Idaho
blah blah blah
A community managing their own affairs and sharing resources and risks? Yes I suppose it is communism of a sort. Although there isn't much in the way of industry.
Global financial system implosion begins
- Thread starter Falcon
- Start date
ska invita
back on the other side
Yes there's ethical and moral issues to be worked out by people. I don't begrudge a working class person having a pension, dirty blood money though much of it is.... I'm not impressed by people making careers and fortunes off this endless scam though, that's another level. One way of accessing state support I guess, live off those too big to fail.
There are other ways to live life and give your energies. Might be a simplistic slogan but if you're not part of the solution you're part of the problem is a shorthand way of working out the balance sheet on this one.
I understand the comprises we all make in life. Still the reasoning that if I don't someone else will has been there through every horror of history, it's pretty worn out.
I find it amazing how much land the nobles still have.
strung out
💩 🤣 🍆 💦 🧐 👻 🐝 🐈⬛
Sure, but my response was a reply to your comment to kabbes that if you 'can't beat them join em eh?', implying some kind of disapproval of his approach that it makes sense for normal people to ride that horse.
The majority of people who have pensions nowadays need to manage a significant six figure pot of money to ensure that they are able to retire with enough money to see them through until they die. Kabbes' comment was (I thought) a recognition of the fact that everybody has to participate in that game in order to maximise their ability to live a relatively comfortable life in retirement, rather than an endorsement of the Warren Buffetts and Neil Woodfords (lol) of this world.
Idaho
blah blah blah
Surely state money is the dirtiest blood money there is? The state is the agency waging wars and locking people up.
Well, exactly. It’d be lovely to just have a defined benefit pension scheme (even more so if backed by the state) but few of us have that any more. So if you want to retire even at 65 on £20,000 a year between the two of you, you’re going to need to be making decisions about what to do with something like a £500,000 total fund. Add 50% to that if it’s a mighty £15,000 each.
Yes, these pension pots are large sums but that’s the position we’re forced into. The responsibility for it is pushed back onto us. And if you’re fortunate enough to build up that pension fund (whether it be actually in a pension fund or in other savings vehicles), it makes sense to take an active interest in how to invest it.
Yuwipi Woman
Whack-A-Mole Queen
I know I've mentioned it before, but I think that kids need to be educated about money, saving, and investing for retirement before they leave school. I know its controversial in some circles, but I feel that the system isn't going to change for the better any time soon. To prepare kids for the onslaught of vultures intent on taking as much away from you as possible, seems to be a necessary evil. Otherwise, you leave people unprotected from "investment counselors" , "fund managers", bankers and other assorted villains.
How Bad Might It Get? Think the Great Depression
Bloomberg Opinion. April 22, 2020
Bloomberg Opinion. April 22, 2020
1920/30s but yes, grim
not-bono-ever
meh
capitalist pigdogs shaking in their boots*
*unless they have already dumped their assets elsewhere
*unless they have already dumped their assets elsewhere
"We learn from history that we do not learn from history." The Fed should've let LTCM fall.
You could be right though kabbes.
Artaxerxes
Look out, he's got a gnu!
I ain't laughing.
Flavour
hang the bankers
people - lots of people - will continue to make enormous profits despite the turmoil. oil prices go up? there are people and companies making massive profits from that. oil prices go down? there are ETFs designed to be inverse to oil - i.e. if the oil price goes down, the people holding several complex financial instruments will benefit. make no mistake: this crisis, which will last for a long time, will crush lots of household names and bring lots of companies to their knees. but look at what's happening to the stock market right now: the US announces 4 million new unemployed, which until a few weeks ago would have been a record breaking monstrosity, but now... it's the new normal. it's "not as bad last week"... and the Dow Jones/NASDAQ are up. it's totally bizarre and disconnected from reality. so no, i'm not sure this will be the crisis to bring down capitalism once and for all. mainly because, as fisher said, it's almost impossible to imagine the alternative. all this stuff with governments ceding to demands for basic income and stuff... it ain't socialism in the slightest. it's a tool to protect the legitimacy of the system wherein unemployment goes up in line with stock market futures.
Last edited:
Mark Fisher? And is there a missing word? Impossible?
Flavour
hang the bankers
yes and yes
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
a good line. but utter bollocks.
Flavour
hang the bankers
which bit is utter bollocks? that basic income is a tool to protect capitalism? haven't fully understood you
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
That futures rise in line with unemployment
Flavour
hang the bankers
In the short term that's what has been happening right now for some companies who've taken this opportunity to reassure their shareholders that they will weather the storm (in part by firing x% of their workforce.) So far nearly every company on the S&P500, the FTSE and the NASDAQ is still trying to recover the losses of the march 16-17 crash, so sure, they're not really "up" but certainly not continuing to go down uniformly. While in the long run this massive unemployment will certainly depress the economy for years to come, what I was commenting on is that when new jobless figures are announced in the US every week there is no immediate discernible impact on the financial markets (including but not limited to futures)
I know you are aware and it doesn’t change the general point that you are making but to be clearer to others, in the UK these amounts are on top of a basic state pension for a married couple of £14,000 a year so the figures you are quoting is not retiring on £20k a year, it would be £34k a year (I.e. more than the national median wage from full time employment), and generally someone who has retired spends a lot less than someone working full time. Based on your £20k per annum and your suggestion you need a pension pot of 25 times that, would put that fund at £150k after taking account of the state pension for a married couple.
... assuming that you both worked for enough years to build up that credit, of course. Otherwise it’s half that. You can’t have it both ways if you want to talk about median wage — the median disposable income per household is about 30,000, which implies that the median state pension per household will be in the region of 30/24 x 7 = 8.75, but call it 10. The other 20 to match median income per household will need to come from a private pension. Which takes you back to my need to fund 20,000 per couple.
If you were both on a median 24k and get the full 7k state pension each, that leaves you with a shortfall of 34k between you at retirement, whereas I was comparing that to a private pension of 30k.
If you were both on a median 24k and get the full 7k state pension each, that leaves you with a shortfall of 34k between you at retirement, whereas I was comparing that to a private pension of 30k.
I think your figures are a bit tricky to follow what you are trying to convey, but yes, in the first instance if they wanted an income (not disposable income) of £30,000 they would need a pension pot to generate income of £20k and in the second example if they want to maintain an income of £48k, there would be a shortfall of £34k which was what your earlier examples where trying to show.
My point was just to highlight that your figures were in addition to a state pension and also that people generally don’t need as much income as they do during their working life.
platinumsage
HaveMyPassword123
What will the state pension be in e.g. 2048? People would also need to cover the risk of it being less than it is now, or means-tested.
Yes, I did think that I could caveat that state pension may not exist in the future or that the value of it may reduce etc. but didn’t think I needed to to note that kabbes’ figures were in addition to any state pension. My figures were just an example, they weren’t meant to be definitive or to be taken as financial advice.
Hopefully in the future we'll look at funding retirement the way people in the USA worry about medical bills.
Covid-19 kills Japan’s coveted trade surplus
April 24, 2020
Trade surplus collapse of 99% in March is a telling sign of the economic pain to come in Japan
Covid-19 kills Japan’s coveted trade surplus
April 24, 2020
Trade surplus collapse of 99% in March is a telling sign of the economic pain to come in Japan
This is a common misstatement/misunderstanding of the standard advice, to be honest. Generally, for the average person, one aims at 2/3 of final salary for the non-state element of the pension. It’s not that the whole pension (including the state part) can be less than average income. There are two parts to that advice:
1) One is typically (and typical is where the advice is aimed) at peak salary just before retirement. It’s not comparable to average income; and
2) Don’t forget your own point, that the state pension is part of the total! Even if you ignore point 1 and concentrate on the median salary of 24k, receiving 2/3 of this (18k) and adding on the state pension (7k) takes you back to 25k in total. Or median household income x 2/3 = 20k and add 10k state pension to get back to 30
Last edited:
Similar threads
