Pension Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder


There’s been a few sobering stories in the press this week about how;

firstly how the UK state pension age needs to rise to 71 and

secondly, how old-age is going to be more expensive. All told, it should be clear to everyone now that “doing nothing” isn’t an option if you want to Retire At All (let alone early!)


This story in the iNews is about a happy couple who are older Gen Xers (aged around 55).

David has retired early on £20,000 a year thanks to a Defined Benefit pension. Joanne by comparison only has £55,000 in total in her pensions – despite paying in for years as well – and can’t see herself retiring anytime soon*

You might think that this is a relatively average couple – but their combined salary is around £200,000 a year – way above average. Yet, their position doesn’t appear to be that secure.

For many Gen Xers, it’s a different sort of precariousness. Makes you wonder what retirement prospects the bottom 90% have?

Basic Retirement Requirements

The PLSA, a pensions industry, is a mouthpiece sent out a press release this week, and it was picked up everywhere. Read it here.
But the gist is that:

“The Moderate (Retirement) level increased to
£31,300 for a single person and to £43,100 for a couple.”

And that there is an “Urgent need for reform” including increasing workplace
auto enrolment from 8% to 12% of income.

Those of us who navel-gaze on safe withdrawal rates will be acutely aware that a moderate retirement of £43,100 will require just over a million pounds at 4% – something like the LTA (what’s that?)


Why is this happening?

Besides the obvious, “pension industry wants more of your money’, the message is very clear and I think that the problem of pensions is two-fold:

The current obligation to pensioners (present and soon-to-be) is too generous and the simple solution of just making future pensioners wait longer (71 – when life expectancy is already falling!) isn’t going to solve the problem.

The benefits that boomers were born with (improving quality of life, standard of living, access to housing, infrastructure…), but before they had to pay for it (like childcare, cheap housing, right to buy and  qualifying for pensions that they didn’t pay enough for), and the reluctance of the government to do anything to address the problem now in the roaring 20s or before – has left a massive intergenerational divide.

In the story, the couple have been together for just over 20 years, meaning that they might have either bought a house before or after the early 2000s boom. Depending on which side of the demographical and geographical divide they sit, they either have half a million in (untaxed) housing equity or have been skirting around negative equity for two decades.

We are already in a situation where the average pensioner has a higher income (and pays less tax) than the average worker. How can that be right, justified or sustainable? (Although it might need to be fact checked – since I can’t back it up).

The result is that the current oppressed workers are being asked to put in an extra 3 years of shifts because the current pampered pensioners have it too easy.

Not that all oldiewonks have it easy, many including the “pull up the ladder” WASPI hypocrits are finding out that life isn’t fair – and caravans aren’t just for Grand Designs.

Simple Solutions?

One obvious solution is to tax work and income the same. Scrap NI contributions for employees or lump them onto pensioners. Of course, there are always calls for pensioners to never have to pay any tax at all.

But, given how millions are sleepwalking into modern slavery – of starting working life with massive student debts, paying as much in rent as the rentiers can extract, struggling to save for a deposit
(entering the rent trap) for a house that will cost you a quarter of your life’s wages (and even then, it’s a pokey new-build Barratt Box).

Sometimes, the trend is not your friend

Any money left over could go towards your pension – but given that you probably need to run a car, pay for nursery, don’t have any money left
at the end of the month – you can’t afford that much.

Even 12% of your salary for 40 years, compounded at 3% above inflation for 40 years gives you less than 40% of your final salary at a 4% drawdown. It’s grim.

Simple solutions don’t work – you need to get a bit more creative.

Creative Lifetime Finance Solutions

I used to say that you won’t get rich working for someone else. But I think that it’s easier to say that you will neither get rich nor retire working for someone else and trusting the government.
I still think that you can’t rely on the state pension because it’s better to rely on yourself.

Everyone below the FI line needs to have a plan in place to help increase their income, reduce their outgoings and to invest wisely. And you need to keep sharpening the axe (or pencil) when it comes to your financial health.

I’m not going to tell you to start a side-hustle (to the detriment of
career-focus) or to join one of my seminars (where I’ll tell you my
secrets) – you need to do this yourself.
But, be very frightened that if you don’t do something right now, your long-term financial situation could be shit. Imagine having to choose between heating and eating – for the rest of your life, with no hope of it getting better?

So get active and busy and forward thinking. Something as simple as knowing where your money is best invested (pay off mortgage, pay into ISA, pay into pension) could save you lots of money – money that’s yours and that you’ll need later in life, when your income drops and your mind slows and body aches.

I don’t want to work to 71 – and I certainly don’t want to have no choice in the decision

I can’t imagine another 30 years of this. I’m practically done already. I’m tied to my desk since it’s a good distraction between the hours of 9-3 when the kids are in school. I know whereabouts we are – floating towards Financial Independence.

You can too – but you need to detach yourself from the mainstream.

Most people aren’t going to make it and it’s not their fault. But it will be your fault if you don’t do something NOW!
Good luck, GFF.

*I don’t think that the Lady would be happy for me to retire early and
leave her working for another 15 years – but every happy Gentleman’s
Family is alike…”

27 Comments

  1. It says I’ve already posted the comment – the same happened on SLIS, I think the WordPress signin is messing something up (or I am)

    Liked by 1 person

  2. /**** repost, fingers crossed

    Not very cheery, but that’s the reality we’re in (or moving towards).

    It’s starting to feel that multigenerational living and HMOs for pensioners will become more common. The luxury of single pensioners living in their own 2/3 bed social housing accommodation on basic state pension seems not quite doable anymore (although housing benefit covers much of the rent).

    Unless we come up with some radical solutions to trim state spending/benefits/pensions/NHS/housing it’s hard to be optimistic about the future.

    It’s not looking good for kids /grandkids. Unless we just provide UBS and a VR headset in 3 cubic metre pods!

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Intergenerational living if you are lucky (and have something to offer) and HMOs for those with no one is a bit sad.
      Maybe that’s the future.
      Where I live, there is a common trait of younger areas with smaller flats with families and along the road, detached spacious houses with bored pensioners.
      It’s not the best utilisation of resources.
      But given the tendency for the government to subsidise elderly homeowners, I don’t expect this to change at all.

      Who will buy these expensive houses once the young are rinsed and broke and passed their own prime? I don’t know.
      But property is my pension is mortgaging the youngest future – don’t be surprised if they default.

      Like

  3. “firstly how the UK state pension age needs to rise to 71” What tosh. Never mind that their estimates of income needed are exaggerations (as I learnt from the comments thread on Monevator); never mind that they ignore the excess deaths from Vaxx/Lockdowns and the consequent fall in life expectancy (when can we expect the ONS to own up to this?)

    Even if you ignore those two reservations there would be no need to increase pension age to 71 because the State Retirement Pension is, from the point of view of HMG, just another outflow of money, comparable in nature to many others. So a larger bill for it can be paid for by cutting down some other outflow – e.g. sack civil servants, stop wasteful expenditure on the schools, universities and NHS, cancel Net Zero, cancel HS2, redesign the various doles to drive idle bastards to take jobs, etc etc.

    Although much of the population entertains the childish notion that somehow pension money is ring-fenced, and that national insurance payments are hypothecated to pay for them, that’s rubbish. In the words of the defunct socialist politician Nye Bevan “The secret of the National Insurance Fund is that there ain’t no fund.”

    Like

    1. Reading the thinking of the rise to 71, it’s to keep it in line with the existing burden on HMG, so more money can be spent on old age state pensions if required.
      (All funded from future taxpayers).

      What I don’t know about is how pension age benefits will work.
      I’ve always assumed that I’ll not be eligible (working age too) and have planned to be self-sufficient.
      But when the state pension is supplemented by add ons like pension credit, housing benefit, Universal credit… it makes me wonder how bad can it really be if many of the working age people have it much worse.

      I don’t plan to find out how bad life is on the state minimum.

      Like

  4. “when the state pension is supplemented by add ons like pension credit, housing benefit, Universal credit”.

    I’ve occasionally wondered how the numbers would look if you bundled all those add-ons with the State Pension and called the result something like “The complete State Pension”. Then you could explain to people why a lifetime of paying taxes and saving/investing has cost them deduction of pension credit, housing benefit, Universal credit …

    That would constitute rather a high marginal tax rate I’d think. I wonder how big? I’m guessing but I suspect the burden falls hardest on people who work but for rather poor wages. It often does, doesn’t it? Why does nobody give a hoot about them?

    Lots of tears for the unemployed, the Channel invaders, and so on, but not many for the working poor. Even Jesus shrugged: “For ye have the poor always with you”.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Without hitting down, there are those at the bottom who are net beneficiaries of government spending, those at the top who can avoid taxes fairly (£20k ISA allowance, Band G Council tax on your Palace…)
      Those in the middle are paying for / subsidising the rest.

      In some ways, you’d need to be mad to not live off Universal Credit – especially with childcare costs.
      I might have been able to engineer our finances to become eligible (pensions don’t count as “savings” and you can artificially reduce your taxable income by paying in to a SIPP to cash in)

      But I reckon the problems are best viewed through an intergenerational lense and once the losers of Gen X start retiring (much like the WASPI women) we’ll see just how bad it is and how compulsory 3% pensions savings don’t actually give you any more to live òff.

      Like

      1. The joys of Adjusted Net Income. Unfortunately the move from Tax Credits to Universal Credit closed some “loopholes”.

        I too looked at ways to “maximise” eligibility. The entitledto website suggested I’d qualify for circa £12k per annum if I kept my net income low. Benefits would be tax free too.

        However, I would have had to liquidate my ISA holdings as they are rightly considered as savings.

        Liked by 1 person

      2. Yeah, same for me – although it could have been possible with a massive liquidation and buying a mansion.
        If I was on the ball, I would have looked at it – but hey ho, the investments would probably out perform a mansion plus UC aroubd these parts.

        Like

  5. So many are going to have terrible financial futures. Even contributions at a level of maximum employer matching will not be enough.

    If you aren’t mortgage and consumer debt free at retirement then you are pretty doomed.

    Those DB schemes may also not be that safe as employers shift the liabilities to insurance companies. Promised benefits are watered down. RPI linking quietly gets changed to CPI instead.

    I became a bit of a pension nerd as my active DB scheme became a deferred one and all the expensive employees got laid off. Fortunately I became debt free over 10 years ago and I’ve been making maximum pension contributions since then.

    However, the likely reinstatement of the LTA is going to a problem. Crazy as it sounds, £1 million isn’t going to buy you much.

    Hopefully a decent ISA holding will help. However, if I remain concerned about my finances there should be a lot more who should be terrified.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Perhaps my steadfast belief in my DB pension provider to always do the right thing is misplaced…
      They have already dropped 0.5% off last year and maybe more again this year – I’m still winning nominally!

      Like

      1. Mine was transferred to an insurance company about a year ago. The CETV got hammered ( a circa £280k reduction). Likely due to the ending of very low interest rates.

        Also the small print now indicates annual uplifts before the pension is taken are based on RPI but once the pension is accessed it changes to CPI.

        I’d have transferred out a couple of years ago but the LTA was an issue then. Now it’s less of an issue but likely temporarily.

        Liked by 1 person

      2. @DavidA:
        Re: “Also the small print now indicates annual uplifts before the pension is taken are based on RPI but once the pension is accessed it changes to CPI.”
        Really, or did you just not notice these details prior to the transfer? OOI, mine was the other way round: revaluation by CPI; indexation mostly by RPI.

        Incidentally, as of February 2030 RPI index values will be calculated using the same methods and data sources that are used to calculate the CPIH.

        @GFF
        Re: “They have already dropped 0.5% off last year and maybe more again this year – I’m still winning nominally!”
        How has that been achieved, can you say a bit more please?

        Both:
        I agree that CETV hit mostly down to bond markets/interest rates.
        In principle, it is possible to do a partial CETV, but I was never offered such an opportunity – and it is up to the scheme to decide yo make this available (or not).

        Like

      3. My DB pension rises by RPI up to 7% – or beyond at the discretion of the company.
        Last calculation, RPI was 7.5% and the pension uprated by 7%. (I’m a deferred member).
        So, 7% increase but nominal drop of 0.5%.

        Of course, it’s RPI and not CPI, so maybe I’m winning an extra 1% a year anyway?

        Some pensioners might rightly feels cheated by the company that they put their working lives into – but there’s a sense of futile rage and impotence about those who are short changed.

        Like

      4. Clearly I am not familiar with your DB scheme, but IMO RPI to 7% is very generous. Furthermore, discretionary awards are usually only made to pensioners – ie those in receipt of their DB pension.

        The rules for revaluation (increases before a pension comes into payment) and indexation (increases after a pension is being paid) need not be the same, and often are different. Furthermore, the rules for revaluation may differ between active (if applicable) and deferred members too, and for deferred members the rules may also depend on the date that they became a deferred member too.

        What you describe sounds like what is often called as limited price indexation (LPI) and that is usually applied to indexation but not necessarily revaluation.

        Apologies for the blurb above if this is all well known to you – but I have found this is not generally that well understood.

        Finally, to my question: are you sure that what you have described applies to the revaluation of your deferred members pension and not the indexation of your pension once in payment?

        Liked by 1 person

  6. Pension planning is significantly tricky when the rules and goal posts keep moving.

    With a potential / likely / impending change in government I anticipate things will only get trickier.

    The days of trying to diversify your retirement planning via ISA, BTL and pensions my come to a rapid end.

    My deferred DB scheme had a ceiling of 5% inflation linking.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. 5% limit and occasional bursts above that can lead to massive drops in long term value.
      I did some monte carlo analysis and essentially, you’ll be lucky to see out 30 years without a drop of 5% or more in value.

      Like

      1. Indeed and that’s for a typical private sector DB scheme which was judged to be unaffordable by my previous employer.

        The only unlimited inflation linked schemes are in the public sector, where demands of pay restoration and strikes persist.

        I worked in the energy sector and the older employees had some kind of protected / strategic industry pension scheme. As soon as we were all getting outsourced, the older employees simply took the severance and retired, they would have been mad not to.

        I continue to consider transferring out of the DB scheme and switching to drawdown. Take the tax free cash and drip that annually into an ISA for tax free gains / income.

        For anyone without circa £1 million for pension drawdown, fully paid up state pension and own home and no debts, they’d be best of spending everything to qualify for additional state assistance.

        Liked by 1 person

      2. “For anyone without circa £1 million…”
        I thought it was just £XXk a year for whatever a “better than subsistence” living means…

        As I said before, the opportunity to game the system by skiv-fireing or what you might call it has long passed. But your measure of £1m in net assets less housing wealth was just passed by me – something of a landmark.

        By any measure I’m rich, but it didn’t stop Virgin money declining me for a stooze card the other day – boo hoo, I must look like a right credit risk when I have £30k outstanding credit card debt.

        Like

      3. Or you could always consult the RPI history from 1915 at: http://www.wolfbane.com/rpi.htm

        Other sources I have compared are: ONS [from 1987/1948 : monthly/annual IIRC]; and Barclays Equity Guilt Study 2016 – annual data only – which incidentally goes back to 1900.

        There are some discrepancies between the three sources albeit that in the round they seem to pretty much agree.

        I generally use/prefer the wolfbane data as it is monthly back to 1915.

        Liked by 1 person

  7. “… employers shift the liabilities to insurance companies. Promised benefits are watered down. RPI linking quietly gets changed to CPI instead.”

    I don’t think you’re right. My own principal DB scheme did change its index-linking from RPI to CI but that had always been a possibility according to the governing deed. When civil service pensions moved to CPI-linking so did my scheme, as its rules said. There was no “quietly” about it: we were all told PDQ.

    The problem was that the cheerful little leaflets that the scheme, and the trade union, had circulated for years hadn’t mention the possibility. Remedy: read the deed for your scheme.

    “Promised benefits are watered down.” Give us an example or two.

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a comment