 66 at the latest.

Welcome to the real World.

Pollycat

colsten wrote: »

As a 1954 woman, I couldn't agree more with you! WASPI do not speak for me.

And as a 1953 woman, they do not speak for me either.

TBH, as the eldest of a group of similar female friends with the youngest being aged 60, I'm sick of the usual garbage they spout about how unfair it is that they're not getting their pension at age 60.
I've given up joining the conversation and just let them waffle on in their misguided, ill-informed way.

Paul_Herring

colsten wrote: »

FaerieQueen must be a parody account, surely?

Parody of a parody?

MacMickster

hyubh wrote: »

This isn't really a 'oh aren't public sector pensions so generous' point - if owning a house at retirement with a value of £250,000 isn't considered a big deal (and it certainly isn't in the south east at least), then having a pension pot that size shouldn't be either.

People don't even need to pay the £250K for that pension. If their employer contributes £125K and the taxman £25K then it is a case of saving £100K themselves. The earlier that someone starts saving into a pension then the less that they need to save each year.

It is not a question of who can afford to save this amount over a 50 year working life to fund their retirement. People really need to consider whether they can afford not to, and consequently live on just the state pension for possibly the last 30 years of their life.

Triumph13

Another way of looking at that £250k pot would be to ask how big a salary would you need for auto-enrolment to get you there all by itself?
Minimum contribution rates are going up to 8% (5% EE, 3% ER) from 2019. With 8% contributions, average 4% real returns on investment and a 45 year working life then to end up with £250k you would need a £25.3k salary. Hardly plutocrat territory.
Assuming a 4% withdrawal rate in retirement, then when added to SP of £8,100 your post tax income in retirement would be about 89% of your previous takehome pay.

miller

Is the £250k adjusted for inflation? At the moment you'd need 2.3% going by the CPI just to stand still (or 3.2% using RPI).

Triumph13

miller wrote: »

Is the £250k adjusted for inflation? At the moment you'd need 2.3% going by the CPI just to stand still (or 3.2% using RPI).

It would be fairly meaningless if it wasn't. My calc used a 4% real return (ie post inflation). Historically equities have tended to yield closer to 5% real.

Paul_Herring

miller wrote: »

Is the £250k adjusted for inflation? At the moment you'd need 2.3% going by the CPI just to stand still (or 3.2% using RPI).

I suspect it's "£250 in today's money," so no. It should be £256K/£258K next year, but I bet they'll still quote £250.

And you missed the H off CPIH.