Royal Mail pension news and discussion.Please note the advise given in this forum is unofficial, please use the links we have for a more detailed response or see an independent financial adviser.
heapsy wrote: . As for the point about further education , why bother? If you are going to get a mass of debt, and then end up on very ordinary salaries, then don't do it. The days of further education providing much better salaries are, sadly, all but over. By the time you have paid off the debt, you would almost certainly be way behind your peers in earning terms, compared who didn't go on to further education in the first place.
Tripe. If you were to go to Uni to study Media Studies, or Film or some other such dead-beat waste then you'd have a point, but study something much in demand like Medicine, any one of a myriad Engineering disciplines or even law and you'll never be short of money. Better (for many) is to do an apprenticeship (that is, a proper recognised using tools apprenticeship, not six months in an estate agents) and bring the money in that way, but of course both of the above require effort and commitment, and that's too often lacking in the Facebook Generation.
You have a point about medicine, engineering etc, but how many actually do that though? Most people do something which isn't in great demand. Sadly the mantra of university, university has persuaded many to take subjects which don't lead to a decent pay packet. Also, as so many take those subjects that has lowered the prospects for a decent salary. University used to be something really special and lead to a well paid position. That isn't always the case now.
heapsy wrote:
What I actually said was that it should be paid for by the people themselves.
You mean, they don't already ?
Isn't that what NI is for (and taxation in general) ?
heapsy wrote:The new NEST pension that has been rolled out by the UK government is a for runner of that and probably will be the new state pension.
That looks like a workplace pension first and foremost. A defined contribution one at that.
And you think the current state pension should be replaced by something along those lines ?
Something to consider here is that we are (in the medium to long term) moving toward a post work society. We are not only going to be looking at a state pension, but a universal basic income.
Just my opinion - one in a sea of internet opinions
Actually we don't pay for our own state pension. We make National Insurance contributions which build up credits, basically entitlement to a state pension. The current workers are paying for those already retired. That is the dilemma. There are fewer jobs and many are only part time, lowering peoples earnings and contributions into the system. The Danish and Dutch state pensions are based on investing on the stock market and infrastructure. They typically retire on about a third more pension than us. They also have industry wide pension schemes where all contributions are pooled, regardless of the company you work for. Imagine RM, DHL, Fed Ex etc having one massive pension fund. That is why they end up better off in old age. As I posted earlier in this thread, we are on a tread mill. The current system is designed to keep you working as long as they can get away with it.
heapsy wrote: The Danish and Dutch state pensions are based on investing on the stock market and infrastructure. They typically retire on about a third more pension than us. They also have industry wide pension schemes where all contributions are pooled, regardless of the company you work for. Imagine RM, DHL, Fed Ex etc having one massive pension fund. That is why they end up better off in old age. As I posted earlier in this thread, we are on a tread mill. The current system is designed to keep you working as long as they can get away with it.
There of course two main differences between the Dutch system and ours:
They pay nearly 18% into theirs compared to our 12% NIC’s.
While to get the maximum pension they need 50 years of contributions. We only need 35 – but more if you were contracted out.
Plus their state pension age is going up from 65 now to 66 in 2020 and 67 in 2025. So a quicker increase than ours.
The Danish system requires 40 years to get the maximum and actually gets reduced if you have additional pension from a works or private scheme, which ours doesn’t.
heapsy wrote: . As for the point about further education , why bother? If you are going to get a mass of debt, and then end up on very ordinary salaries, then don't do it. The days of further education providing much better salaries are, sadly, all but over. By the time you have paid off the debt, you would almost certainly be way behind your peers in earning terms, compared who didn't go on to further education in the first place.
Tripe. If you were to go to Uni to study Media Studies, or Film or some other such dead-beat waste then you'd have a point, but study something much in demand like Medicine, any one of a myriad Engineering disciplines or even law and you'll never be short of money. Better (for many) is to do an apprenticeship (that is, a proper recognised using tools apprenticeship, not six months in an estate agents) and bring the money in that way, but of course both of the above require effort and commitment, and that's too often lacking in the Facebook Generation.
You have a point about medicine, engineering etc, but how many actually do that though? Most people do something which isn't in great demand. Sadly the mantra of university, university has persuaded many to take subjects which don't lead to a decent pay packet. Also, as so many take those subjects that has lowered the prospects for a decent salary. University used to be something really special and lead to a well paid position. That isn't always the case now.
And of course all those spending three years at so called universities are helping reduce the unemployment figures.
heapsy wrote: . As for the point about further education , why bother? If you are going to get a mass of debt, and then end up on very ordinary salaries, then don't do it. The days of further education providing much better salaries are, sadly, all but over. By the time you have paid off the debt, you would almost certainly be way behind your peers in earning terms, compared who didn't go on to further education in the first place.
Tripe. If you were to go to Uni to study Media Studies, or Film or some other such dead-beat waste then you'd have a point, but study something much in demand like Medicine, any one of a myriad Engineering disciplines or even law and you'll never be short of money. Better (for many) is to do an apprenticeship (that is, a proper recognised using tools apprenticeship, not six months in an estate agents) and bring the money in that way, but of course both of the above require effort and commitment, and that's too often lacking in the Facebook Generation.
You have a point about medicine, engineering etc, but how many actually do that though? Most people do something which isn't in great demand. Sadly the mantra of university, university has persuaded many to take subjects which don't lead to a decent pay packet. Also, as so many take those subjects that has lowered the prospects for a decent salary. University used to be something really special and lead to a well paid position. That isn't always the case now.
And of course all those spending three years at so called universities are helping reduce the unemployment figures.
Correct. I truly believe THAT is one of the government plans. They are desperate not to have 5 or 6 million unemployed. If you look at the number of part time jobs we now have in UK, the figure I just gave is probably about right, if all jobs were full time.
If people really do want their pension early, they should themselves one crucial question. Is the reduced pension they take, enough to live on when they retire? For most it will be nowhere near enough. Many rent. I doubt if their RM pension would even cover that, never mind all the other bills life brings.
heapsy wrote:If people really do want their pension early, they should themselves one crucial question. Is the reduced pension they take, enough to live on when they retire? For most it will be nowhere near enough. Many rent. I doubt if their RM pension would even cover that, never mind all the other bills life brings.
Totally agree!
Far too many people don’t think about their pension until far too late in life, if at all. And then they tend to make foolish short-sighted decisions that will potentially affect them for years to come.
I’ve been a regular on these forums for quite a while now and the number of people who seem determined to take their pension early for no logical reason is ridiculous. There’s the ones who want it just because they can have it. The one’s that think it won’t be there when they reach 60 or 65. And then the ones that want to spend it on holidays or in one case a new motorbike, which is absolute madness.
I suppose you could say they’re adults and capable of making their own decisions. But so many people seem willing to deliberately kick themselves in the balls without any thought about how much it’s going to hurt.
Can I clarify a very important point please. The NRA60 pension element is funded by the government and not Royal Mail. Therefore it is uneffected by the proposed pension changes. There appears to be some confusion with some of my colleagues regarding this.
tinkerdil wrote:Can I clarify a very important point please. The NRA60 pension element is funded by the government and not Royal Mail. Therefore it is uneffected by the proposed pension changes. There appears to be some confusion with some of my colleagues regarding this.
Actually everything up to 2012 is funded by the government, so that includes the first 2 years of the NRA65 pension aswell.
The 'only' thing that's affected by the proposed changes, is how much pension you accrue past 2018. Everything before that is protected.
I'm 56 & 37 yrs service, been looking into taking my pension early for six years when I was eligible at 50...
My conclusion was simple in the end..
"If you don't need it, Don't take it"
Let it work for you until NRA60 at least..
Just been made redundant and have been sent my Pension statement.My benefits say NRA 60 is 6.3k when you add pension and supplement together,NRA 65 says 2.3k.Does that mean at age 65 you get them both so its 8.6k.Afraid i know very little about pensions.I am 52.
paulqu123 wrote:Just been made redundant and have been sent my Pension statement.My benefits say NRA 60 is 6.3k when you add pension and supplement together,NRA 65 says 2.3k.Does that mean at age 65 you get them both so its 8.6k.Afraid i know very little about pensions.I am 52.
If you take your NRA60 at 60 you would get £6,300 per year from that. And when you get to 65 you will also get £2,300 per annum from your NRA65 aswell. Although both will increase with inflation each year until you take them.
There is the option to take both parts anytime after 55 but they would be reduced by 5% for each year you take them early. So if you were to take them both at 55 for example, your NRA60 would be reduced by 25% to £4,725 p.a. and your NRA65 would take a 50% hit to just £1,150 p.a.
NRA means Normal Retirement Age which is usually the optimum age to take your benefits. So if you take them early you will face a reduction, although you’ll be getting them for longer. While there is no enhancement by deferring to a later date.
paulqu123 wrote:Just been made redundant and have been sent my Pension statement.My benefits say NRA 60 is 6.3k when you add pension and supplement together,NRA 65 says 2.3k.Does that mean at age 65 you get them both so its 8.6k.Afraid i know very little about pensions.I am 52.
If you take your NRA60 at 60 you would get £6,300 per year from that. And when you get to 65 you will also get £2,300 per annum from your NRA65 aswell. Although both will increase with inflation each year until you take them.
There is the option to take both parts anytime after 55 but they would be reduced by 5% for each year you take them early. So if you were to take them both at 55 for example, your NRA60 would be reduced by 25% to £4,725 p.a. and your NRA65 would take a 50% hit to just £1,150 p.a.
NRA means Normal Retirement Age which is usually the optimum age to take your benefits. So if you take them early you will face a reduction, although you’ll be getting them for longer. While there is no enhancement by deferring to a later date.
Hi I took mine after 23 years service 2 years ago at 55 best thing i ever done yes i lost a bit but i ploughed the 30k lump sum into premium bonds and getting around £800 a year return tax free and nearly £500 pounds a month pension go for it its better in your pocket than a failing pension fund
