To think the old style pensions should be capped.

[Blindering]

ok, I am in Ireland so unaware of how UK pensions function but my neighbour who worked as a college lecturer but retired in 2008 in his 70s gets 600 euro a week in pension, equivalent to 513 stg.
This is on top of a 150k pay off he got when he left the job which I believe all civil servants here were getting.

But aibu to think a bachelor living in a house with the mortgage long paid off has no need for over 500stg a week? Like what would one need the money for at that stage in life?

@Blindering

''Not everyone that age will have a paid off mortgage.''

eh I struggle to think of anybody in their mid 70s still paying a mortgage.

My MIL is 76 and about to have her house repossessed because she's no longer able to pay her mortgage.........

@Cosmos123

Thank you very much, I intend too!!

12 more years to go, not that I'm counting 🙈

I mean - I know this is pointless, I know you’re on a wind-up but that question from earlier is the absolute crux of it.

If you can’t answer it to yourself, not to me, ask yourself why not?

My mothers pension doesn't pay a mortgage but does go towards her care bills now she has Alzheimer's
Diagnosed in her late 60s she didn't really get to 'enjoy' much of her pension.

What I don’t get OP is you are talking about the old state pension which on paper is less that the new state pension.

I cannot believe anyone thinks people don’t pay mortgages after 70. I literally am struggling with this!

I know a few people over 70 still paying a mortgage. I'm going to be one of them. And if not, the insurance will take care of it 😳

FancyMice has nailed the problem. KnittingAddict just doesn’t understand that the economics have totally changed since she first bought. You can earn double what your parents earned, and still have no chance of owning the sort of property that you grew up in - ever!

The OP’s neighbour had a defined benefit final salary pension. These (where you would get typically 2/3rd of your final wage in pension) are a thing of the past. If you are lucky enough to have a defined benefit pension in your workplace the majority are now based on your career average earnings - a much much lower figure. Only the very wealthiest amongst us workers could even hope to get what OPs neighbour gets in pension. Take a look at your pension statements folks and see how skint you’ll be.

I do disagree with the OP though. It’s not his flaunt he gets so much!

I think the biggest thing threads like this show, repeatedly, is how poor financial knowledge is. Pensions in particular are often totally misunderstood which is really quite worrying IMO.

Undoubtedly the previous generation did "better" from pensions on average but not because they did anything wrong, or because they set out to wrong the younger generation. They've done better because

• life expectancy has increased (beyond what was expected when pensions were planned)
• pension regulation has changed dramatically (in part because of schemes which collapsed - those pensionsers didn't always fair so well)

-interest rates and investment returns have changed, and so on.

None of that is their fault. Not offering these sort of pensions now isn't taking money from the young to pay for the old, it's ensuring we don't keep repeating the same mistakes.

If it's not been pointed out earlier (I did not read all 14 pages) mortgages were not cheaper when your neighbour was young OP.
My parents - now pension age paid 17% interest in the late 70s/early 80s on their home mortgage in Ireland.

As someone in her mid sixties with a DH who is in his 70s I can certainly speak for my generation. First of all when we bought a house in the 80s the interest rate went up to over 15% and we had virtually nothing for years. Also in these days in the UK there wasn't tax credits, child tax credits etc. So bring up a family was dire. We certainly didn't have a tv in every room, let alone all the other expensive laptops, phones and gaming machines that are thought of as a given now a days. My husband worked for the same company for 30 years before being made redundant in his late 40s, try getting a job at that age when your industry has disappeared!
So we all have difficulties at different times of our life. Just because this man has inherited property you seem to have it in for him. Very few of us will be lucky enough to have this happen all our inheritances went on care costs for the previous generation. Luckily my DH has a private pension and his state pension which add up to over £25k a year- less tax- so we may be able to pay our own care costs, but hay who knows.

I really get irate when I hear someone spout the nonsense about state pensions being means tested. Screw that … I paid in I want my money. I really don’t care how much I have. If there is no guarantee of me getting my money that I paid in it shouldn’t be taken in the first place let me keep it and I’ll invest it myself.

I’m in the homestretch for setting up my retirement, and for the most part I am not factoring in what I’ll be eligible for. (Mostly because I don’t trust that some genius will come along and tell me someone deserves it more than I do via means testing) … but that doesn’t change the fact that I may need it or want it after a working lifetime of diverting my pay into retirement assets.

So once again… screw that. You don’t change the rules on people after it’s too late for them to do anything about it.

You’re not in any way over invested, judgemental and sanctimonious are you OP?

*They've done better because

• life expectancy has increased (beyond what was expected when pensions were planned)*. etc. .

Also, only a fraction of today's numbers went to university in the 60s. Vast majority started work at 15. And here we are 60 years later. Still working! We had a good head start on saving for the future

Also true Iridescent - I was thinking more about your proper old school final salary schemes which are hideously unaffordable on current life expectancy! But working and saving longer definitely helps (I've been putting in to pensions since my late teens)

@StatisticallyChallenged

I think the biggest thing threads like this show, repeatedly, is how poor financial knowledge is. Pensions in particular are often totally misunderstood which is really quite worrying IMO.

Undoubtedly the previous generation did "better" from pensions on average but not because they did anything wrong, or because they set out to wrong the younger generation. They've done better because

• life expectancy has increased (beyond what was expected when pensions were planned)
• pension regulation has changed dramatically (in part because of schemes which collapsed - those pensionsers didn't always fair so well)

-interest rates and investment returns have changed, and so on.

None of that is their fault. Not offering these sort of pensions now isn't taking money from the young to pay for the old, it's ensuring we don't keep repeating the same mistakes.

I would love everyone to read your post again Statistically.

OP, read up on why pension regulations changed and how retrospectively changing terms & conditions went for some people.
www.google.co.uk/amp/s/inews.co.uk/news/equitable-life-scandal-pension-treasury-campaign-compensation-911673/amp

State pension - no sorry, elderly people no matter who, should receive basic living income

Defined benefit/final salary govt pension - yes absolutely they should completely scrap them, stop paying retirees out of current taxpayers revenue, and turn all these schemes into contributory ones I.e. get what you pay into it. And the govt should then contribute more for teachers, firemen, nurses, etc. See above for state pension provision.

*OP - say you save into an interest-bearing account, how would you feel if someone came along when you were about to retire and said there was more money in there than you needed, so decided to take some to distribute to others.

Would you be happy with that?*

How many times does this have to be re posted? we are all waiting with baited breath for your answer

@Firstwelive

State pension - no sorry, elderly people no matter who, should receive basic living income

Defined benefit/final salary govt pension - yes absolutely they should completely scrap them, stop paying retirees out of current taxpayers revenue, and turn all these schemes into contributory ones I.e. get what you pay into it. And the govt should then contribute more for teachers, firemen, nurses, etc. See above for state pension provision.

For those public sector schemes which are unfunded, how do you propose those retirees are paid if not by taxpayers? We (via the govt) employed these people and committed to paying them a specific pension. So are you just chucking them on state pension in retirement now?

@Firstwelive

State pension - no sorry, elderly people no matter who, should receive basic living income

Defined benefit/final salary govt pension - yes absolutely they should completely scrap them, stop paying retirees out of current taxpayers revenue, and turn all these schemes into contributory ones I.e. get what you pay into it. And the govt should then contribute more for teachers, firemen, nurses, etc. See above for state pension provision.

People did pay into the pensions they receive.

What's your beef here? Civil servants' pensions specifically? Or just ......... other people have more.

Believe me, I get it. I'm a member of the single scheme. My civil service pension will top up the state pension by about four grand. Whoop.

But the pre-95 ers paid contributions in to the ''pot'' and no deductions were taken for a state pension. so this is the product they PAID FOR.

They changed the system quite a while before the crash. 1995 civil service pensions got less generous and then in 2004 they made it so that 60 was an actuarially reduced pension.

Not sure what your point is tbh but if you'd paid for a financial product you'd want to see that ''crystalised''' wouldn't you?

I am also waiting with bated breath for my answer about whether generational wealth of the White British will be shared with ethnic minorities. OP is very selective with their answers aren’t they . Seems like they avoid anything that debunks their ridiculous logic.

At some point the OP will say they were talking about Irish pensions all along.........

Firsttwelve people whoare on public sector salaries do pay in to them. A substantial deducton from salary every month.

I don't believe her parents were civil servants. No adult child of two old school servants thinks that their parents lump sums harmed them.

Also, her gripe is decades out of date! When troika (?) came in to Ireland after the crash, they did identity fhat civil servants' pensions were a big expense so they changed it going forward but they people who entered in to the pre 95 system, if they retire with forty years' they get half their final salary and a lump sum of 1.5 times their salary. That's what they''ve been paying in to all along.

It has been made less generous for new entrants MORE THAN ONCE since 1995.

So they took action for New Entrants. They took appropriate action imo. But they can't renege on the pensions owed to the pre 95 ers.

''So they took action for New Entrants. They took appropriate action imo.''

no appropriate action would have being cuts for all.