Pension contributions - how much?

13»

Comments

  • pblakeney
    pblakeney Posts: 27,495
    PBlakeney wrote:
    Dippydog3 wrote:
    ....
    So, depsite being a higher rate tax payer I would rather pump money into an ISA. with good choices you should be able to grow it at 10 to 20% per annum.......
    You could be correct about the rules in the future but things as they stand are favourable towards pensions.

    Please enlighten us to the ISA that is performing at 10-20%.
    I, and I imagine quite a few others, would be very, very interested.
    I have various ISAs and beating 5% would be an improvement at the moment.

    I suppose it is as well that I never held my breath.
    Still waiting in anticipation though....
    The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
    I am not sure. You have no chance.
    Veronese68 wrote:
    PB is the most sensible person on here.
  • Anonymous
    Anonymous Posts: 79,666
    VTech wrote:
    Putting aside the thoughts of those apposed to my every word.

    Serious question. Who suffers more ?

    Someone who is loaded through clever/lucky opportunity or someone who is broke and spends their life biatchin at the well off ?

    Noone is bitching about anything. Merely questioning the realism of your claims.

    Asian people also work incredibly hard (I met a taxi driver who was working 20h days - taxiing on top of his day job) to pay his mortgage and also to repay friends who had lent the money to him.

    Find me a 1st time buyer who can buy a house with a 20K loan and 5% of their gross income. It ain't gonna happen.

    I can get 15% of my gross salary invested into a pension which costs me 4% of my net (or so). That's the reason people do it. If I had loads of money to take home and the end of the day I would have stocks and shares ISAs and other investments. I'm not bitching nor am I complaining. It's kinda the way it is. I admit I could be more ruthless with my outgoings, but I am not.
  • bianchimoon
    bianchimoon Posts: 3,942
    VTech wrote:
    Putting aside the thoughts of those apposed to my every word.

    Serious question. Who suffers more ?

    Someone who is loaded through clever/lucky opportunity or someone who is broke and spends their life biatchin at the well off ?


    why does anyone have to suffer in your scenario?, plenty of miserable rich folk, plenty of miserable poor folk, plenty of 'loaded' people not happy cos they want to be more loaded, look at bernie eccelston all that money for example, is he happier than me.. I doubt it, is he taller than me, definately not, all that money and all the people around him tell him how nice his hair looks, and he believes them :D
    All lies and jest..still a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest....
  • I wouldn't recommend diving into buy to let now, the market (especially London) is too pumped up.

    Best to wait for a dip or a distressed seller / doerupper.
  • mamba80
    mamba80 Posts: 5,032
    VTech wrote:
    This was many years ago when 110% mortgages were readily availible. This would have been an awesome investment opportunity and indeed very correct.

    Putting aside the thoughts of those apposed to my every word.

    Serious question. Who suffers more ?

    Someone who is loaded through clever/lucky opportunity or someone who is broke and spends their life biatchin at the well off ?

    I certainly don't oppose your every word and neither am I naïve but the vast majority of people in this country cannot buy an additional house, no matter how hard they work.
    A Pension is done for them so they buy into them but I believe that as this generation reaches retirement age, our political masters will have to address the scam that is the pensions industry, if they don't, they wont get voted in, millions have bought into these "schemes" and they have a vote - already Cameron has had to change the rules on these things and I reckon they ll be more come, probably in the way of claims against the pensions industry, similar to PPI, there again, I may be naïve in this belief or is it hope :)
  • bianchimoon
    bianchimoon Posts: 3,942
    I think the new pension rules and the fact that you no longer HAVE to buy an anuity are an excellent idea, it's really wound the pensions companies up, and rightly given the private pension holder the power to take control.
    All lies and jest..still a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest....
  • whoof wrote:
    Currently have a works scheme that I pay 7.5% into and an additional one that I also pay 7.5% into.
    I have two worries regarding pensions.
    1. When I started the works scheme the retirement age was 65, then 66 then 67. Currently it's 67 or 68 and will be reviewed every five years so I can see it getting to somewhere in the mid-70s, will I ever get their?

    I thought that it's not the retirement age that changes as such, it's the age at which the state pension is payable. You could still retire earlier if your savings allow.
  • Stevo 666 wrote:
    @verylonglegs - most people probably do it because their employer contributes to a fund.

    SIPP's accept employer contributions so it depends how flexible your employer is I suppose.
  • pliptrot
    pliptrot Posts: 582
    It is dispiriting -perhaps amazingly British- that this discussion has fallen into an exchange about how property is the way to prosper. The total focus on that suggests we think property is the only way ahead. If so, The UK will continue to fall further behind and we will be increasingly exposed to - and controlled by- the rich who own that which 95% do not. Private pension provision is a scandal by every possible consideration, but the obsession with property as the alternative is even more damaging.
  • For investing big sums, look at ETF's (Exchange Traded Funds). Better than High Street offers and less risky than property. As ever, you'll need to do your own research to decide if it suits you.
  • VTech
    VTech Posts: 4,736
    pliptrot wrote:
    It is dispiriting -perhaps amazingly British- that this discussion has fallen into an exchange about how property is the way to prosper. The total focus on that suggests we think property is the only way ahead. If so, The UK will continue to fall further behind and we will be increasingly exposed to - and controlled by- the rich who own that which 95% do not. Private pension provision is a scandal by every possible consideration, but the obsession with property as the alternative is even more damaging.


    You have without doubt hit the nail on the head.
    I guess it comes down to wether to not you can live with being a "locust type" for the sake of having a more "comfortable life". I use the word "comfortable" due to the fact that money has never made me happy if I'm honest. It has allowed me to buy a couple of items that give instant pleasure as with us all but I've actually only found money to cause me trouble.
    Living MY dream.
  • mamba80
    mamba80 Posts: 5,032
    pliptrot wrote:
    It is dispiriting -perhaps amazingly British- that this discussion has fallen into an exchange about how property is the way to prosper. The total focus on that suggests we think property is the only way ahead. If so, The UK will continue to fall further behind and we will be increasingly exposed to - and controlled by- the rich who own that which 95% do not. Private pension provision is a scandal by every possible consideration, but the obsession with property as the alternative is even more damaging.

    You may be right but given that it is, for the majority, impossible to work and save enough for retirement and Pensions are a scam, what alternative is there?
    Its all very well saying x or y is wrong but we need answers.
    For me, that would require a change to a PR voting system, so we are not going to be governed by the minority of the electorate, but that's another thread :)