Pensions

[Brightside]

Just picking up on something one of the guys said on the ST thread around Pension. Essentially wanting Pensions to match the living wage. Are other people of the same opinion? And how would that work (where do the funds comes from)

[Onceinawhile]

The living wage I assume, includes a calculation for mortgage and rent, which most people who receive the state pension are unlikely to need to pay, so for me, no.

What annoys me about the state pension is that it's untouchable.

A couple where the main earner earns 60k gets no child benefit, but a pensioner could earn whatever they like and not have any of it taken back.

[archie]

Just picking up on something one of the guys said on the ST thread around Pension. Essentially wanting Pensions to match the living wage. Are other people of the same opinion? And how would that work (where do the funds comes from)

What do you mean by pensions? Is this a discussion about state pension?

[Brightside]

What do you mean by pensions? Is this a discussion about state pension?

Yes State Pension. Ignore private pensions.

[archie]

Yes State Pension. Ignore private pensions.Thanks. The thing is that on a discussion on UK pensions they are pretty material.

[Pretty Boy]

The living wage I assume, includes a calculation for mortgage and rent, which most people who receive the state pension are unlikely to need to pay, so for me, no.

What annoys me about the state pension is that it's untouchable.

A couple where the main earner earns 60k gets no child benefit, but a pensioner could earn whatever they like and not have any of it taken back.

With home ownership stagnating at best the generation approaching retirement now could well be the last generation such a statement is true for.

Locking people out of the housing market is a ticking time bomb and people being faced with rental costs well into their retirement is going to be one issue society has to face up to.

[archie]

With home ownership stagnating at best the generation approaching retirement now could well be the last generation such a statement is true for.

Locking people out of the housing market is a ticking time bomb and people being faced with rental costs well into their retirement is going to be one issue society has to face up to.It's interesting how owner occupation is perceived and experienced across Europe. Perhaps counter intuitively, it tends to be poorer countries that have higher owner occupation (with a few outliers). The UK is at the lower end, but has had a strong tradition of social housing. But look at the countries below us https://www.statista.com/statistics/246355/home-ownership-rate-in-europe/

[Hibbyradge]

The living wage I assume, includes a calculation for mortgage and rent, which most people who receive the state pension are unlikely to need to pay, so for me, no.

What annoys me about the state pension is that it's untouchable.

A couple where the main earner earns 60k gets no child benefit, but a pensioner could earn whatever they like and not have any of it taken back.

People receiving the state pension still have to pay rent.

Otherwise I agree, the outgoings for retired people are usually less than they were when they were working.

I don't agree with your comment about means testing the state pension, though.

Folk pay NI all their life and have earned their pension. It's not a benefit like CHB.

[archie]

People receiving the state pension still have to pay rent.

Otherwise I agree, the outgoings for retired people are usually less than they were when they were working.

I don't agree with your comment about means testing the state pension, though.

Folk pay NI all their life and have earned their pension. It's not a benefit like CHB.
Without opening up another debate it is formally a benefit.

[Hibbyradge]

Without opening up another debate it is formally a benefit.

Yes, you're right.

However, we all pay NIC towards our state pensions so that part is earned.

CHB is a pure give away.

If there was to be any change regarding means testing, it would be to scrap it for CHB rather than apply it to SRP

[Ozyhibby]

I’d be happy if they brought the pension up to the EU average.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Moulin Yarns]

The living wage I assume, includes a calculation for mortgage and rent, which most people who receive the state pension are unlikely to need to pay, so for me, no.

What annoys me about the state pension is that it's untouchable.

A couple where the main earner earns 60k gets no child benefit, but a pensioner could earn whatever they like and not have any of it taken back.

The last paragraph, I'm a pensioner and pay income tax the same as you presumably do, above the tax allowance.

[Stairway 2 7]

I’d be happy if they brought the pension up to the EU average.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'd be happy to pay more tax for higher pensions. In Europe alot of your pension is dependent on how much you earned and put in, most aren't a flat rate like ours.

Best marker would be how much a nations lowest pension is, I've no idea what that is fwiw

[Jack]

A heads up for those concerned about pensions - that should be everyone!

MUST WATCH TELLY TONIGHT! 8pm The Martin Lewis Money Show Live. It ain't sexy, but it's damn important.

90min Everything you've ever wanted to know about pensions but were afraid (or didn't know who) to ask special.

Incl urgent £10,000s state pension boost, how to get & use your pension and more

[heretoday]

Martin Lewis should be PM.

[Hibs4185]

As far as I’m concerned private pensions are a con. Unless you are in employment where your employer contributes a fair whack every week then you are better having your own pension invested in the stock market or similar. There’s a number of providers online or invested in property where you get rent every month as your income.

[danhibees1875]

As far as I’m concerned private pensions are a con. Unless you are in employment where your employer contributes a fair whack every week then you are better having your own pension invested in the stock market or similar. There’s a number of providers online or invested in property where you get rent every month as your income.

Private pensions are invested in the stock market, via chosen funds, and additionally come with tax relief.

Property generally sounds like more hassle than it's worth these days.

[James310]

As far as I’m concerned private pensions are a con. Unless you are in employment where your employer contributes a fair whack every week then you are better having your own pension invested in the stock market or similar. There’s a number of providers online or invested in property where you get rent every month as your income.

The employer contribution is basically free money, you should take it. It's invested in the stock market anyway. Some employers will contribute more the more you contribute as well so it's worth checking out. And as another poster said it's all taken out before tax so reduces your tax bill.

This is assuming you are not in some kind of final salary or career average scheme and in a typical defined contribution scheme.

[WeeRussell]

As far as I’m concerned private pensions are a con. Unless you are in employment where your employer contributes a fair whack every week then you are better having your own pension invested in the stock market or similar. There’s a number of providers online or invested in property where you get rent every month as your income.

They’re not - as someone who was never great with money, the best thing financial decision I ever made was to pay the maximum amount I could into my pension that would still be matched x2 by my employer. I’m now used to it, and don’t notice the difference especially with tax savings etc. When you see how it adds up and the projections (albeit nothing guaranteed) on your annual statement it makes it seem very worthwhile.

I used to be sceptical too (even attempted to opt out at first) but my advice to anyone would be to put into a pension as early as possible in their career, and no not opt-out of automatic enrolment… assuming said person can afford the savings obviously.

[Berwickhibby]

They’re not - as someone who was never great with money, the best thing financial decision I ever made was to pay the maximum amount I could into my pension that would still be matched x2 by my employer. I’m now used to it, and don’t notice the difference especially with tax savings etc. When you see how it adds up and the projections (albeit nothing guaranteed) on your annual statement it makes it seem very worthwhile.

I used to be sceptical too (even attempted to opt out at first) but my advice to anyone would be to put into a pension as early as possible in their career, and no not opt-out of automatic enrolment… assuming said person can afford the savings obviously.

100% agree…. Because I paid initially 11% gross then latterly 15% gross I was able to take my pension at 50 and retire. Not the largest pension in the world but once topped up with my state pension it will be enough to live on.

[WeeRussell]

100% agree…. Because I paid initially 11% gross then latterly 15% gross I was able to take my pension at 50 and retire. Not the largest pension in the world but once topped up with my state pension it will be enough to live on.

👍 that’s what it’s all about. When I was young and naive I just told myself I would be in a good enough job and earn enough over the years that I wouldn’t be bothered about a pension.

But when the time comes, if like you, I have enough that I can retire at a decent age.. live a simple life and play golf most days rather than work - that’s huge.

[CropleyWasGod]

Think there's different experiences talking here.

Most people seem to be employees, with employer contributions, which of course is attractive.

I am guessing that Hibs4185 is maybe self-employed, which is a different experience altogether. There is obviously no employer contribution, which makes it so much more difficult to fund retirement. In that scenario, I can understand why they might see property as being more effective.

[Santa Cruz]

If you worked somewhere that is no longer a business, paid into a pension which was then preserved and you didn't transfer that over to your next job, is there an organisation that holds details of how you get info on that pension?

[CropleyWasGod]

If you worked somewhere that is no longer a business, paid into a pension which was then preserved and you didn't transfer that over to your next job, is there an organisation that holds details of how you get info on that pension?

If you know the name of the pension provider, they will have that info.

[James310]

If you worked somewhere that is no longer a business, paid into a pension which was then preserved and you didn't transfer that over to your next job, is there an organisation that holds details of how you get info on that pension?

https://www.gov.uk/find-pension-contact-details

Pension Tracing Service
Telephone: 0800 731 0193

[Santa Cruz]

If you know the name of the pension provider, they will have that info.

Not sure, thanks anyway.

[Santa Cruz]

https://www.gov.uk/find-pension-contact-details

Pension Tracing Service
Telephone: 0800 731 0193

Thank you, I was thinking/hoping something like this might exist.

[WeeRussell]

Think there's different experiences talking here.

Most people seem to be employees, with employer contributions, which of course is attractive.

I am guessing that Hibs4185 is maybe self-employed, which is a different experience altogether. There is obviously no employer contribution, which makes it so much more difficult to fund retirement. In that scenario, I can understand why they might see property as being more effective.

Fair point. That’s maybe what he meant when used the term ‘private pensions’ now I read it back 👍

[Moulin Yarns]

Thank you, I was thinking/hoping something like this might exist.

I was contacted more than 30 years after I left a company and moved house by one of the large finance companies that run private pensions. I'm guessing that they found me by my NI number.

Took a bit of paperwork but I get a monthly payment.

[OldEast]

They’re not - as someone who was never great with money, the best thing financial decision I ever made was to pay the maximum amount I could into my pension that would still be matched x2 by my employer. I’m now used to it, and don’t notice the difference especially with tax savings etc. When you see how it adds up and the projections (albeit nothing guaranteed) on your annual statement it makes it seem very worthwhile.

I used to be sceptical too (even attempted to opt out at first) but my advice to anyone would be to put into a pension as early as possible in their career, and no not opt-out of automatic enrolment… assuming said person can afford the savings obviously.

Correct. I took a private pension at 55 because I thought it was all a bit of a con and the money was better in my pocket. Worst financial decision of my life. Should have kept it going to receive the employers contribution and tax benefits already mentioned.

[Hibs4185]

Think there's different experiences talking here.

Most people seem to be employees, with employer contributions, which of course is attractive.

I am guessing that Hibs4185 is maybe self-employed, which is a different experience altogether. There is obviously no employer contribution, which makes it so much more difficult to fund retirement. In that scenario, I can understand why they might see property as being more effective.

Yes apologies I should’ve perhaps made it clearer. For example
My father who just passed paid £65,000 into his private pension. He was paid around £40,000 over 10 years and now that he has passed the annuity stops.

If he had invested £65,000 in property over the 30 odd years, he would’ve had an income and then when he passed we could’ve sold the assets and had that benefit.

If you are employed, as I said, it’s a no brainer as the employer pays into your pension. Public sector pension is of course even better.

If you are self employed or have spare cash then there are far better options than a basic private pension.

I just think Aviva etc are kind of Ponzi schemes, they get your cash, invest it, earn 5% PA interest, pay you less than they earn and then keep your money when you die.

[tamig]

As far as I’m concerned private pensions are a con. Unless you are in employment where your employer contributes a fair whack every week then you are better having your own pension invested in the stock market or similar. There’s a number of providers online or invested in property where you get rent every month as your income.

You’ve just described a private pension there. Not sure where the con element comes into it?

[tamig]

Yes apologies I should’ve perhaps made it clearer. For example
My father who just passed paid £65,000 into his private pension. He was paid around £40,000 over 10 years and now that he has passed the annuity stops.

If he had invested £65,000 in property over the 30 odd years, he would’ve had an income and then when he passed we could’ve sold the assets and had that benefit.

If you are employed, as I said, it’s a no brainer as the employer pays into your pension. Public sector pension is of course even better.

If you are self employed or have spare cash then there are far better options than a basic private pension.

I just think Aviva etc are kind of Ponzi schemes, they get your cash, invest it, earn 5% PA interest, pay you less than they earn and then keep your money when you die.

They only keep your money if you’ve purchased an annuity - which isn’t the only retirement option available these days.

[WeeRussell]

Yes apologies I should’ve perhaps made it clearer. For example
My father who just passed paid £65,000 into his private pension. He was paid around £40,000 over 10 years and now that he has passed the annuity stops.

If he had invested £65,000 in property over the 30 odd years, he would’ve had an income and then when he passed we could’ve sold the assets and had that benefit.

If you are employed, as I said, it’s a no brainer as the employer pays into your pension. Public sector pension is of course even better.

If you are self employed or have spare cash then there are far better options than a basic private pension.

I just think Aviva etc are kind of Ponzi schemes, they get your cash, invest it, earn 5% PA interest, pay you less than they earn and then keep your money when you die.

Yep, definite downside to an annuity but I think they are becoming less popular.

Probably venturing into the necessity for financial advice territory now - but I understand your apprehension given the above example however paying into a pension on the whole definitely isn’t a con. Quite the opposite in my opinion, as too many people vastly underestimate the importance of retirement savings. Granted you’ve provided an alternative to putting into a fund, and the employer contribution is definitely the main factor for me 👍

I’m sorry to hear of your recent loss, mate.

[GlesgaeHibby]

Yes apologies I should’ve perhaps made it clearer. For example
My father who just passed paid £65,000 into his private pension. He was paid around £40,000 over 10 years and now that he has passed the annuity stops.

If he had invested £65,000 in property over the 30 odd years, he would’ve had an income and then when he passed we could’ve sold the assets and had that benefit.

If you are employed, as I said, it’s a no brainer as the employer pays into your pension. Public sector pension is of course even better.

If you are self employed or have spare cash then there are far better options than a basic private pension.

I just think Aviva etc are kind of Ponzi schemes, they get your cash, invest it, earn 5% PA interest, pay you less than they earn and then keep your money when you die.

Disagree on this. It's all about risk, and typically those choosing a lifetime annuity value certainty and somebody else carrying the risk for their investment performance / them living well beyond average life expectancy. I personally wouldn't choose this approach, but I can see why some do.

I also think that financial education should be a key part of the school curriculum for senior secondary school students. If teenagers are taught about the power of compound interest, they can get into good financial habits from a young age. I didn't properly educate myself on investing until a few years ago, and wish I had done it sooner (although it's never too late).

[WhileTheChief..]

Yes apologies I should’ve perhaps made it clearer. For example
My father who just passed paid £65,000 into his private pension. He was paid around £40,000 over 10 years and now that he has passed the annuity stops.

If he had invested £65,000 in property over the 30 odd years, he would’ve had an income and then when he passed we could’ve sold the assets and had that benefit.

If you are employed, as I said, it’s a no brainer as the employer pays into your pension. Public sector pension is of course even better.

If you are self employed or have spare cash then there are far better options than a basic private pension.

I just think Aviva etc are kind of Ponzi schemes, they get your cash, invest it, earn 5% PA interest, pay you less than they earn and then keep your money when you die.

Don't go there with the Ponzi chat. It's not remotely close and the word Ponzi gets flung around way too often. Scaring people off private pensions is not a good thing to be doing!

You're talking about annuities and mortality risk. Some folk die a day after retiring, some live to 100+. That same pension pot pays out for life, so yeah, there will be some winner and losers.

But nobody buys annuities these days ( ok, almost nobody). It's all about income drawdown, and you'll pay less than 1.5% per annum with most providers.

As a higher rate tax payer when saving, you're getting an immediate 40% uplift on your investment before any growth. There's not many investments can deliver that. Hell, even if you left your contribution in cash it would take years to get that same return elsewhere.

Property may work for some but there's no gaurantee of an income from it, it costs a lot more to run and you never know what the market might be like when you need cash. You'll certainly not be getting access to it quickly.

So for the vast majority of people, self-employed or not, a private pension is almost a must. Or wealthy parents / family!

[WhileTheChief..]

If you worked somewhere that is no longer a business, paid into a pension which was then preserved and you didn't transfer that over to your next job, is there an organisation that holds details of how you get info on that pension?

https://www.gov.uk/find-pension-contact-details

Takes a few mins to complete the form online.

Once you track it down, get in touch and ask for an up to date valuation. Take care if considering transferring it, even if it's only a small pot.

Older pensions can have some valuable benefits attached to them that would be lost on transferring.

[Santa Cruz]

https://www.gov.uk/find-pension-contact-details

Takes a few mins to complete the form online.

Once you track it down, get in touch and ask for an up to date valuation. Take care if considering transferring it, even if it's only a small pot.

Older pensions can have some valuable benefits attached to them that would be lost on transferring.

Thanks to you and MY for the replies.

[DH1875]

I thought that if you had a hefty private pension it did effect how much state pension you get.

[Zondervan]

Yep, definite downside to an annuity but I think they are becoming less popular.

Probably venturing into the necessity for financial advice territory now - but I understand your apprehension given the above example however paying into a pension on the whole definitely isn’t a con. Quite the opposite in my opinion, as too many people vastly underestimate the importance of retirement savings. Granted you’ve provided an alternative to putting into a fund, and the employer contribution is definitely the main factor for me [emoji106]

I’m sorry to hear of your recent loss, mate.

Annuity sales (surprisingly) have risen quite significantly in the last 12-18 months. Think around 15% or thereabouts.

What tends to happen is that pensioners will blend an annuity with drawdown. The Annuity will be set up to guarantee the annual costs of essential bills such as council tax, energy etc. The drawdown can then be accessed as needed for the luxuries in life/retirement.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Santa Cruz]

I thought that if you had a hefty private pension it did effect how much state pension you get.

State Pension isn't means tested. The amount you receive is dependant on the amount of N.I contributions made either through employment or qualifying state benefits.

Think those who don't qualify for the full state pension can apply for pension credits which is a means tested benefit.

[Hibs4185]

Don't go there with the Ponzi chat. It's not remotely close and the word Ponzi gets flung around way too often. Scaring people off private pensions is not a good thing to be doing!

You're talking about annuities and mortality risk. Some folk die a day after retiring, some live to 100+. That same pension pot pays out for life, so yeah, there will be some winner and losers.

But nobody buys annuities these days ( ok, almost nobody). It's all about income drawdown, and you'll pay less than 1.5% per annum with most providers.

As a higher rate tax payer when saving, you're getting an immediate 40% uplift on your investment before any growth. There's not many investments can deliver that. Hell, even if you left your contribution in cash it would take years to get that same return elsewhere.

Property may work for some but there's no gaurantee of an income from it, it costs a lot more to run and you never know what the market might be like when you need cash. You'll certainly not be getting access to it quickly.

So for the vast majority of people, self-employed or not, a private pension is almost a must. Or wealthy parents / family!

So granted there is different forms of pensions nowadays where you have more control and you can control the investments but the main providers Aviva, Prudential etc, it just seems they are on easy street.

People pay in, they invest your money, they make a return/profit, you build up a nest egg, they again make profit/interest form it, they pay you less than they make it, repeat for the rest of your life and when you die they keep all the cash.

I think when they pay your annuity they hardly ever dip into your pot. Your annuity is paid from their investment products so when you die they essentially inherit your pot.

They also have the benefit of having had your cash for Years before you retire so they’ve also used that cash for investment purposes.

If you look at when Liz truss nearly bankrupted the country, it was the pension funds most at risk.

Maybe I’m talking about old private pensions, they are so many different private options nowadays but these pensions just do not stack up for me. I’d rather have £200k of managed property paying me 5-10% PA.

[DH1875]

State Pension isn't means tested. The amount you receive is dependant on the amount of N.I contributions made either through employment or qualifying state benefits.


Is this due to change at some point in the future. Thought it was one of the reasons we had to pay into a work place pension.

[Santa Cruz]

Is this due to change at some point in the future. Thought it was one of the reasons we had to pay into a work place pension.

Not sure. Guessing the reason for introducing auto-enrolment for occupational pension schemes was so when worker's retired they had more savings, so less people would be reliant on any means tested top up style benefits.

[BSEJVT]

I thought that if you had a hefty private pension it did effect how much state pension you get.

Not the case at all

[BSEJVT]

So granted there is different forms of pensions nowadays where you have more control and you can control the investments but the main providers Aviva, Prudential etc, it just seems they are on easy street.

People pay in, they invest your money, they make a return/profit, you build up a nest egg, they again make profit/interest form it, they pay you less than they make it, repeat for the rest of your life and when you die they keep all the cash.

I think when they pay your annuity they hardly ever dip into your pot. Your annuity is paid from their investment products so when you die they essentially inherit your pot.

They also have the benefit of having had your cash for Years before you retire so they’ve also used that cash for investment purposes.

If you look at when Liz truss nearly bankrupted the country, it was the pension funds most at risk.

Maybe I’m talking about old private pensions, they are so many different private options nowadays but these pensions just do not stack up for me. I’d rather have £200k of managed property paying me 5-10% PA.

You need to be very careful of misinforming people due to your prejudices / life experiences/ lack of understanding

A little understanding is truly a very dangerous thing

[Andy Bee]

So granted there is different forms of pensions nowadays where you have more control and you can control the investments but the main providers Aviva, Prudential etc, it just seems they are on easy street.

People pay in, they invest your money, they make a return/profit, you build up a nest egg, they again make profit/interest form it, they pay you less than they make it, repeat for the rest of your life and when you die they keep all the cash.

I think when they pay your annuity they hardly ever dip into your pot. Your annuity is paid from their investment products so when you die they essentially inherit your pot.

They also have the benefit of having had your cash for Years before you retire so they’ve also used that cash for investment purposes.

If you look at when Liz truss nearly bankrupted the country, it was the pension funds most at risk.

Maybe I’m talking about old private pensions, they are so many different private options nowadays but these pensions just do not stack up for me. I’d rather have £200k of managed property paying me 5-10% PA.

Property valued at £200k will never get you 5% - 10% PA or at least you'll have to work very hard to achieve that at the lower end. You'll have £13k in LBTT to pay on top just to purchase it as a second or more dwelling for starters. Add to that the management fee of 10% of the rent and that's being conservative, EICR certs, GSC, legionella certs, landlord insurance, repairs, Landlord Registration, periods of availability, non payment of rent, incoming legislation of a C EPC rating, income tax and upgrades that are not tax deductible. It's simply just not that easy as "I'd rather have £200k of managed property paying me 5-10% PA" If it is then you're cutting corners.

[WhileTheChief..]

So granted there is different forms of pensions nowadays where you have more control and you can control the investments but the main providers Aviva, Prudential etc, it just seems they are on easy street.

People pay in, they invest your money, they make a return/profit, you build up a nest egg, they again make profit/interest form it, they pay you less than they make it, repeat for the rest of your life and when you die they keep all the cash.

I think when they pay your annuity they hardly ever dip into your pot. Your annuity is paid from their investment products so when you die they essentially inherit your pot.

They also have the benefit of having had your cash for Years before you retire so they’ve also used that cash for investment purposes.

If you look at when Liz truss nearly bankrupted the country, it was the pension funds most at risk.

Maybe I’m talking about old private pensions, they are so many different private options nowadays but these pensions just do not stack up for me. I’d rather have £200k of managed property paying me 5-10% PA.

Ok, let’s try and answer some of the points you make…

I’ll use Aviva as an example. You pay into a choice of funds within the pension. Aviva will charge you a fee for running the pension, probably in the region of 0.3 - 0.7% of the value of your pension per annum.

You’ll then pay a fee to the fund manager company whose fund you are invested in. This may or may not be fun by Aviva and you could be in several different funds. Typically you’ll pay between 0.1% - 2.0% pa depending on your choice of fund.

Aviva make nothing more than their admin fee. If your investment goes up in value, they’ll make more as it’s % based, but they don’t have any of your cash to invest and they don’t have the use of it. That money you’ve invested has been used to buy units in the funds you’re invested in.

These units hold shares in companies, or bonds, or yes, sometimes property. When the value of the shares, or whatever assets are held in the fund, go up or down, so does the value of your pension.

Fast forward 30 years or so. All the money you’ve contributed, plus the tax relief you’ve enjoyed, plus any employer contributions, since day 1, has been invested and will have grown. You’’ll have benefited massively from compound growth and now you’re ready to take an income from it for the rest of your life.

No one buys annuities these days cause the rates are crap.

Income drawdown, you decide how much you want to take each month, and take it. You can increase or decrease this as much as you like whenever you want. Aviva still don’t have use of any of your money and you’re still only paying them the admin fee.

The only limit on how much you take out your pension, is when it might run out. That’s where careful planning and considering which funds to be invested in is critical.

When you die, any money left in the pot passes to your spouse or beneficiaries. When they die, if there’s money left, it passes on again. Repeat. Aviva get nowt!

If you’re approaching retirement age you really should call PensionWise or get some advice.

[Andy Bee]

Ok, let’s try and answer some of the points you make…

I’ll use Aviva as an example. You pay into a choice of funds within the pension. Aviva will charge you a fee for running the pension, probably in the region of 0.3 - 0.7% of the value of your pension per annum.

You’ll then pay a fee to the fund manager company whose fund you are invested in. This may or may not be fun by Aviva and you could be in several different funds. Typically you’ll pay between 0.1% - 2.0% pa depending on your choice of fund.

Aviva make nothing more than their admin fee. If your investment goes up in value, they’ll make more as it’s % based, but they don’t have any of your cash to invest and they don’t have the use of it. That money you’ve invested has been used to buy units in the funds you’re invested in.

These units hold shares in companies, or bonds, or yes, sometimes property. When the value of the shares, or whatever assets are held in the fund, go up or down, so does the value of your pension.

Fast forward 30 years or so. All the money you’ve contributed, plus the tax relief you’ve enjoyed, plus any employer contributions, since day 1, has been invested and will have grown. You’’ll have benefited massively from compound growth and now you’re ready to take an income from it for the rest of your life.

No one buys annuities these days cause the rates are crap.

Income drawdown, you decide how much you want to take each month, and take it. You can increase or decrease this as much as you like whenever you want. Aviva still don’t have use of any of your money and you’re still only paying them the admin fee.

The only limit on how much you take out your pension, is when it might run out. That’s where careful planning and considering which funds to be invested in is critical.

When you die, any money left in the pot passes to your spouse or beneficiaries. When they die, if there’s money left, it passes on again. Repeat. Aviva get nowt!

If you’re approaching retirement age you really should call PensionWise or get some advice.

One caveat....you need to name the beneficiaries to the pension supplier for it to pass on or it gets complicated.

Personally I'm sticking £100 on a Hibs win every week for the rest of my working life, it's as much a gamble as any pension but much more fun.

[Santa Cruz]

I've just been reading about a dashboard the DWP were due to launch in August but has now been delayed, that provides projections on state pension payments and links in all other types of pension schemes workers have paid into.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/pensions-dashboards-coming-soon-to-a-screen-near-you

[WhileTheChief..]

You can check what state pension you can expect to receive here…

https://www.gov.uk/check-state-pension

If you’ve been self employed, or have gaps in your NI contributions, you can pay in to it to ensure you get the max.

[Hibs4185]

One caveat....you need to name the beneficiaries to the pension supplier for it to pass on or it gets complicated.

Personally I'm sticking £100 on a Hibs win every week for the rest of my working life, it's as much a gamble as any pension but much more fun.

So thank you for clearing up some of my misconceptions about private pensions but when my dad retired 10 years ago, his CA helped him plan his retirement and he took out annuities.

I know 3 pots he had totalled around £100k and over 10 years he’s been paid around £50k.

I suppose 10 years ago there wasn’t as much awareness as there is now about these things.

I think one policy, my mum is named so she will inherit a payment of £175 p/m.

[DH1875]

The French seem to know how to go about making sure they all get their pension at a reasonable age.

[Stairway 2 7]

The French seem to know how to go about making sure they all get their pension at a reasonable age.

I thought it had been passed, I think the opposition were trying to oppose it though?

[DH1875]

I thought it had been passed, I think the opposition were trying to oppose it though?

No idea. Their rioting on the streets though.

[Stairway 2 7]

No idea. Their rioting on the streets though.

Yeah we just take it in this country unfortunately

[Glory Lurker]

I wonder how many tax-payer supported rich retired doctors will take advantage of the budget changes to fill their boots with this sort of thing?

https://twitter.com/guardian/status/1636852093456711680?cxt=HHwWgIC8xc-TorctAAAA

[Santa Cruz]

I wonder how many tax-payer supported rich retired doctors will take advantage of the budget changes to fill their boots with this sort of thing?

https://twitter.com/guardian/status/1636852093456711680?cxt=HHwWgIC8xc-TorctAAAA

Would be more likely to have resigned than retired, no?

I would like to see a rule applied to tax-payer funded uni places for medical uni degree courses, to restrict graduates to working in the NHS only for a set amount of years once they qualify. If they opt for private sector at any point before the agreed x amount of years they should then repay the cost of tuition fees imo.

[danhibees1875]

Would be more likely to have resigned than retired, no?

I would like to see a rule applied to tax-payer funded uni places for medical uni degree courses, to restrict graduates to working in the NHS only for a set amount of years once they qualify. If they opt for private sector at any point before the agreed x amount of years they should then repay the cost of tuition fees imo.

Am I going to be forced to do some public sector accounting under these proposals to give some value back to the tax payer? :greengrin

I understand where you're coming from, but I think that would only work if it were the case that medical related degrees were unique in being free/publically funded. That's not the case currently as all degrees have no tuition fees* so you'd be proposing a fee only for those who study medicine but didn't end up in the NHS.

I'm also not sure if there would be implications on medical degrees that focused on research or generally areas where employment in the NHS wasn't as possible (guesswork here - i don't know the industy).

The solution is in the financial carrot rather than the stick - pay in the NHS needs to be better/fairer. Of course, it's not as easy as that when you're trying to balance the books of the country unfortunately (as I'll soon find out under your regime of enforced public sector accounting :wink: ).

*I'm assuming we're talking Scotland here. rUK there are tuition fees but as far as I can see there's no discount on a degree within the field of medicine - so the same argument applies.

[Glory Lurker]

Would be more likely to have resigned than retired, no?

I would like to see a rule applied to tax-payer funded uni places for medical uni degree courses, to restrict graduates to working in the NHS only for a set amount of years once they qualify. If they opt for private sector at any point before the agreed x amount of years they should then repay the cost of tuition fees imo.

Resigned, yes. Sorry, a typically rushed/stream of consciousness post by me. The tax payer angle was also badly expressed - I was meaning how much the new arrangements will cost the tax payer, so wondering how much tax money will be lost helping docs rake in a big final pay day from a move to the private sector.

One day I'll post something on here that reads as I want it to!:greengrin

[Santa Cruz]

Am I going to be forced to do some public sector accounting under these proposals to give some value back to the tax payer? :greengrin

I understand where you're coming from, but I think that would only work if it were the case that medical related degrees were unique in being free/publically funded. That's not the case currently as all degrees have no tuition fees* so you'd be proposing a fee only for those who study medicine but didn't end up in the NHS.

I'm also not sure if there would be implications on medical degrees that focused on research or generally areas where employment in the NHS wasn't as possible (guesswork here - i don't know the industy).

The solution is in the financial carrot rather than the stick - pay in the NHS needs to be better/fairer. Of course, it's not as easy as that when you're trying to balance the books of the country unfortunately (as I'll soon find out under your regime of enforced public sector accounting :wink: ).

*I'm assuming we're talking Scotland here. rUK there are tuition fees but as far as I can see there's no discount on a degree within the field of medicine - so the same argument applies.

I'm not sure I fully understand all your points, basically down to my lack of understanding, not your ability to articulate the points well :greengrin

I heard a Labour politician say the pension change that only really benefitted wealthy people, could have been applied solely to the NHS as a means to retain Doctor's who were leaving due to concerns to do with pension rules. I'd apply the same prinicple with medical graduates - specific rules to retain them in all clinical roles where retention is a problem. In Scotland where tuition fees are free, repaying fees would be an option. In RoUk they maybe need to look at offering free tuition fees for these courses as an incentive to encourage more to train in fields where there are gaps in the workforce, then apply the same rules.

I agree fair pay is important, what I don't understand is how paying people more money who are overworked (in relation to this point specifically, possibly due to working in the NHS and Private Sector - two jobs) prevents burnout.

I'm not sure I've answered your points well, but I tried :greengrin apologies for taking this thread of topic, maybe due to being more frustated than most having been on a waiting list longer than I would have hoped.

[Moulin Yarns]

I wonder how many tax-payer supported rich retired doctors will take advantage of the budget changes to fill their boots with this sort of thing?

https://twitter.com/guardian/status/1636852093456711680?cxt=HHwWgIC8xc-TorctAAAA

Well, I asked my neighbour, retired radiologist, and it would take a lot more than that to get him thinking about returning to work.

[Santa Cruz]

Resigned, yes. Sorry, a typically rushed/stream of consciousness post by me. The tax payer angle was also badly expressed - I was meaning how much the new arrangements will cost the tax payer, so wondering how much tax money will be lost helping docs rake in a big final pay day from a move to the private sector.

One day I'll post something on here that reads as I want it to!:greengrin

Likewise :aok:

[danhibees1875]

I'm not sure I fully understand all your points, basically down to my lack of understanding, not your ability to articulate the points well :greengrin

I heard a Labour politician say the pension change that only really benefitted wealthy people, could have been applied solely to the NHS as a means to retain Doctor's who were leaving due to concerns to do with pension rules. I'd apply the same prinicple with medical graduates - specific rules to retain them in all clinical roles where retention is a problem. In Scotland where tuition fees are free, repaying fees would be an option. In RoUk they maybe need to look at offering free tuition fees for these courses as an incentive to encourage more to train in fields where there are gaps in the workforce, then apply the same rules.

I agree fair pay is important, what I don't understand is how paying people more money who are overworked (in relation to this point specifically, possibly due to working in the NHS and Private Sector - two jobs) prevents burnout.

I'm not sure I've answered your points well, but I tried :greengrin apologies for taking this thread of topic, maybe due to being more frustated than most having been on a waiting list longer than I would have hoped.

It might be me. I've not slept much. :greengrin

Basically the problem, in my eyes, would be that the only set of students that would pay fees would be a section of medical students who choose not to work for a specific employer.

[Santa Cruz]

]It might be me.[/B] I've not slept much. :greengrin

Basically the problem, in my eyes, would be that the only set of students that would pay fees would be a section of medical students who choose not to work for a specific employer.

In the same boat. I'm even confusing myself now :greengrin

I think I know what you're saying. Yes that's their choice, they pay the fee's if they want to work in the private sector which I imagine pays better salaries. If they don't want to pay the fee's, Gov's will support that. Rules will apply to retain them in the public sector for x amount of years, so the investment made in their training from the public purse benefits the people who fund it. Really hope that makes sense, I'm off for a kip now :aok:

[Just Alf]

In the same boat. I'm even confusing myself now :greengrin

I think I know what you're saying. Yes that's their choice, they pay the fee's if they want to work in the private sector which I imagine pays better salaries. If they don't want to pay the fee's, Gov's will support that. Rules will apply to retain them in the public sector for x amount of years, so the investment made in their training from the public purse benefits the people who fund it. Really hope that makes sense, I'm off for a kip now :aok:Sleep easy my friend... that makes total sense!

[danhibees1875]

In the same boat. I'm even confusing myself now :greengrin

I think I know what you're saying. Yes that's their choice, they pay the fee's if they want to work in the private sector which I imagine pays better salaries. If they don't want to pay the fee's, Gov's will support that. Rules will apply to retain them in the public sector for x amount of years, so the investment made in their training from the public purse benefits the people who fund it. Really hope that makes sense, I'm off for a kip now :aok:

Hope you enjoyed your kip. :greengrin

Is it fair that they would have to pay tuition but someone studying law, accountancy, French, etc wouldn't?

[Santa Cruz]

Hope you enjoyed your kip. :greengrin

Is it fair that they would have to pay tuition but someone studying law, accountancy, French, etc wouldn't?

No idea, is there a massive shortage of public sector workers requiring these specific degrees?

[danhibees1875]

No idea, is there a massive shortage of public sector workers requiring these specific degrees?

Presumably not, I just don't think it's a particularly fair concept though. Pay for your medical degree but not for your law degree.

[Jack]

Presumably not, I just don't think it's a particularly fair concept though. Pay for your medical degree but not for your law degree.

I suppose an alternative scheme could see medical students receive an optional bursary, £x,000 a year, in addition to what is already provided to all students on the condition they commit to x years in the NHS.

I'm sure there are other employers doing similar already, the armed forces for example.

[danhibees1875]

I suppose an alternative scheme could see medical students receive an optional bursary, £x,000 a year, in addition to what is already provided to all students on the condition they commit to x years in the NHS.

I'm sure there are other employers doing similar already, the armed forces for example.

Potentially.

Larger salaries provided throughout NHS would presumably be a similar incentive.

I guess there's maybe an alternative that a one-off sweetener to get them "in the door" is a more cost efficient way to bump the numbers. It's not universally true but I feel attrition rates of vocational workplaces should in theory be lower.