Wages down 2% from April - pension

[Anna B]

Roughly, a pension pot of around £100,000 could provide an income of about £5,000 in retirement, although the exact amount would depend on individual circumstances such as health, precise age and how somebody chose's to draw an income.

 

How many low income people can achieve a pension pot of £100,000 when they retire, combined with employer contributions? Not many, even with a lifetime of contributions.

 

Someone looking to achieve an income of £27,000 a year at retirement would need a pension pot of around £500,000, whereas if you wanted an income of £40,000, you’d need a pension pot of around £1m.

 

The poor will simply be paying towards their own state pension with auto enrolment, despite what any current government states.

 

---------- Post added 13-04-2018 at 09:01 ----------

 

 

People at the lower end of the income scale are the REAL wealth creators, through low paid hard work, which enhances growth and stimulates cash flow in the economy by the spending of their wages. Those at the top of the income scale, and many in the middle these days, keep economic growth low by saving their income and refusing to redistribute wealth. Preferring instead to invest in property (raising property prices) and investing in stocks and shares.

 

The least well paid jobs are often the most socially valuable. People at the bottom end of the income scale work harder, do work that is more valuable to society than those at the top and redistribute their wealth more, to the benefit of the economy.

 

Excellent post.

[BoroB]

Roughly, a pension pot of around £100,000 could provide an income of about £5,000 in retirement, although the exact amount would depend on individual circumstances such as health, precise age and how somebody chose's to draw an income.

 

How many low income people can achieve a pension pot of £100,000 when they retire, combined with employer contributions? Not many, even with a lifetime of contributions.

 

Someone looking to achieve an income of £27,000 a year at retirement would need a pension pot of around £500,000, whereas if you wanted an income of £40,000, you’d need a pension pot of around £1m.

 

The poor will simply be paying towards their own state pension with auto enrolment, despite what any current government states.

 

---------- Post added 13-04-2018 at 09:01 ----------

 

 

People at the lower end of the income scale are the REAL wealth creators, through low paid hard work, which enhances growth and stimulates cash flow in the economy by the spending of their wages. Those at the top of the income scale, and many in the middle these days, keep economic growth low by saving their income and refusing to redistribute wealth. Preferring instead to invest in property (raising property prices) and investing in stocks and shares.

 

The least well paid jobs are often the most socially valuable. People at the bottom end of the income scale work harder, do work that is more valuable to society than those at the top and redistribute their wealth more, to the benefit of the economy.

 

I think your post is a little flawed.

 

People who save/invest are not stagnating the economy - they are making that capital available for others to use.

 

If someone saves money in a bank account then the bank will lend that money to businesses and to individuals via loans/mortgages/credit cards etc.

 

Said entities will then use the money they have borrowed to buy things from others.

 

If someone buys a property then the money paid for it does not disappear from the economy.

[ez8004]

Roughly, a pension pot of around £100,000 could provide an income of about £5,000 in retirement, although the exact amount would depend on individual circumstances such as health, precise age and how somebody chose's to draw an income.

 

How many low income people can achieve a pension pot of £100,000 when they retire, combined with employer contributions? Not many, even with a lifetime of contributions.

 

Someone looking to achieve an income of £27,000 a year at retirement would need a pension pot of around £500,000, whereas if you wanted an income of £40,000, you’d need a pension pot of around £1m.

 

The poor will simply be paying towards their own state pension with auto enrolment, despite what any current government states.

 

---------- Post added 13-04-2018 at 09:01 ----------

 

 

People at the lower end of the income scale are the REAL wealth creators, through low paid hard work, which enhances growth and stimulates cash flow in the economy by the spending of their wages. Those at the top of the income scale, and many in the middle these days, keep economic growth low by saving their income and refusing to redistribute wealth. Preferring instead to invest in property (raising property prices) and investing in stocks and shares.

 

The least well paid jobs are often the most socially valuable. People at the bottom end of the income scale work harder, do work that is more valuable to society than those at the top and redistribute their wealth more, to the benefit of the economy.

 

You have a very misguided view on what occupations there are. You take the totally absurd view that people who are well paid work less than those at the lower end of the salary scales. I work up to 90hrs a week and appropriately get paid £3200/week for it. I perform safety critical inspections which only about 180 other people in the country are qualified to do. It takes a university degree in an engineering discipline, years of experience and over £20k worth of independent training.

 

You have no idea what you are talking about. You’re going to tell me doctors are overpaid and don’t perform a service of value to society next. Go on, I dare you.

[El Cid]

What the government should be doing is massively increasing the tax take from affluent middle-class liberals in the higher tax bracket to pay for the pensions of the very low paid.

We need to squeeze the rich.

 

The rich should pay for the infrastructure and to educate those that cannot afford it. The lifestyle of the poor should not be subsidised.

[Anna B]

I think your post is a little flawed.

 

People who save/invest are not stagnating the economy - they are making that capital available for others to use.

 

If someone saves money in a bank account then the bank will lend that money to businesses and to individuals via loans/mortgages/credit cards etc.

 

Said entities will then use the money they have borrowed to buy things from others.

 

If someone buys a property then the money paid for it does not disappear from the economy.

 

I think you're wrong in that banks really aren't interested in small savers money, it's more trouble than it's worth. They'd much rather conjure money out of thin air to use for loans and mortgages, it's simply a blip on an electronic screen - When it's paid back by the recipient it becomes real money - it's the ultimate legal version of money laundering. The banks can't lend it out fast enough so that they can pocket the interest.

 

It's what caused the financial crash in 2008, and as lessons were never learned, it will do so again...

[Cyclone]

The rich should pay for the infrastructure and to educate those that cannot afford it. The lifestyle of the poor should not be subsidised.

 

I disagree to some level, the "lifestyle" of starving, shivering, having nowhere to call home, that should be subsidised until it doesn't exist. At least for the vast majority of the poor who are hard working.

The myth of the undeserving poor is something that the tories have sold, weirdly to the working class, who are themselves the closest to the poor (and indeed with a large crossover segment who are both working and poor).

[El Cid]

I disagree to some level, the "lifestyle" of starving, shivering, having nowhere to call home, that should be subsidised until it doesn't exist.

 

Are there any starving people in this country that have not caused it themselves?

Maybe a few hundred that have suffered illogical sanctions from our benefit system? Maybe immigrants that have come here, and then find that they are exploited?

[Cyclone]

Yes, there are many people below the poverty line and no they don't "cause it themselves".

Do some research, it's not difficult to find out how it can happen.

[El Cid]

Yes, there are many people below the poverty line and no they don't "cause it themselves".

Do some research, it's not difficult to find out how it can happen.

 

Below the poverty line is very different to saying that people are starving.

[Cyclone]

For example

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-40431701

 

https://www.trusselltrust.org/news-and-blog/latest-stats/

 

---------- Post added 14-04-2018 at 09:34 ----------

 

Below the poverty line is very different to saying that people are starving.

 

It's quite difficult to find stats on "starving", food bank use is probably a good indication that a person or family is struggling to buy enough food to survive.