How big should my pension pot be ?
Comments
-
It's not that hard. Pension pots are there to generate income. We already measure that income for income tax purposes. The same principle can be applied to for deciding if people should be eligible for the state pension.0
-
“NI is a tax, pure and simple. It goes towards funding social security, so it is a tax. if you think it's a kind of insurance policy, you are living in cloud cuckoo land”
With respect it is you in cloud cookoo land in proposing a means test should be applied to decide who receives a basic pension. The state pension is the insurance policy not the NI contributions, everybody needs that fall back protection and that is a right not a privilege. This is just another approach to that fundamental issue of equality of earnings irrelevant of how hard you have worked in life and paid NI as a result. Left wing or right wing you take your view.
“Would you honestly want nurses and teachers, who have to do thankless jobs with only modest rewards, to have their pension security taken away from them? Then who would want to do these jobs? For many in the public sector, the good pension benefits make up for the mediocre salaries, stressful jobs and lack of bonuses and additional perks”
Absolutely yes and I am not an editor of the Daily Mail! Public sector income is comparable with private sector these days for the majority of professional workers and yet there is an attitude that they deserve more, they need to wake up to reality today, not everybody works in the financial heart of the City and earn a lot less at salaries at or below leading public sector jobs. That last sentence above applies to private sector as well and nurses and teachers are on perfectly reasonable incomes today (better than some of the people I know for sure). Try telling that to workers on minimum wage in the private sector. This is a challenge the next government is going to have to face or put its head in the sand, public pension financing cannot continue as it stands. You propose career average as the minimum, I propose going further to match the private sector where the vast majority of people are in money purchase schemes going forward, time for the public sector to join that unwelcome (I admit myself but a fact) revolution.
“It's not for you to make that decision.”
Its not yours as well, we are in a democracy, vote for whoever you think is making the best decision.
“A person with a £40k a year pension is not 'middle income', but very much high income when compared to other pensioners in the country. Does such a person need fuel subsidies from the government and the £6k state handout?”
I was taking about the state pension as a basic right and I do not regard £40K as high, try £100K+ then might consider your view as being reasonable. Limiting fuel subsidies is one “benefit” I would actually agree as being limited but based on pension income.
”at a time when budgets need to be cut and state expenditure kept under control, it's only natural that those who do not need handouts should not get them”
Well let’s start with public sector pension funding then and removing this ridiculous final salary right the public sector thinks it has a right to. That will help with funding the basic state pension far better than limiting high earners with large pensions. I am not one by the way, just feel this a wasted idea which will not generate the revenues required.0 -
You've made two points in your post above:
1) Basic state pension is a right for all.
2) Public sector final salary pensions need to end.
I believe you are wrong on both counts. The basic state pension is one of these 'guaranteed' benefits that everybody receives, regardless of income - much like the NHS. The reason the national economy is a shambles is because we are living as if nothing has changed since 1950. I do not view the basic state pension as a right, and I also do not believe the NHS should be free for everyone. Those who can pay must pay. Why would you want a 'fall back' if you have a £1 million pension fund? And why would you expect the taxpayer to foot the bill for your hip replacement operation or whatever when you have plenty of cash to pay for it yourself? No, this has to stop. The welfare state should work as a fall-back for those genuinely in need, not the comfortable upper middle class.
As for public sector final salary pensions, what you are suggesting would be highly counterproductive and endanger the education, health, law enforcement and other essential services in this country. I totally reject your suggestion, as it is born of envy, not logic. Why don't you look for a job in the public sector if you think it's all easy living!0 -
As for public sector final salary pensions, what you are suggesting would be highly counterproductive and endanger the education, health, law enforcement and other essential services in this country. I totally reject your suggestion, as it is born of envy, not logic. Why don't you look for a job in the public sector if you think it's all easy living!
Do you work in the public or the private sector, mark?0 -
I currently work in the public sector, but have worked for 20 years in the private sector. So I have experienced both.0
-
Are you being sarcastic? Not a very constructive approach to this discussion, is it? Adopting an 'us and them' mentality will not help to solve the nation's financial problems.0
-
mark, the older I get the more I understand the need to argue solely from one's own perspective.
Of course I'm not surprised that you work in the public sector and are rigorously defending public sector final salary pension arrangements. Why wouldn't you? It's completely in your interests to do so. I'd probably do the same.
Good luck to you, but do us all a favour and not wrap it up in some highbrow moralistic ideological wrapper, ok?
It's self interest. Pure and simple.
"Constructive approach blah blah blah 'us and them' yadda yadda. . . pffffffft0 -
“I totally reject your suggestion, as it is born of envy, not logic.”
Certainly not, I call it being fair, workers on both public and private sectors should have the same rights and benefits based on their income.
Perhaps I should use the word greed in response then for your view, if you want better, you work for it! I have too worked in public funded operations and now the private sector. That is irrelevant going forward as the work place is changing so rapidly, what matters is the future and it’s funding.
This thread discussion was on the limiting of who receive state pension to fund future costs for its provision. I have deliberately highlighted that there are other ways to fund future costs including the removal of final salary public pensions which is now well overdue.
Somebody who earns £40Kpa in a publically funded authority (or much higher, e.g. comprehensive school head teacher say) and somebody who earns the same in the private sector, should be under the same pension contribution model and if that means money purchase schemes for all to make it affordable then so be it.
That would be a fair model and should an equal footing wherever you work. I could understand the logic of a cap on who received a full state pension based on their annual pension if set high enough not to impact on saving for a pension in the first place by the masses, but in no way should others be left to take their “gold plated” final salary pensions while the rest of us take a risk on the market performance and our own investment decisions!
As regards rights for services for all like the NHS, then perhaps we should take that further on paying, so should those who incur illness due to their own fault pay for their treatment, so let’s start with drinkers, smokers, overweight people etc. However that would be biased towards the less well off wouldn’t it so we start to get down to the fundamental issue of what a basic right for all is whether it is a public service like the NHS or a state pension.
I understand where bendix is coming from, my opinion is to open up views on where funding needs to come from, not just capping who receives state pension, but changing the public pension provision as well for current workers to match those models which now apply for the vast majority of the private sector, certainly if staff are earning the same levels of income.0 -
mark, the older I get the more I understand the need to argue solely from one's own perspective.
Of course I'm not surprised that you work in the public sector and are rigorously defending public sector final salary pension arrangements. Why wouldn't you? It's completely in your interests to do so. I'd probably do the same.
Good luck to you, but do us all a favour and not wrap it up in some highbrow moralistic ideological wrapper, ok?
It's self interest. Pure and simple.
"Constructive approach blah blah blah 'us and them' yadda yadda. . . pffffffft
No, nothing to do with greed. I do my job because I am interested in it, not because of the bleeding pension! I could earn £5-7k a year more in the private sector, but I am interested in the projects going on in my particular area of the public sector and that is where I wish to remain now.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 343.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 250.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 449.7K Spending & Discounts
- 235.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 608K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 173K Life & Family
- 247.9K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards