The reality of the Pension Debt (To encourage discussion)

Gorgeous_George

Things that bug me:

1) We cannot afford the pensions liability yet we ban smoking in pubs and spend money trying to make the Nation fitter. We should encourage smoking, drinking and sloth like existences. Let people die younger.

2) We pay pensioners a winter heatiing allowance. All the pensioners that I know spend this on foreign holidays seeking Winter sun. It was introduced to buy votes just like when Maggie sold our Nation's assets.

3) Pensions are paid until death. They should be paid for a fixed period followed by euthanasia. This might encourage people to work longer (:))

GG

MrChips

I have to say I found Ed's arguments more convincing.

SquatNow wrote: »

With 1.8 children per couple (and dropping) I assume your relying on uncontrolled immigration? Which relys on the immigrants not being taxed heavily, to attract them in the firstplace! Or maybe your just making it up again. Probably the later.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7115155.stm

Even with low assumed future fertility, immigration and life expectancy, the population is 4 million higher in 75 years

SquatNow wrote: »

You've just shown yourself to be one of the people who paid !!!!!! all in tax, asset stripped the nation and now expects everyone to pay high taxes to subsidise your retirement. I explains why your so defensive.

At least people know who you are and can read your responses aware that you arn't exactly neutral in this conversation.

So are you still saying that tax was lower before? You seem to ignore Ed's actual point.

SquatNow wrote: »

Um, yes, that's the point. Compounding is a basic maths. Sadly for it to work with money you have to get a better return on the "investment" as a percentage than inflation. And that return has to happen every year, without fail. (Tip: In the 80's, inflation hit 20%) This is why Equitable Life went bust.

This isn't true, the return only needs to better inflation over the whole term, not each and every year. I would happily invest my pension money in a product that offered 0% returns for 35 years and then gave a 1000% return in the final year. Most investment products are correlated with inflation anyway so that returns are typically higher when inflation is high.

SquatNow wrote: »

Your attitude is sickening. If you're going to talk to people like that you should not bother talking at all. You views are clearly coloured by the fact that you are one of the people who has run the country into the ground.

Just because you don't want to listen because it shows your generation in a bad light, it doesn't mean what I am saying is wrong.

The fact is that the generation now in their 50-70s will keep screaming louder and louder how there isn't a problem and how we should pay them what they were promised. They'll rubbish any claims that they haven't earned it and simple insult people who say otherwise in the hope of discrediting them.

Very few will EVER be willing accept that what they did has harmed their children and grandchildren. Even fewer will be prepared to try to redress the balance.

They will hold on to every penny they can while their children and grandchildren work themselves to death to fund the pensions they promised themselves.

This won't apply to all of them... some will accept the truth, but most will never be willing to give up the lifestyle they have become accustomed to.

If we follow your argument through and state pensions for people in the generation below you are reduced further as they are unaffordable, will they be accusing you of running the country into the ground as you will be on a higher pension than they will be? Would you agree with them? The state pension really isn't that big even for today's pensioners. It is far lower than most other developed countries.

m_c_s

I know lets have an age allowance for death... perhaps at 65 every one goes for renewal (just like Logan's Run).... that will save us!

jem16

m_c_s wrote: »

I know lets have an age allowance for death... perhaps at 65 every one goes for renewal (just like Logan's Run).... that will save us!

Now that's showing your age if you remember Logan's Run.

dunstonh

Eds post was spot on. Now you know when Ed and I agree on something that it has to be right

Possibly, but only because at the end, just before retirement you'de be putting away vast amounts per month compared to at the start. The payments from the first 10 years would be inflated to virtually nothing by the time you reach retirement.

It wont be vast amounts at the end. It will be identical in real terms.

To get a pot of £100k you'de have to put away £2,222 a year, on average. That's not difficult. Sadly in 45 years time £5k income will be enough to buy a sandwich.

No you wouldnt. You have assumed paying a level amount for 45 years which is not practical or sensible.

As long as that £30pm net is increased each year with inflation (which means year 2 would be around £30.75pm, year 3 would be around £31.51pm and so on) then you will end with around £10k income in real terms (indeed possibly a fair bit more if you take an interest in your investments).

m_c_s

jem16 wrote: »

Now that's showing your age if you remember Logan's Run.

Oops I guess its time for renewal......I will start saving for my pension at 18 next time!

Ian_W

The Op's title suggests ... a debate.

From what's been posted s/he doesn't have the first clue about the subject and has no wish to learn from debate - just a need to spout a diatribe to abuse older folk by an outpouring of half truths, inaccuracy, lies and general rubbish. That which isn't grossly distorted is downright lies.

A future politician in the making - if ever I saw one.

My contribution to the debate ...

DON'T FEED THE TROLL!

ManAtHome

SquatNow wrote: »

That wasn't to pay for their retirement, that was just Tax. There's no big bank valut with money piled up in it. The NI payments were simply returned to them in the form of tax cuts.

They chose a government that offered them a good pension and low taxation. Their government lied to them. Sounds unfair... but they enjoyed the benefits of those lies... and now the next couple of generations have to compensate them.

1. Wow, wouldn't have thought of that...
When the state pension was initially set up, a very small number of people actually lived long enough after retirement to 'turn a profit', so the "todays workers paying for the retired" model worked. Succesive governments have ignored/avoided changes in retirement age and longevity on the grounds they won't be in power when the !!!!!! hits the fan.

2. No, they didn't choose a government on the basis of their possible pension EVER, and still don't today. All generations (unless they're actually receiving a pension) seem to be more concerned with the "me" and the "today".

SquatNow wrote: »

I thank those in their 80s for saving me from speaking German, especially as their language has 3 genders. However I'm not sure how saving me from the Germans only to sell me into slavery really helped me?

They gave you the freedom to choose slavery.

jem16

m_c_s wrote: »

Oops I guess its time for renewal......I will start saving for my pension at 18 next time!

LOL - sounds like a plan!

Logan's Run was good - I enjoyed it.

dunstonh

Logan's Run was good - I enjoyed it.

I enjoyed it too. At least the repeats as I was too young first time round