45% of working age people not saving toward a pension at all

But the welfare state steps in, which means everyone else picks up the tab. Most people are broadly fine with that for those who genuinely cannot provide for themselves.

It is an unreasonable expectation for others to carry the burden for those who perhaps could have contributed more or planned better, but did not. Especially when much of that will fall on younger tax payers.

Yes - this is the reality.

and of course people will reply citing examples of severely disabled, non-verbal, very ill young people who are bed bound….. but the reality is that many young people currently receiving benefits are capable of working. They’re trapped in a system which doesn’t incentivise them to work … after a year or so of believing they can’t work and being paid benefits, they’re going to have less and less self belief that they can actually change things.

Again an over simplification of the available research. I suspect many researchers would find it closer to an opinion piece than a credible peer reviewed piece of work.

It's this lack of nuance and black-and-white thinking that gets in the way of real solutions.

There is a lot of peer-reviewed research suggesting that most people support helping those who genuinely need it, while also believing that fairness, reciprocity and personal responsibility matter. These do not have to be in conflict. Trust in the system is important because people are generally more willing to support welfare when they believe it is fair, reciprocal and difficult to exploit. Their systems are not perfect, but higher levels of trust, reciprocity and personal responsibility are frequently mentioned when discussing some of the strengths of the Nordic welfare systems.

The debate becomes unproductive when any concern about incentives or fairness is dismissed as a lack of compassion or greed or selfishness, whilst any discussion of poverty, hardship or struggle or is treated as excusing everything. A real and sustainable solutions would usually require acknowledging both circumstance and individual responsibility at the same time.

If people aren’t saving additional toward a pension so what?

If you are then other households just having state pension in retirement is up to them surely?

The Government can put in incentives and laws for employers to offer pension schemes which they have done. They can raise awareness and journalists can break down numbers and explain the benefits.

After that it’s up to individuals to make their own financial choices.

Except the examples you've given are proving "don't want" rather than can't. 2.5k on a holiday is over £200 a month. That plus employer contribution would be an excellent pension, a quick calculation suggests between £1m - £5m depending on growth.

And your pay wouldn't even be £200 less pcm because it would be taken before tax.

And yes, holidays are a luxury, not an essential. Or at least something to cut back on, e.g. abroad every 2/3 years rather than every year. £300 per child for Christmas is insane! I bet most of it ends up in the bin.

Okay - replace with Jim Radcliffe and Ineos or James Dyson and Dyson.

Taylor Swift can’t sell her masters to anyone BUT a billionaire, so she couldn’t sell them to pay tax.

Let’s say Dyson does want to sell some shares - would you want to buy shares that you can’t sell on as they’re not listed, and that might never pay you any dividends because the company is focussed on reinvestment not returning funds to shareholders? They’d be as useful as an antique vase (less useful actually because you can’t put flowers in them). So who’s going to buy them to allow Dyson to pay his tax?

There's truth in this but we also have a crisis with too many working age people not working and living off benefits. Often classified as "disabled" by modern standards but would not have been eligible 20 years ago.

He is a freelancer so won't get employer contributions, but will receive more in pay than his salaried counterparts, out of which he needs to save in a personal pension pot. Anyone can do this - stuff like Hargreaves landown and the like. He can claim tax relief via his tax return.

Also be aware that there are segments of society where people tend to not to focus on pensions because they are from communities that focus on caring for and financially supporting older relatives within the family. My neighbour never bothered saving for a pension (he was a taxi driver). He lives in a multi generational home with his son & grandchildren and whereas he used to be the one paying the bills, now his son & daughter in law do. His son is ok financially with this because he's never had to buy another house.

There should be a floor in £ terms for employer contributions so that lower paid full time staff get at least 3 or 4k a year.

Eg if you earn £80k, that employer contribution of 6% is a few grand, its worth having. If you earn £25k its only £1,500.

We need to move towards tiered levels of employer contributions instead of age based, with employers putting higher percentages in for lower paid staff.

I worked at a company where the % rose as you aged. This basically meant all the blokes in their 40s on £100k were getting 12% employer contributions, while the 26 year olds earning 25k were only getting 6%.

Its nonsense as you need more in earlier to allow it to accumulate and grow, and most people can afford to contribute more personally later in life when they earn more.

If someone earned minimum wage from 18 to 68 and invested the current minimum contributions from employer (3%) and employee (5%) in the stock market then based on average inflation and returns over the last 70 years, after 50 years the nominal sum in their pension fund would be around £1.6-£1.7m which in real-terms (adjusted for inflation) equates to around £350k-£400k. This assumes minimum wage rises by inflation (recently it’s risen by far more).

This would enable a 68 year old to purchase an inflation-linked annuity providing an income of £25-27k per year, currently.

So just 5% over a working lifetime results in a substantial sum even if you only ever earn minimum wage. Contributions should gradually be raised, and the auto-enrolment opt-out needs to be removed with a similar compulsory scheme created for the self-employed unless they can demonstrate independent assets sufficient to fund their own retirement.

This is exactly why state pensions were developed in the first place.

Your post is very black and white. Life isn't like that.
The years are short with children, and its a balancing act between things they need and what brings you (and them joy).
Someome saving to take the family away for one week a year (for us 2.5k a year) isnt really going to do much for a pension pot for me, my DP or my kids is it?!

Saving £300 each child per christmas again 18 x 300 is £5400, not really going to do a lot for a pension is it?

And not doing those things robs joy out of life.

Having one family weekly holiday a year and spending some money on your children for Christmas isnt luxurious or extravagant or indulgent. Its pretty standard life. Imagine "sorry kids, no xmas presents...but im paying into your pension"
"Sorry kids no help with driving and a car but ive got you a pension pot"

People with not very much are struggling to pay for the BASICS, homes, clothes food. Those just about managing this may save a little bit for a holiday and some birthday presents.

It isnt because they DONT want to. It is because they cant.

You can just download an App, like InvestEngine or DoDL, without any screening, and get all the benefits of a personal pension ('SIPP'). And that includes automatic tax relief added at a 25% rate.

Im confused how a self employed person can set up a pension. Just go on the hl website an open a sipp.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-wealth-reduces-compassion/

I’m not saying they worked harder. They worked smarter. They earned their money through predicting share price rises. If you think by taxing everyone into oblivion we’ll end up with more money you’d be very much mistaken. If people thought that they would get no benefit from developing their artistic talent or taking that business risk they’d either not bother doing it or (far more likely) they’d find another country to do it in.

We all know that monetary reward does not tally neatly with effort expended. It's absolutely farcical to imply that someone who, for example, has invested some money in shares of a business that has done well, has worked harder than someone who has unloaded bins into a lorry, or scrubbed toilets, or washed and dressed people who have lost the ability to co-operate.

You seem to think they’ve got some sort of ill-gotten gains they shouldn’t have. Billionaires usually have acquired their money through either their entrepreneurial talents or artistic talents. They put these talents to use to EARN their money. It’s not your or the states money to have. Taking it all off them in tax would be little more than theft. And people say billionaires would leave if you introduced a wealth tax of say 1% of their wealth a year, and only about half would, but 100% would if you got your way and who can blame them. Our overall tax take would be far far lower.

Billionaires pay their way. I know because I help them do so in their job as a tax advisor. Their money is theirs, not yours. Don’t be so grabby.

If you read the various pensioner groups online they are already demanding more funding for a better state pension and it will only get worse, despite the eye watering cost. People are going to have to make better provision for themselves.

What's your understanding of moderate disability though? So many people don't seem to understand that you lose your ability to work long before you reach the point of "severe disability" let alone "very severe disability" and what happens to the moderately disabled if we don't support them? They still need to eat and usually have significant costs associated with their disabilities. At the moment most receive something but it's often not enough to save them from food banks if they don't have family support. I say this as someone who is not only moderately disabled but has half a dozen moderately disabled friends. None of us has ultimately been able to sustain even part time hours or self-employment due to our health being unreliable or the effort required being unsustainable for any significant amount of time. All of us would prefer to work and most would have had good jobs if it weren't for disability (I'm from quite a high achieving background). Obviously very few people get any sort of government support for mild disability so the mildly disabled aren't really part of the picture.

All but one of my friends became disabled in their teens and most of us managed some form of limited employment after university but all but one in incredibly low paying roles so there was no question of being able to pay any real insurance for most of us. We got ill too early.

Metaphorical “you”, not you personally.

I can see that, to you, gratitude can only be expressed as a form of self-flagellation. I can’t really help you with that kind of binary thinking.

I'm not presenting myself as a martyr.

I just don't believe I have to fall over myself to be grateful, especially as in my son's case, it was the NHS that made a mistake which is the reason why my son is disabled in the first place so making sure he is cared for by assisting me to do it is the least they can do in my eyes.

You are conflating two different issues.

Nobody is questioning that she made sacrifices. The point is that there were also reciprocal benefits involved. It is perfectly possible to acknowledge someone’s contribution and sacrifices without acting as though everyone must endlessly grovel in gratitude.

That is the nuance that people like you conveniently ignore. My point was about about reciprocity and tone, not denying that caring or parenting can involve sacrifice.

Apparently, recognising that both sides benefited now means the carer must be treated as beyond criticism at all times.

I have no problem with Taylor Swift being a billionaire. I'm not a fan, I don't think I've ever heard her music, but her vast wealth has been accumulated simply because fans want to buy what she's produced. I've not paid anything towards it and my taxes aren't going to her, or, if we look at the UK, Harry Styles is similar. Millions of people get pleasure from their art, but the individual costs for each fan is a matter of choice. Even if they can't get a concert ticket, it's there at little cost on Spotify and free on YouTube.

Harry pays a lot of tax and whilst I'm sure Swift will use legitimate tax mitigation I bet she does too. They are both industries in their own right-a lot of jobs and ancillary wealth creation will spin out from them.