Sprinkler Systems
Uhaul move
Lawn care
Roses and trees
Ford Parts
Chrysler Parts
Lake Powell
New IPod Touch Apps
New IPhone Apps
IPhone Apps
IPad Information
IPad Apps
Android APPS
Android Games APPS
Android Systems
Android Tablets APPS and Beyond
Smartphone Apps
Smartphone Games Apps Repair and Tools
Tablet PC
Car Sharing Car Leasing
Tabler Pc
Fly Fishing
Toyota Cars
Vacation Rentals
Stock market
NYSE
SSE Stock
Freight & Shipping News
Gluten
Lactose
Gout
My Coupon Life
Campgrounds Check
Outdoor
Kitchen Design and Redoo
Bath Remodeling
Palm Springs
Las Vegas Vacation Tipps
Lake Powell Boating
Homes for lease
|
Finances / Finanzen » uk.finance » Pensioners better off
| Pensioners better off [message #380084] |
Fr, 14 April 2006 15:25 |
|
UK pensioners 'see incomes rise'
The average UK pensioner is nearly twice as well-off financially now
as they were back in 1979, a report from insurer Clerical Medical has
said.
Average weekly pensioner income rose from £47 in 1979 to more than
£300 by 2004, the study found.
However, after stripping out the impact of inflation, the average
pensioner is now 97% better off than in 1979.
Much of the rise in income has come from personal and workplace
pension savings, Clerical Medical said.
The amount of income coming from private pensions rose at three times
the rate of income from the state pension, the study found.
Strong growth
Surprisingly, considering the developing UK pensions crisis, the
period 1999 to 2004 has seen strong growth in pensioner incomes,
according to Clerical Medical.
Average pensioner incomes rose 3.5% a year in the five years up to
2004. This compares to average annual rises of 2.5% in the 1980s and
2.7% in the 1990s.
In addition, the group found that the gap between pensioner incomes
and the working population had narrowed since 1979.
Pensioner incomes in 1979 were worth 48% of the UK average, by 2004
this had narrowed to 61%.
"There has been a significant shift in the balance between pension
income sourced from the state and private pensions over the last 25
years," John Hiew, managing director of Clerical Medical Financial
Services, said.
"Almost 70% of retired households now rely on their private pension
arrangements to supplement the cost of living in retirement, compared
with 40% in 1979," Mr Hiew added.
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/business/4900204.stm
Published: 2006/04/11 23:01:08 GMT
|
|
|
| Re: Pensioners better off [message #380106 ] |
Fr, 14 April 2006 23:44 |
|
On Fri, 14 Apr 2006 14:25:50 +0100, Daytona <me [at] privacy.net> wrote:
>UK pensioners 'see incomes rise'
>
>The average UK pensioner is nearly twice as well-off financially now
>as they were back in 1979, a report from insurer Clerical Medical has
>said.
>
>Average weekly pensioner income rose from £47 in 1979 to more than
>£300 by 2004, the study found.
Pathetic. Considering inflation in Council tax, fuel bills USW USW.
>
>However, after stripping out the impact of inflation, the average
>pensioner is now 97% better off than in 1979.
The issue is not are they better off now having bought and paid for a
private pension, It's more have they got the benefits they were
promised when they signed up? My (tied) adviser said my pension would
be "Telephone numbers". It's not it's "Telescope numbers" and the
telescope is the wrong way round.
>
>Much of the rise in income has come from personal and workplace
>pension savings, Clerical Medical said.
>
Did they spell out what they had taken out in charges throughout the
time the pensioner was paying in, even as the funds went down?
>The amount of income coming from private pensions rose at three times
>the rate of income from the state pension, the study found.
They need to show their working out ! Presumably this simply reflects
the greater amount paid in since the '70s.
>
>Strong growth
>
Some of my funds have gone down over the last 18 months. The best are
back to parity with 1999.
>Surprisingly, considering the developing UK pensions crisis, the
>period 1999 to 2004 has seen strong growth in pensioner incomes,
>according to Clerical Medical.
Reflecting greater amounts paid in in the late 60's + 70's.
>
>Average pensioner incomes rose 3.5% a year in the five years up to
>2004. This compares to average annual rises of 2.5% in the 1980s and
>2.7% in the 1990s.
Whooopee -Doo.
How much have Council taxes/fuel bills/water bills increased?
>
>In addition, the group found that the gap between pensioner incomes
>and the working population had narrowed since 1979.
'cos of greater amounts paid in in previous years.
>
>Pensioner incomes in 1979 were worth 48% of the UK average, by 2004
>this had narrowed to 61%.
>
>"There has been a significant shift in the balance between pension
>income sourced from the state and private pensions over the last 25
>years," John Hiew, managing director of Clerical Medical Financial
>Services, said.
>
>"Almost 70% of retired households now rely on their private pension
>arrangements to supplement the cost of living in retirement, compared
>with 40% in 1979," Mr Hiew added.
So what? They paid for it , what would Mr "Hiew" expect? Did they get
what they were promised?
You don't seriously believe all this cut'n paste propaganda do you?
DG
|
|
|
| Re: Pensioners better off [message #380140 ] |
Fr, 14 April 2006 22:47 |
|
"Daytona" <me [at] privacy.net> wrote in message
news:fc8v32hh7v8a6v46qrnrleai4rfk7cbdfo [at] 4ax.com...
> UK pensioners 'see incomes rise'
>
> The average UK pensioner is nearly twice as well-off financially now
> as they were back in 1979, a report from insurer Clerical Medical has
> said.
>
> Average weekly pensioner income rose from £47 in 1979 to more than
> £300 by 2004, the study found.
>
> However, after stripping out the impact of inflation, the average
> pensioner is now 97% better off than in 1979.
It surely comes as no suprise that the average
pensioner is better off, now a large number will
have sizable pensions (raising the average) when
previously almost none did.
The pertinent question really is how well off is the
bottom tenth percentile.
tim
>
|
|
|
| Re: Pensioners better off [message #380144 ] |
Sa, 15 April 2006 12:36 |
|
On Fri, 14 Apr 2006 21:47:44 +0100, "tim \(back at home\)"
<tim_back_home2006 [at] yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>The pertinent question really is how well off is the
>bottom tenth percentile.
Is it? Surely it's just as pertinent to the other 90% how well off
they are, and if you want to do it purely on a equitability of income
then we need to look at the other few billion people in the world and
include them in the counts.
Jim.
|
|
|
| Re: Pensioners better off [message #380151 ] |
Sa, 15 April 2006 13:32 |
|
"Jim Ley" <jim [at] jibbering.com> wrote in message
news:4440cc5e.61040972 [at] news.individual.net...
> On Fri, 14 Apr 2006 21:47:44 +0100, "tim \(back at home\)"
> <tim_back_home2006 [at] yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>The pertinent question really is how well off is the
>>bottom tenth percentile.
>
> Is it?
If one is trying to make a political point (which
is usually the reason for such reports) yes.
> Surely it's just as pertinent to the other 90% how well off
> they are,
But they know this. An individual usually has SFA
interest in their well-offness (sorry) relative to the
same class from 30 years ago, they are only interested
in their absolute status or that relative to other classes
today.
> and if you want to do it purely on a equitability of income
> then we need to look at the other few billion people in the world and
> include them in the counts.
From a financial discussion pov, these people did not put
money aside yesterday to collect today.
Agreed from a political pov, historically the west raped
them of their wealth and ought to give it back.
tim
|
|
|
| Re: Pensioners better off [message #380162 ] |
Sa, 15 April 2006 14:54 |
|
Jim Ley wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Apr 2006 21:47:44 +0100, "tim \(back at home\)"
> <tim_back_home2006 [at] yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>The pertinent question really is how well off is the
>>bottom tenth percentile.
>
> Is it? Surely it's just as pertinent to the other 90% how well off
> they are,
What other 90%?
The "bottom tenth percentile" is that one percent of pensioners
whose income lies above that of the bottom 9% and the top 90%.
That's what tim said, though it might not be what he meant. :-)
He may have meant the bottom ten percentiles, or the bottom decile.
|
|
|
| Re: Pensioners better off [message #380172 ] |
Sa, 15 April 2006 16:56 |
|
Daytona <me [at] privacy.net> wrote
>UK pensioners 'see incomes rise'
>
[....]
>Much of the rise in income has come from personal and workplace
>pension savings, Clerical Medical said.
>
>The amount of income coming from private pensions rose at three times
>the rate of income from the state pension, the study found.
>
Hmmmm!
My State Pension (Inc SERPS), rose by 2.7% this year.
My Company Pension rose by 2.3%.
State Pension = 56% of my pension total
Company pension is obviously 44%..
Council Tax rose by 2.7%, and the Council congratulated itself for that.
Gas and electricity prices rose about 14% and 12%.......
--
Gordon Harris
|
|
|
| Re: Pensioners better off [message #380186 ] |
So, 16 April 2006 00:09 |
|
On Sat, 15 Apr 2006 15:56:25 +0100, Gordon <Gordon [at] g3snx.demon.co.uk>
wrote:
>My State Pension (Inc SERPS), rose by 2.7% this year.
>My Company Pension rose by 2.3%.
>State Pension = 56% of my pension total
>Company pension is obviously 44%..
The reason why your state pension rose more is probably that inflation
on your GMP is paid by the state.
--
Terry Harper
URL: http://www.btinternet.com/~terry.harper/
|
|
|
| Re: Pensioners better off [message #380219 ] |
So, 16 April 2006 13:40 |
|
Terry Harper <terry.harper [at] btinternet.com> wrote
>On Sat, 15 Apr 2006 15:56:25 +0100, Gordon <Gordon [at] g3snx.demon.co.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>My State Pension (Inc SERPS), rose by 2.7% this year.
>>My Company Pension rose by 2.3%.
>>State Pension = 56% of my pension total
>>Company pension is obviously 44%..
>
>The reason why your state pension rose more is probably that inflation
>on your GMP is paid by the state.
The Company pension increase is based on the RPI for the preceding
December, probably a crafty choice, as it is often a low point. :-(
The indexing is capped at a maximum of 3%, and it is some years since
they gave any discretionary 3% increments.....
--
Gordon Harris
|
|
|
| Re: Pensioners better off [message #380223 ] |
So, 16 April 2006 17:46 |
|
"Gordon" <Gordon [at] g3snx.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:vHplRWB80iQEFwOO [at] g3snx.demon.co.uk...
> Terry Harper <terry.harper [at] btinternet.com> wrote
>>On Sat, 15 Apr 2006 15:56:25 +0100, Gordon <Gordon [at] g3snx.demon.co.uk>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>My State Pension (Inc SERPS), rose by 2.7% this year.
>>>My Company Pension rose by 2.3%.
>>>State Pension = 56% of my pension total
>>>Company pension is obviously 44%..
>>
>>The reason why your state pension rose more is probably that inflation
>>on your GMP is paid by the state.
>
> The Company pension increase is based on the RPI for the preceding
> December, probably a crafty choice, as it is often a low point. :-(
Perhaps you'd like to explain how this makes a difference
in the long term
tim
|
|
|
| Re: Pensioners better off [message #380305 ] |
Mo, 17 April 2006 21:31 |
|
Derek ^ <usenet [at] miniac.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>On Fri, 14 Apr 2006 14:25:50 +0100, Daytona <me [at] privacy.net> wrote:
>
>>UK pensioners 'see incomes rise'
>>Average weekly pensioner income rose from £47 in 1979 to more than
>>£300 by 2004, the study found.
>
>Pathetic. Considering inflation in Council tax, fuel bills USW USW.
RPIX 219%
Pensioner income 538%
>The issue is not are they better off now having bought and paid for a
>private pension
It is; because that's what the article is about.
>Did they spell out what they had taken out in charges throughout the
>time the pensioner was paying in, even as the funds went down?
They're entitled to their management fees whatever happens. If you
dislike that aspect why did you choose funds and how do you expect the
advisor to be paid or do you expect free advice ?
>Some of my funds have gone down over the last 18 months.
So why did you choose those funds ?
>The best are
>back to parity with 1999.
Then they've outperformed the FTSE All Share and 100 index.
>How much have Council taxes/fuel bills/water bills increased?
DYOR -
< URL:http://www.statistics.gov.uk/statbase/product.asp?vlnk=8 68>
>You don't seriously believe all this cut'n paste propaganda do you?
You're doing a remarkable good impression of a whinging pensioner.
Since you've omitted any authoritative figures to back up your
arguments I believe them more than I do you.
Daytona
|
|
|
| Re: Pensioners better off [message #380309 ] |
Mo, 17 April 2006 22:37 |
|
On Mon, 17 Apr 2006 20:31:06 +0100, Daytona <me [at] privacy.net> wrote:
>Derek ^ <usenet [at] miniac.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 14 Apr 2006 14:25:50 +0100, Daytona <me [at] privacy.net> wrote:
>>
>>>UK pensioners 'see incomes rise'
>
>>>Average weekly pensioner income rose from £47 in 1979 to more than
>>>£300 by 2004, the study found.
>>
>>Pathetic. Considering inflation in Council tax, fuel bills USW USW.
>
>RPIX 219%
>Pensioner income 538%
Don't know what RPIX is but expect it's bezzled.
Don't know precisely what "Pensioner income" is either and you have
not said.
>>The issue is not are they better off now having bought and paid for a
>>private pension
>
>It is; because that's what the article is about.
>
>>Did they spell out what they had taken out in charges throughout the
>>time the pensioner was paying in, even as the funds went down?
>
>They're entitled to their management fees whatever happens. If you
>dislike that aspect why did you choose funds and how do you expect the
>advisor to be paid or do you expect free advice ?
>
>>Some of my funds have gone down over the last 18 months.
>
>So why did you choose those funds ?
In 1988 the advisor said they were tax free, would be worth
"Telephone numbers", were controlled by the government and guaranteed
by the government, and were presently growing at 28% and USW USW USW.
>
>>The best are
>>back to parity with 1999.
>
>Then they've outperformed the FTSE All Share and 100 index.
>
Super :-(
>>How much have Council taxes/fuel bills/water bills increased?
>
>DYOR -
>< URL:http://www.statistics.gov.uk/statbase/product.asp?vlnk=8 68>
>
>>You don't seriously believe all this cut'n paste propaganda do you?
>
>You're doing a remarkable good impression of a whinging pensioner.
>Since you've omitted any authoritative figures to back up your
>arguments I believe them more than I do you.
>
Fukkit then.
Another IFA's coming on Thursday, I think he's the seventh.
Beats the hell outa me why they can't give you a straight answer
having been given all the details. The last one took 12 weeks and lost
track of 60% of the investments. Despite us re-sourcing all the
details ourselves phoning and faxing them to him, he still maintains
no knowledge, and he got my details mixed up with someone elses of the
same name, ( DPA anyone).
Our accountant said well sorry and all that but he's the best I know.
"Best of a bad bunch."
:(
The investments total £400k.
Am I really a typical whinging pensioner? With that much I woulkd be
surprised. Is that the typical opinion of an operator in the financial
services *Industry* of their customers? Their wine bar back-chat?
If so, the industry needs to pull it's socks up, or would have to if
it wasn't regulated. If it's regulated it doesn't have to perform,
only comply.
However that doesn't apply now 'cos nobody in their right mind is
putting money in schemes like ours.
I retire in 9 months I'd just like to know where I stand. But I've
been asking this for 5 years.
Keep turning the handle, keep collecting the commissions.
While you can.
DG
|
|
|
| Re: Pensioners better off [message #380312 ] |
Mo, 17 April 2006 22:16 |
|
Gordon wrote:
> The Company pension increase is based on the RPI for the preceding
> December, probably a crafty choice, as it is often a low point. :-(
December is usually a high point, as prices typically fall in January, but
as it is done annually, seasonal fluctuations aren't going to make a
difference.
|
|
|
| Re: Pensioners better off [message #382740 ] |
Di, 18 April 2006 00:22 |
|
Jonathan Bryce <jonathan [at] localhost.localdomain> wrote
>Gordon wrote:
>
>> The Company pension increase is based on the RPI for the preceding
>> December, probably a crafty choice, as it is often a low point. :-(
>
>December is usually a high point, as prices typically fall in January, but
>as it is done annually, seasonal fluctuations aren't going to make a
>difference.
Maybe not, but the point is that our annual increase is fixed by the
figure for December. It always seems to have been a low point to
those of us who have been watching it for 14 years. ;-)
--
Gordon Harris
|
|
|
| Re: Pensioners better off [message #382769 ] |
Mi, 19 April 2006 11:14 |
|
"Gordon" wrote
> ... the point is that our annual increase is fixed
> by the figure for December. It always seems
> to have been a low point to those of us who
> have been watching it for 14 years. ;-)
If December is always a "low point", then the figure
for the previous December will be "low", hence
*increasing* the rate over those twelve months!
|
|
|
| Re: Pensioners better off [message #382785 ] |
Mi, 19 April 2006 19:15 |
|
Tim <me [at] home.uk> wrote
>"Gordon" wrote
>> ... the point is that our annual increase is fixed
>> by the figure for December. It always seems
>> to have been a low point to those of us who
>> have been watching it for 14 years. ;-)
>
>If December is always a "low point", then the figure
>for the previous December will be "low", hence
>*increasing* the rate over those twelve months!
>
My brain hurts . . . .
--
Gordon Harris
|
|
|
Gehe zu:
aktuelle Zeit: Mo Mai 21 22:33:48 CEST 2012
Insgesamt benötigte Zeit, um die Seite zu erzeugen: 0,08372 Sekunden |
