The reality of the Pension Debt (To encourage discussion)

m_c_s

jem16 wrote: »

LOL - sounds like a plan!

Logan's Run was good - I enjoyed it.

To be honest I watched it because of sexy Jenny in the wet:j ..... perhaps thats why I now need glasses!

EdInvestor

Just one simple point - the average income of retired people at present is 14,500 p.p.p.a.

The basic state pension is 4,500 p.a

So the average pensioner funds around a third of his own state pension through the tax payable on the rest of his income, itself provided by his own savings.

I suppose you squatters will be wanting free bus passes next.
:rolleyes:

ManAtHome

Ian_W wrote: »

DON'T FEED THE TROLL!

I don't agree with SquatNow on this thread, but how many "trolls" can argue their point (even if they're obviously wrong - lol)?

jem16

dunstonh wrote: »

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

Shhh - don't tell my sons about repeats. They might get ideas about sending me for early renewal to gain access to my "wonderful" pension.

Dithering_Dad

Ian_W wrote: »

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!

I don't think Mr. Squat is a troll - he doesn't seem to overpersonalise his responses, he mainly just addresses the points people raise. The fact that he doesn't know what he's talking about doesn't seem to faze him.

He was on the mortgage board the other day with a rambling story about how in 2010 we will all be living in Death Camps because of a housing crash (I !!!!!! you not! :rotfl: ). Thinking back, I seem to recall that the first to get slotted were the old and infirm. Seems Mr. Squat has a thing against old people.

Mi'laddo Squat always looks on the dark side of life, at least in the posts I've read, but I'm sure he's a bag of fun in real life :rolleyes:.

Perhaps if he got out more and travelled the world (especially South America, Africa/Middle East and part of Asia) he would realise just how good we have it in the UK? Just a thought.

EdInvestor

It's quite interesting to see the "burden" that fell on the current generation coming up to retirement when they were young, largely due to inflation in the 1970s which initially decimated the value of their grandparents' pensions:

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/retirement/article.html?in_article_id=427290&in_page_id=6

I don't recall that we minded paying at all: there was more respect for older people then and anyway we all understood how much was owed to those who had suffered through the two world wars.

The country was also still quite poor, so few people could afford private savings, and home ownership was less than 50% of the population.The idea of having the right to a pension when old and free medical care was highly valued.

SquatNow

EdInvestor wrote: »

Just one simple point - the average income of retired people at present is 14,500 p.p.p.a.

The basic state pension is 4,500 p.a

The problem with the "average income" is that it is easily skewed by extreme values in the data.

For a start, you're average income will have a baseline of 4500... that is, since the basic state pension is 4500, the figure is skewed upwards.

A few very rich old men earning hundreds of millions then skews it completely.... if 99 people earn £1000 a week, and 1 man earns £1million, what is the average wage? £10990!
(99*1000 = 99,000... + £1m = 1,099,000... /100 = £10990)

It's also worth noting that most private pensions being enjoyed by those in retirement are final salary/defined benefit. If those people live past the calculated life expectancy from when they took out the pension, then they are burning through money payed in by people who are still working.

And it's accepted fact that the life expectancies used in calculation back in the 60s/70s were WAY out, partly on purpose to make the pensions more attractive.

Dithering_Dad wrote: »

I don't think Mr. Squat is a troll... ...he the points people raise.

Thankyou

Dithering_Dad wrote: »

The fact that he doesn't know what he's talking about doesn't seem to faze him.

OK I changed my mind. In what way don't I know what I'm talking about?

Dithering_Dad wrote: »

Seems Mr. Squat has a thing against old people.

That story in question wasn't showing any dislike of old people on my part, just the complete disinterest in the welfare of the population by the banks.

m_c_s wrote: »

To be honest I watched it because of sexy Jenny in the wet:j ..... perhaps thats why I now need glasses!

I like the idea of being able to dial up REAL WOMEN on the TV and have them appear. Think they could make it work with Pizza?

ManAtHome wrote: »

I don't agree with SquatNow on this thread, but how many "trolls" can argue their point?

It's funny how when people can't defeat my point though, they tend to resort to hurling insults at me. "I can't beat him so I'll discredit him"...


Heres the ultimate question for you... you have 400 old couples, 400 young families. You have 400 family houses, and 400 small flats. You decide that the fairest thing is to put all the old people in the houses, because they've worked hard, and all the young famlies in the flats.

SquatNow

MrChips wrote: »

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

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

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

The reason they are saying the population will grow is because people are living longer... it refers to "population" not taxpayers. It's a clever bit of Labour spin.

It's also mathematically bunk: If people have less kids, and there's less immigration and people die earlier, how on earth does the population rise?

It all depends on how you pick and choose your figures. If you say 6 kids is high fertility and 3 is low, even with low fertitlity the population rises. If you say 3 is high and 0 is low, with low fertility the population falls.

You need 2 children per couple to maintain the population in isolation. Currently we are having 1.8. Anyone want to estimate how many of those kids are born into families who are living off benefits? Another topic methinks!

MrChips wrote: »

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.

Yes, but I was assuming the pension company are investing it on an ongoing basis, not putting it all on black at the casino. Yes I agree returns are better when inflation is high, but risk is a lot higher too.

MrChips wrote: »

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?

This is happening now... young people simply can't afford to save for a pension because taxes are too high. Since NI is no longer considered to be towards your pension, (this is OFFICIAL!!!) they are effectively paying 20% extra income tax.

MrChips wrote: »

The state pension really isn't that big even for today's pensioners. It is far lower than most other developed countries.

This may be true, but it doesn't mean those people earned their state pension... if they had all their NI back as a tax cut, why are they now receiving a pension.

I have nothing against old people... personally I think they should all swap their houses for government organised retirement accomodation in Cornwall, where the weather is warmer. Turn the whole of Cornwall into a huge retirement complex with all the facilities old people need on hand and specially adapted housing, and approriate entertainment facilities. Put a fence around it with defined entry/exit points to keep the hoodies out so they can walk to bingo or the shops safe in the knowledge that they wont be mugged and if they fall over staff will be around shortly to help them up.

The current system of having them sat around in large family houses freezing to death too scared to go out while their grandchildren sleep 4 to a room is ridiculous.

clipboard2

Funnily enough, my clipboarding subject today was " Attitudes to Retirement" :-

Location: Guildford Respondents: Professionals "AB's"

Q...." By the age of 75, you are required to use most of the money you have saved in your personal pension pot to buy an annuity, which pays you an income until you die. Were you aware of this?"

A....."No...what....really?" (18 out of 20 respondents)

Q....."With most annuities, if you die before the full value of your personal pension fund has been paid back to you, the pension company will use what is left to help pay the pensions of individuals who live longer than you. Were you aware of this?"

A......"That's disgusting" (19 out of 20 respondents)

Q. The government has introduced 2 schemes (FAS and PPF) offering financial assistance to people who have lost their pension because their employer is no longer in business. The Financial Assistance Scheme (FAS) uses taxpayers money to do this. To what extent, if all, do you support this use of taxpayers money?

A...."Only to pay a proportion of the lost pension, and the maximum sum should be capped" (17 out of 20 respondents)
Not one respondent was willing to support payment of !00% of the lost pension without cap by the taxpayer......

fwor

SquatNow said:

" I have nothing against old people... "

but in the original post on this thread said:

"How far will we go to give those in their 50-80s a comfortable life? They asset stripped the nation..."

SquatNow, it only takes a moments thought to realise that condemning millions of people for "asset stripping the nation" is senseless. If you thought about that statement for a little while, you would realise that the vast majority were just ordinary working people, told by the government and pensions policy makers how to pay for their pensions. If you want to blame anyone, blame the politicians and civil servants that created the situation, not those that benefited from it.

And before you start accusing me of being defensive: No, I am not in the age range that you rant about.