The reality of the Pension Debt (To encourage discussion)

Paul_Herring

SquatNow wrote: »

poppy10 wrote:

Those bar stewards! We should shoot all old people :T:A

I love the way you think that isn't going to happen.

When half the population is in retirement and the other half is living in cardboard boxes, worknig in sweatshops and paying 80% income tax, what exactly do you think will happen?

I love the way you think that is going to happen. Jeez - can't you knock off the hyperbole for at least a while?

SquatNow

Paul_Herring wrote: »

I love the way you think that is going to happen. Jeez - can't you knock off the hyperbole for at least a while?

I think we've pretty much established that young people are going to be paying a lot more tax to support their elder generations, and that they are going to be pretty !!!!!! about it.

defender_of_the_weak

I think we have pretty much established that you have no idea what you are talking about in the world of finance and long term economics in relation to global markits

SquatNow

defender_of_the_weak wrote: »

I think we have pretty much established that you have no idea what you are talking about in the world of finance and long term economics in relation to global markits

I'm amazed how many people give thanks to cretins who do nothing but walk in and insult people then leave.

While I was not able to provide links to backup my statements, other posters have been able to do so on my behalf. Pretty much everything I've said on this thread has been 100% correct. Pretty much everything you've posted has been an insult.

Posting random insults is highly offensive... debate a point or !!!!!!.

Paul_Herring

Pretty much everything I've said on this thread has been 100% correct.

Erm - quite a lot of what you've said has not been 100%. Post 19 to pick one at random:

• Taxes are about to rise drastically to fund current retirees.
• Paying NI no longer entitles you to a pension.
• State Pension will be means tested from now on. Cash from downsizing will almost certainly be included in the means testing.

seven-day-weekend

My husband and I are baby boomers (not our fault!).

He will have a total pension income of just over £12k when he is 65 in six years time.

I will have a total pension income of just over £7k when I am 65 in seven years time.

(All based on today's figures)

This includes occupational pensions that we have contributed to as well as the NI we have paid.

Nothing like the £14k each average quoted.

defender_of_the_weak

Which part of posting random insults, calling me a cretin and telling me to !!!!!! do think is not offensive. Please note I take none of it personally and only raise the point for contrast.

I would love to have a proper debate on the points you raise but your basic premise is flawed as is much of your supportive argument. See the comments from the previous two posters amongst others.

Are you doing this as some form of social experiment

margaretclare

If £14K is quoted as an 'average' income then there will be as many people above this level as there are below it.

It's known that, at the present moment, there are many pensioners struggling to survive on £5 - £6K. Equally there are some way above. The Queen is a pensioner.

DH and I aren't on as much as £14K each, but because we get our pensions independently we do quite well, in fact a little better than 7DWE and her husband (at today's figures). So, because we don't know what the future holds, we're still saving.

Margaret

EdInvestor

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

He will have a total pension income of just over £12k when he is 65 in six years time.I will have a total pension income of just over £7k when I am 65 in seven years time.

Nothing like the £14k each average quoted.

After you've been retired a few years you'll probably find you get closer to the average as you are both on RPI- linked pensions. The index in dragged down by those on level annuities, those on a lower level of index linking and those with pensions which predate the index- linking rules, plus of course the large number of elderly widows with virtually no pension at all (as they die the average will obviously rise)..

It's not uncommon for women to have below average pensions of course, and IIRC your husband was forced to retire early with a pension reduction on health grounds? Perhaps his pension would be closer to the average if he had been able to work until normal retirement age,

These days of course it's also not uncommon for people to obtain retirement income from other sources as well as pensions (eg ISAs, property rental income, equity release).So a low pension income doesn't necessarily mean a person is particularly poor.

Indeed it can be quite the opposite, as well off families will typically feature a giant company pension for the husband and virtually nothing for a wife who has never had to work - though of course she may have plenty of other savings and investments.

jamesd

margaretclare, while you're basically right, do note that for an average income there will not be as many people above it as below it. Normally there will be far more below it than above it because there's a fixed lowest possible income of zero (or benefit level) while the maximum doesn't have any cap at all. It's the median income where above and below counts are the same.

It's discussed in more detail at mean or median. The report that links to makes it really obvious when it observed that "in 2003/4, almost two-thirds of the [not only pensioner] population had incomes below the national average income of 408 per week ... Median income was 336 per week". So twice as many people below the mean as above it in the whole population.

It's particularly important to use the median when considering potential poverty.