How much savings do you have - in cash and in your pension pot?

[suebfg]

I am 40 and whilst we have quite a lot in savings (over £150k and no mortgage), my pension provision is practically nil. I chose to pay off my mortgage instead of paying into a pension as tbh, I don't trust pensions.

But it does worry me that I have little saved for my retirement - mainly the equity in the house I guess.

Just interested in what others have done.

What if you don't get the inheritance? What if your parents have to spend it on nursing home fees for themselves? It's just so unwise.

What if, shockingly I know, those relying on inheritance have actually looked into all of that and are secure in the knowledge that there will be enough?

Or, that even if it is unlikely to be enough they don't actually have a choice to save anything as they are stretched beyond limits already?

Why the assumption its all in ignorance?

BabyDubs - there is no assumption of ignorance and of course some people will have looked into it. If people have honestly looked into the cost of nursing home fees as opposed to residential care, and assume the worst that if due to illness or accident it could happen very early, and for 30 years or so, and there is enough then good for them. Some wont have done this and will still be relying on inheritance.

I personally had no idea how much it could cost and have been very shocked. I knew that care homes were thousands a month but boy did I get it wrong on how many thousands a month if you are ill and old! Its not something I had really thought about.

Babydubs, if you don't understand why it's distasteful then I'm not going to spell it out to you.

Actually I don't think it is distasteful. I think for some it is naive if the potential inheritance isnt huge (millions), but not necessarily distasteful.

Could you spell it out for me. Death in inevitable unfortunately, and if there are assets somebody will inherit.

It would be distasteful if people wished their parents dead so they could inherit sooner rather than later! I haven't seen that on this thread.

BabyDubs who said it was all ignorance? I said upthread that obviously some are unable to. But some are.

I can't see what distasteful about it tbh. I found it uncomfortable when my Ddad first started bringing it up (but then he's my dad and is invisible in my eyes - I like to think he will live forever!) He has made provisions for his old age for around 30 years post retirement maintaining the same lifestyle as now. The amount that's left will be divided between my Dsis and me.

He has compiled a 'death list!' A whole bloody spreadsheet of wishes and instructions to cover how to tie up businesses, funeral arrangements, who he wants to have certain items - HE has covered everything because it's his estate and its important to him that we do what he wanted with it. Which we will. I don't find that distasteful, its sensible.

Knowing what I will receive if he dies before me has become part of my financial planning - that's sensible too imo.

We will be keeping enough in hand for nursing home fees and a reasonable life. Everthing else will be in trust or gifted to the DC well before we start to go down hill. Of course there might be a tragedy on the way but the life insurance and three times salary for me will click in. The children would also get a pension until they reached a majority.

The fact of the matter is that money can be managed so that costs are minimised and actually not everyone requires years and years of nursing home care; many people don't. Many also lead relatively fit lives into their 80s and I for one want enough income to carry on enjoying myself if I do.

On the back of this thread can I ask a pension question? Am not currently on it but have opportunity to be in NHS pension scheme. Is it worth joining?

If you get an employers contribution yes - you are also likely to get deth in service and ill health early retirement benefits. Get the scheme details or talk to the pension administrator. You will prob be auto enrolled son so worth finding out now.

Most women in the UK do not have enough pension provision, much worse than men and plenty do not have a man's pension to rely upon so it is certainly wise to save for retirement. However it is just one way of saving. If you are an average person likely to work for decades paying into a pension schemes and retire at 70 or whatever retirement age is for most of us (presumably even in the NHS it is now close to 70 for people of baby producing age) rather than working longer than that it is usually sensible to join the pension scheme despite my negative comments about pensions above.

My solution to this problem: not planning to retire. I will find jobs that I can keep doing until I'm dead. Part time probably, and a lot lower stress than now, but still. Otherwise it's penury unto death, since I don't think I'll ever have enough money to retire comfortably.

Plan B is to retire to a very very cheap country, but as I can't find any that also provide adequate free health care that I'd be eligible for I think plan b is a pipe dream.

Babydubs might know how much she is getting though. My grandma was in high level alzeheimers care home for nearly ten years it was £700 a week but she still left properties, and plenty of cash.

Most PEOPLE in the UK are said to have inadequate pension provision.

Although I am about who calculates that, and how it's calculated.
I don't anticipate loads of old people on the streets. Somehow the net catches them.

Well I don't see why I should fund a net because someone else has sppent their money on lots of holidays rather than investing it for retirement. Above a certaon threshold it makes sense that pensions are compulsory unless people prove alternative provision or opt out of the benefit system post retirement age.

Lljkk, the currently retired are still largely on final salary schemes, I think.

The currently retired are still LARGELY on a state pension. MOST people in this country rely on a state pension, with mostly men having a small works pension on top -

the mumsnet demographic is somewhat skewed...

Most of the currently retired live in relative poverty and the average pension is something like £5k a year I think in terms of private pensions on top of your £7k a year state pension - i.e. virtually nothing.

The difficulty for a welfare state with contributory benefits is that once you raise benefits levels quite high you find that you reward those who save nothing and spend their money on wine women and song or shoes who never worked to the same level as the £140 a week state pension. Pension credit and housing benefit for OAPs with no NI contributions I bet is likely to be about the £140 a week state pension proposed for those who have slogged it out at work for 35 years of NI contributions.

Yes £140 per week is truly pathetic, when you think how much some people pour into the NI contributions....it makes my blood boil, but then that's the way it is now so anyone who can needs to make provision elsewhere...preferably not relying on other people like parents or children - people can always let you down!

You're right Stardust, I should have said "of those getting work related pensions"

Interesting article here:

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scotland/10094392/Average-Scot-to-receive-less-than-half-pension-they-want.html

Focus is on Scotland not all of the UK where there is more poverty but perhaps more belief in 'cradletograve' government support. It's scary stuff.

This one is UK focused:
www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/10091977/Pension-provision-hits-all-time-low.html

It is frustrating to know that the welfare state will inevitably look after those who haven't saved at all and those who have saved will reap little rewards by being frugal. Such is the welfare state - I defer the dialogue to the Daily Mail.

we are going to have to move to a system where the level of pension provision and care provided by the govt is such that anyone who can afford to save for themselves will. and only a very small number of people choose not to provide for themselves and spend more money when young.

I agree faster but how do you do that? The govt can force govt workers to put money in pensions, but corporate workers? What about the self-employed? And how do you force people on benefits to save (and is that even possible).

The problem with the welfare state is the more you give, the more intervention and control the government then want in return. In my heart I'm a libertarian and wish we had less government input into everything and relied more on personal responsibility. Not a very popular ideal at the moment (sigh) - everyone thinks I'm Ayn Rand whenever I say such things....

the support from the govt has to be right at the bottom of acceptable.

also we are moving to a model of working longer and will continue to do so.

on a bragging note : two different people recently thought my 70yo mother was in her fifties with children at home. she is a normal, fit 70 yo. so it is not surprising that she can carry on working. and the working in turn keeps her young.

William, the new scheme will make corporate and personal contributions more common, I think.

There is already a requirement for employers with more than a few employees to give access to a scheme but this will mandate some matching contributions, I think.