Average pension pot on retirement and whats your aim ?

Kim1965

Nebulous2 said:

Kim1965 said:

50 % of my take home pay goes towards paying into a pension, supporting a child at uni plus wirk related expenses. This would suggest that for me i do not need 2/3 of my pre retirement pay. 

Have you calculated what you will need in retirement, or your 'number?' 

The recently revived number thread is lengthy, but is well worth a read, even if you just dip into it and read a few pages here and there. 

Yes, on my own 20k a year as a couple32k a year nett.. My partner is ill so im having to think financially as a simgleton. One thing i have concluded is how much financially better off retirement is as a couple. 

marycanary

Kim1965 said:

Nebulous2 said:

Kim1965 said:

50 % of my take home pay goes towards paying into a pension, supporting a child at uni plus wirk related expenses. This would suggest that for me i do not need 2/3 of my pre retirement pay. 

Have you calculated what you will need in retirement, or your 'number?' 

The recently revived number thread is lengthy, but is well worth a read, even if you just dip into it and read a few pages here and there. 

 My partner is ill so im having to think financially as a simgleton. One thing i have concluded is how much financially better off retirement is as a couple. 

Sorry to hear about your partners.

 I agree about how difficult retirement can be for single people and I started a thread on that very subject. I had to finance a family on a single wage when my ex-husband disappeared. There was no partner to take a lowly paid part-time job so I could keep climbing the career ladder.  Working and looking after a family made me ill and I was forced to take a lower paid job. I still don't earn as much as I did 12 years ago.

I don't mean to sound bitter, just pointing out the reality for some people. I would not be without my lovely children and grandchildren for all the pension money in the UK.

Albermarle

Ibrahim5 said:

I spent a lot of time working out how much I needed in retirement. I earned £100K so 2/3 was £66K, 1/2 was £50K. Which magazine seemed more sensible at £26 to £41K. Even though I earned £100K I only spent more than average on property and holidays. In the highest council tax band and with a big gas bill I can't get by on the least without downsizing. House maintenance also but not as bad as some people seem to suggest. Holidays can be very cheap if you can go at anytime. I am always checking out Tuesday flights. You have to work out your own figures. It's interesting reading these fora but there is no substitute for doing your own. I think the percentage of previous pay is particularly useless.

Your gross earned pay is not that relevant , The rule of thumb is you need two thirds of take home pay . As mentioned in a couple of previous posts you often only need 50% of gross income to get 65%/70% of take home pay , although it will vary from person to person of course.

Ibrahim5

The implication is that the more you earn the more you spend. That never really happened for me which is how I managed to retire early. So income while working is irrelevant.

Albermarle

The implication is that the more you earn the more you spend.

I would guess that is true for most people , but you are right it does not apply to everybody, and particularly not MSE posters !

SouthCoastBoy

Albermarle said:

The implication is that the more you earn the more you spend.

I would guess that is true for most people , but you are right it does not apply to everybody, and particularly not MSE posters !

I'm another one who earns £100k plus, but my spending has not changed. Live in a modest 3 bed house, have two cars both around 8 years old and small. I agree I think the percentage of take home pay is unhelpful. Most of my costs go on kids uni fees, about 50k for the two. Other than that I live a relatively frugal life.

Thrugelmir

Workerdrone said:

Thrugelmir said:

Workerdrone said:

Albermarle said:

Workerdrone said:

anonmoose said:

Reading flipper-72 s post it could be me!  I earn same salary as you and yes it is also half what it was 16 ish yrs ago when I gave up my career to bring up our kids. I worked part time and flexi since having children but in a lower paid job that fitted around our kids.  I went back to full time when they started school but in the same flexible lower paid job.  So I do all the sick days, orthodontic appts, hospital appointments, afterschool pickups (you get the drift).  It works well as a family set up and my husband is free to pursue his career but is fully aware it wouldn't be possible without my support.

We see our pension pots as joint and my other half has a reasonable salary but below higher tax bracket.  So between us we have done ok, brought up our kids, have a wonderful house but have modest pension pots which we are just starting to ramp up in our mid 40s.  

I personally don't get intimidated by posts from people in the top 1% of earnings.  I think this forum and the savings forum has taught me so much and by the nature of these forums it does attract very savvy savers in very well paid jobs so the results of any questions about pot size will be skewed.  You just have to search online to see what national averages are to get a more realistic picture. 

When I read posts about the LTA I chuckle and think what a nice problem to have!

But there is room for all of us and the fact is my retirement will be more comfortable because of the great advice on this forum and that is the key thing.  It's all relative from where you personally start your journey.

I find it quite inspiring and something to aim for. Theres a lot of good advice on here about how to handle your pot and general investing regardless of how big it is. I for one am simply grateful people take the time to share experience.

Also probably would not be a good sign if those sharing their knowledge about investing were skint   

Indeed, Thankfully Neil Woodford and Nick Leeson haven't graced us with their presence.

Baillie Gifford have lost their crown rather rapidly though. 

Tell me about it. a bit like ARK invest. I have some BG American in funds for my wife and my kids. They've got about 15 and 50 years respectively to recover. Come back a bit this week. Thing is I don't see anything fundamentally wrong with the underlying holdings. Just seems like a flight to value of late has knocked them

Every trade has it's day. Fund management teams once in a blue moon strike gold. Woodford once did at Perpetual which created his aura. Investors like buying stories for reassurance. Whereas fortune favours the brave as they say. The odds of BG investing and buying a major stake in the next early stage Tesla are somewhat unlikely. 

SouthCoastBoy

Thrugelmir said:

Workerdrone said:

Thrugelmir said:

Workerdrone said:

Albermarle said:

Workerdrone said:

anonmoose said:

Reading flipper-72 s post it could be me!  I earn same salary as you and yes it is also half what it was 16 ish yrs ago when I gave up my career to bring up our kids. I worked part time and flexi since having children but in a lower paid job that fitted around our kids.  I went back to full time when they started school but in the same flexible lower paid job.  So I do all the sick days, orthodontic appts, hospital appointments, afterschool pickups (you get the drift).  It works well as a family set up and my husband is free to pursue his career but is fully aware it wouldn't be possible without my support.

We see our pension pots as joint and my other half has a reasonable salary but below higher tax bracket.  So between us we have done ok, brought up our kids, have a wonderful house but have modest pension pots which we are just starting to ramp up in our mid 40s.  

I personally don't get intimidated by posts from people in the top 1% of earnings.  I think this forum and the savings forum has taught me so much and by the nature of these forums it does attract very savvy savers in very well paid jobs so the results of any questions about pot size will be skewed.  You just have to search online to see what national averages are to get a more realistic picture. 

When I read posts about the LTA I chuckle and think what a nice problem to have!

But there is room for all of us and the fact is my retirement will be more comfortable because of the great advice on this forum and that is the key thing.  It's all relative from where you personally start your journey.

I find it quite inspiring and something to aim for. Theres a lot of good advice on here about how to handle your pot and general investing regardless of how big it is. I for one am simply grateful people take the time to share experience.

Also probably would not be a good sign if those sharing their knowledge about investing were skint   

Indeed, Thankfully Neil Woodford and Nick Leeson haven't graced us with their presence.

Baillie Gifford have lost their crown rather rapidly though. 

Tell me about it. a bit like ARK invest. I have some BG American in funds for my wife and my kids. They've got about 15 and 50 years respectively to recover. Come back a bit this week. Thing is I don't see anything fundamentally wrong with the underlying holdings. Just seems like a flight to value of late has knocked them

Every trade has it's day. Fund management teams once in a blue moon strike gold. Woodford once did at Perpetual which created his aura. Investors like buying stories for reassurance. Whereas fortune favours the brave as they say. The odds of BG investing and buying a major stake in the next early stage Tesla are somewhat unlikely. 

Yes I tend to agree with this, a lot of good fortune involved. 

DT2001

Ibrahim5 said:

The implication is that the more you earn the more you spend. That never really happened for me which is how I managed to retire early. So income while working is irrelevant.

I know quite a few people who with every pay rise spend more but most also save more. You are right about income whilst working being irrelevant BUT as a headline it is more eye catching than suggesting people work out their budget now and when they retire. Hopefully it is a starting point for people to consider what they might need and how they might achieve it (no doubt using the 4% SWR). Part of educating more about financing retirement.

IamWood

SouthCoastBoy said:

Albermarle said:

The implication is that the more you earn the more you spend.

I would guess that is true for most people , but you are right it does not apply to everybody, and particularly not MSE posters !

I'm another one who earns £100k plus, but my spending has not changed. Live in a modest 3 bed house, have two cars both around 8 years old and small. I agree I think the percentage of take home pay is unhelpful. Most of my costs go on kids uni fees, about 50k for the two. Other than that I live a relatively frugal life.

Can you share why you didn't let your children take a student loan? My boy is going to university this summer. I wonder if it is worth letting my boy apply for a student loan even if I can afford his tuition.