To think we are heading into a pensions disaster

How are people going to survive retirement. There aren't many jobs for people the wrong side of 50

This isn’t the case at all in my industry. I don’t plan on retiring at all, I just plan on working less. Loads of people in my industry work into their 70s.

Soldiers don’t contribute to pensions….someone has been telling porky pies.

I'm 50 and worked for the NHS for 27 years. Pension from the start. Just looked up how much its worth and had the opposite reaction. I wish I'd looked it up earlier and thought about topping it up.
I'd assumed 'long time working for nhs on band 8 salary ' would equal not worrying, but a change in schemes and p/t work to fit round dc mean it's not half as good as I'd hoped.

Based on the current state pension and tax rate, I'll have circa £33k per year pension.
I'll likely be renting though, so no idea how I'll fare.
I'm working on retiring overseas so the pounds will afford me a better retirement 🤷🏾‍♀️.

Why does anyone ask a chatbot questions instead of looking up the answers and getting facts instead of nonsense that may sound like facts? @She11y

So you know disabled pensioners living only on benefits? I don’t think it’s the future most of us desire.

A big part of any pensions disaster is from people not realising how important it is to join a scheme if you can

I'm always wary of writing off a broad trend issue by pointing at individual choices. We are all part of the same society and the decisions we make are intrinsically bound up with national fiscal and political situations. If lots and lots of people experience the same difficulties, is that down to each one of those lots and lots of people? Or, can some responsibility rest on politicians who spent thirty years with their heads in the sand, watching as company after company declared itself bust/merged with all the attendant boardroom handshakes, pensions liability flying to the wind? Who knew that only around 30% of private sector employees were able to join a scheme at all? Who, when finally roused to action required only that employers contribute 3% to the least profitable pension vehicles ever created?

I'll leave the rest of it to you guys now that parts sorted 😄

24 minutes is still 10 minutes less time than it took me to get to my evening job at uni.

I cycled, didn't have time to walk places.

Look, if you don't want your children to work and you're happy that they depend on you financially that's fine. I don't know why you're getting so stroppy about it.

Most colleges and universities are situated in largish towns and cities, most students can work around their courses. If they chose a course that makes them totally dependent on their parents then I guess you made that decision before they applied/accepted.

My parents would have been broke if they needed to pay for me. I wanted to go so much that I decided to pay for myself and I found a course, a university, part time jobs and accommodation that enabled me to do that.
It's that simple really.

I liked being independent from a young age.

Fuck me @toffeeappleturnip this is sheer monomania now.

Ok so students can work and parents don't have to support them. Great, that's three years taken care of. Now solve the rest of it, please.

Actually the trains take 24 minutes. Its the middle of nowhere and very few trains but obviously they're all not perfect like you and should have absolutely caught the train but I doubt you would be satisfied with that, you'd like them to walk 12 miles along roads with no pavements.

only" 3% is a lot of money to us small employers.

Maybe your business isn't viable. No shame in doing something else if it enables you to pay what you should.

A big part of any pensions disaster is from people not realising how important it is to join a scheme if you can.

Or because e.g. teachers feel they can't afford 11.4% contribution. (They don't have the option to pay half for half the accrual rate).

Comparing pension situations needs more sophisticated discussion than is sometimes the case.

I'd love to know, for example, why Local Govt pensions have a fund and are more generous, for lower employee and employer contributions, than teachers' pensions (which do not have fund).

I'm fairly sure that a teacher contributing 11.4% with employer contribution of 28% or so would get a higher pension were they to allowed to put these sums into a fund.

And you dont have to buy an annuity these days. At 67 you could draw down 4 or 5% of your fund and get a much better income.

Yep most people I know have never paid into a pension.

12 miles by train is a 10 minute journey.

16 year olds can get jobs.

But of course, I'm sure there are more excuses.

I did not 'sit on my arse' all day. I already told you I cycled 8 miles a day and played hockey for 12 hours per week.

If they are dancing around all day perhaps they could do a sitting on their arse job all evening - like at a supermarket till.

But if you'd rather spend all your money on keeping them dependent on you - you do you.

Glad you find it amusing @toffeeappleturnip

You are talking rubbish!

They were in the middle of nowhere. Nearest town was 12 miles away by train. Most of them were 16 so they couldn't get a job. You were sitting on your arse in lectures. They were dancing all day, 8.30 to 5.30 and until midday on a Saturday. You have no idea, no fucking idea at all

Because people are saying they don't have pensions as they are spending all their money supporting their adult children through university.

Adult children can work even if in education. Even non-adult children can work from at least 16. The parents can keep their money for their retirement.

Public service pensions compensate for lower wages than in the private sector. But if it bothers you that much what's stopping you joining the public sector?

Yes, me too. One of my class mates did Friday and Saturday evenings at McDonalds, but gave it up after about a term.

Your number looks wrong

https://www.hl.co.uk/retirement/annuities/best-buy-rates

500k gets you c.25k going up with with RPI from age 65

In practice you need less as by that age you should have enough NI to get the full state pension, say 250k

Still, hardly trivial for somebody on median earnings

I agree with your broader points

"only" 3% is a lot of money to us small employers.

and people choose when they retire....as evidenced by half of this generation retiring in their early 50s due to stress and because they profited buying housing cheap decades ago, apparently.

Agree, got my 35 years NI contributions this year, but no SP for another 13 years. £1m in my pension pot, (down £57k following Trump and his tariffs announcements a few weeks ago) to drawdown on from next year.

Actually what's going to cripple the country are all the other (ie private sector) employers who only have to put in 3%. Because when they put their 67 year old employees out to pasture, they won't have pension enough to live on. And that becomes everyone's problem.