Bad news re what I spend

Terron

zagfles wrote: »

Yup, all sorts of foibles with the UK state pension, we could fill another 10 pages with one-liners about it. I suppose its complexity means there's something for everyone to complain about, or use to make political points.

All countries seem to have fairly complex schemes.

The rules vary a lot which makes making comparisons difficult.
I haven't seen one I would consider meaningful.

zagfles

missile wrote: »

Oh contraire; it is you who seems unable to read or grasp the irony.
Terron asked for evidence and I merely quoted from his own out of date link

No you didn't. You quoted "Minimum pension UK £125". That is not what the article said.

The full state pension in the UK is now between £125 and £165 a week

Yes. Do you think that means the same as "Minimum pension UK £125" :rotfl:

Besides, that doesn't account for the contracted out scheme which someone on the lower end of the full state pension will have, or pension credit. But I guess it doesn't suit your argument to compare like with like.

Perhaps you disagree with the FT?

I CBA registering to read the article. It won't tell me anything I don't know already. The UK state pension on average is low compared to other countries, especially for higher earners. We've moved to flat rate while most other countries base it on earnings.

The means tested lower end (pension credit in the UK) is better than most other countries. We have more private/workplace pension provision than most other countries.

There's lots to criticise about the UK state pension. But it's best to understand it before selectively picking aspects of it which you've misunderstood which you think feed your confirmation bias.

Terron

missile wrote: »

Oh contraire; it is you who seems unable to read or grasp the irony.
Terron asked for evidence and I merely quoted from his own out of date link

Perhaps you disagree with the FT? :beer:

Actually you reworded it and in doing so misquoted it. It did not say the minimum state pension was £125. It said "The full state pension in the UK is now between £125 and £165 a week" - my emphasis.

Then you made a comparison of supposedly minimum state pensions which has little meaning due to the differences in systems.


I do disagree with the FT. The writer or his source was making a particular point and chose a particular measure to illustrate it. It has Spain paying double the UK (in terms of %age of average salary). But the UK's pension credit is almost double Spain's equivalent. There an inconsistancy there so I don't trust the numbers and want to investigate further. I know that statistics are often misused. Unfortunately though the author rightly provides links for many of the things he mentions, He does not provide a link for the main table. Other than saying it comes from the OECD. Without being able to see the original and the detsils of how the data was assembled I don't trust it. I very much doubt it proved what he says it proves.

missile

You chose to contradict my comment that UK state pensions are lower than their EU counterparts.

I CBA registering to read the article. It won't tell me anything I don't know already. The UK state pension on average is low compared to other countries, especially for higher earners. We've moved to flat rate while most other countries base it on earnings.

The means tested lower end (pension credit in the UK) is better than most other countries. We have more private/workplace pension provision than most other countries.

There's lots to criticise about the UK state pension. But it's best to understand it before selectively picking aspects of it which you've misunderstood which you think feed your confirmation bias.

I have no bias, I made an observation which you have admitted was correct.

No need for your repeated childish insults <LOL>

Actually you reworded it and in doing so misquoted it. It did not say the minimum state pension was £125. It said "The full state pension in the UK is now between £125 and £165 a week" - my emphasis.

let's not nitpick semantics.

justme111

One of the reasons of the discrepancy between my number as I calculated it a few years ago and my actual spending now is inflation I reckon. In 3-4 years it would be about 10% which on 24k gives not inconsiderable difference of 3 k pretax.

Terron

missile wrote: »

let's not nitpick semantics.

When dealing with statistics it is important to nitpick. Otherwise people can get away with ridiculous claims.

jamesd

Terron wrote: »

I'm glad you agree with me.

That was disagreement, not agreement. There usually will be a state pension to consider and it usually will make a substantial difference to the answer.

missile

Terron wrote: »

When dealing with statistics it is important to nitpick. Otherwise people can get away with ridiculous claims.

When challenging "ridiculous claims" it is better to quote from recent reliable data which supports your opinion - not from 2016 which undermines it. :rotfl:

zagfles

missile wrote: »

When challenging "ridiculous claims" it is better to quote from recent reliable data which supports your opinion - not from 2016 which undermines it. :rotfl:

Go on then

Terron

jamesd wrote: »

That was disagreement, not agreement. There usually will be a state pension to consider and it usually will make a substantial difference to the answer.

You wrote "Well, for some, when far from retiring." which is those people I was saying the 4% rule worked better for. That was agreement.
I also agree the state pension will make a big difference, but that can be subtracted from the target income.