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

[FernFaery]

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2026/may/19/britons-not-saving-enough-retire-pensions-commission

Another looming crisis!

They could start by making it easier for the self employed to get pensions in the first place. I have a lot of self employed friends and they struggle and give up.

It's embarrassing isn't it?! When will women learn that stopping work and allowing themselves to become the default parent is a really, stupid thing to do. Men don't do don't do it, so why do women? I'll never understand this.

Why can't they get a pension?

Billionaires mostly don’t have cash.

Kylie Jenner is a billionaire because her make up brand is worth that. Do you think the government should take the shares in her make up brand and become a controlling shareholder? Well that would mean she’d be worth less as the government would likely tank the company’s performance and value.

Taylor Swift is a billionaire because she owns the rights to all of the music she’s created. Should someone take that off her?

Neither Kylie’s make up brand nor Taylor’s songs are going to really help the government as you can’t spend that value on the NHS, it’s not cash. And you can’t sell those things, as only billionaires can afford to buy them, and so no one can now afford the assets you’ve taken.

While I agree no one should be a billionaire, your solution isn’t really practical.

Completely agree. It's never to late to start, something is always going to be better than nothing.

One friend told me he was just not able to join a pension scheme as a freelancer. I am not sure why.

Because he's a freelancer, not an employee - they also don'tget sick pay or holiday pay. He could get a private pension, though.

Yeah I'm talking about this. He said he was laughed out of the room 🤷‍♀️

Neither of those people are British but individuals could sell their shares to pay the tax bill. I also believe alot of billionaires have property which can be sold. These are things us mere mortals have to do if we have unsustainable lifestyles.

I'm sorry but we have huge swathes of the population in poverty, we cannot afford to continuously protect the wealth of billionaires from the COL crisis. They have been having a boom whilst we are having a bust, it is not a coincidence. The books need rebalancing.

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.

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'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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.