I was rather smugly amused by the piece at reference 1 this morning.
In the olden days lots of people, myself included, were enrolled in defined benefits pension schemes. This tended to mean that one's pay slowly cranked up as one got older and that one's pension, defined as a growing fraction of one's final pay, slowly cranked up with it. Furthermore, that pension was protected against inflation and there was often a tax-free lump sum, perhaps the equivalent of a year's pay, as well.
Such people usually had a comfortable retirement. Quite possibly better off in many ways in retirement than they were when they were working and had all kinds of commitments. To the point where I was once lectured by a German about how all this was wrong and that things should be so arranged that one's pay peaked at about the same time as one's commitments, rather than twenty years later. Remove the crank!
While reference 1 explains how provision for retirement has been privatised. One has to think for oneself about how to build up a pension pot and one has to think for oneself - at a time when thinking is apt to be at a premium - about the right rate at which to spend that pot. Undershoot, and you are denying yourself all manner of good things. Overshoot, and you end up as a problem in a bog-standard (to recycle a phrase from past boss man Blair) care home. A bad business! Bring back the nanny state!
PS: Bing found the image above and Google image search turns it up in a number of places. Unfortunately, the subject is usually dementia.
References
Reference 1: Time to deal with the ‘nastiest, hardest problem in finance’: UK government needs to avert slow-motion pensions crisis by ensuring retirees are properly advised - Oliver Ralph, Financial Times.
No comments:
Post a Comment