Posted on 11/22/2012 4:10:02 AM PST by Cronos
..A report from the Social Market Foundation (SMF) looked at how savings policies may need to evolve over the next 20 years in order to deal with people living for longer and taking on more debt earlier in life.
It argued that compelling people to save into pensions may be the "next logical step" if the weakness of the economy and sluggish wage growth put people off trying to save for their later years.
The report said that future governments may have to consider stepping into people's finances more to help them manage their money, by forcing them to save into a pension, for example, and helping with loans through various "pinch points" in their lives such as dealing with childcare costs
...Fears have been raised of a looming pension-saving crisis amid declining rates of participation in schemes in recent years. By 2020 half of the UK population will be aged 50 or over.
.. "Closing the UK's savings gap is one of the biggest challenges facing our society ...
"We need to think of innovative ideas that will help people to save for the future. Auto-enrolment is the single biggest pension reform in the last 60 years and will bring over 10 million people into the savings habit. ...
A Department for Work and Pensions spokeswoman said: "We want to get as many people as we can saving for their retirement but we also recognise the need for people to choose.
"For millions of people, automatic enrolment means they will be saving into a workplace pension for the first time. However, people have been given the ability to opt out if they feel at a particular time in their life that saving into a pension is not right for them."
(Excerpt) Read more at telegraph.co.uk ...
coming soon to a country near you..
coming soon to a country near you..
Definitely! If they start taking 5 percent of every paycheck you take home from 16 until retirement, it could build to a huge amount OR the government will have that much more to tax on people. The only thing is I think it should be voluntary (even SS), BUT come retirement, if you don’t have enough to live on, the government should not step in. That really should be the program.
So, since people are stupidly using their money to buy things like food, and to pay for living expenses instead of setting aside money for later, we (the government) are going to take that decision away from them (regardless of whether they can afford it or not). That way, they can live in a state of greater penury for a longer period of time.
Ok now... At what point will the Government say: “Hey! There’s a huge pot o’money over there. Those people obviously don’t know how to spend it wisely, let’s show them how to do it.
Sorry to be so cynical, but with all of the evidence around me everyday, it’s hard not to be sometimes.
It would seem the average person in the so-called civilized world is slowly descending in ability to an infantile state, assisted by the nanny state, to the point where the government will have to send a minder by to check if they’ve tied their shoes and brushed their teeth.
Most people saved their money in banks with CD’s and Money markets.
There is no way in hell that anyone can save enough money to retire on when the banks are paying less than 1% interest.
Retirement funds that were relying on interest and investments to keep them alive are dying on the vine.
How do you save money when it costs $150,000 dollars to send a kid to college, pay that kids health insurance, pay your own and then get taxed to death.
The future of retirements looks bad, but Obamacare has th answer.
When you reach 70 they will hand you the blue pill if you get sick, you will be judged unworthy of further care. You will not need a lot of retirement money, unless you are healthy enough to make it on your own to the later years.
For grins, I tuned in to NPR - yeah, I know - and heard the objective journalists (scare quotes around “objective” are invisible, but they’re there) talking about Social Security being a mandatory savings plan for everyone’s retirement. Yeah, that’s one way of looking at it - but the only trouble is, it’s mandatory investing in Bernie Madoff. It is invested in “safe government bonds” - which means that the same entity which forced you to invest in their scheme, borrowed the money from you. They borrowed the money, and if you look at the government’s other debt, you will know they spent it. Nothing wrong with that, if in fact they invested it in infrastructure which will return the money with interest. But all you need to do is look at the way the Obama Economy (does NOT) works to know that that ain’t happening. Social Security has been a cash flow cash cow, but that cash flow is on the cusp of turn strongly negative. And where is the money gonna come from to make up the negative cash flow to keep the SS checks going out - China?
like the Social Security "trust fund".
Pelosi and a few others have floated he trial balloon of converting all 401k accounts to a national retirement/pension fund.These F’ers can’t stand to see money not under their control.
Singapore has a mandatory savings program which works pretty well. The numbers are big. The employee and the employer both put in 10%. Which is an enormous savings rate. The account is the property of the employee..and they are really strict about the employer putting the 10% immediately..no companies dragging their feet. The first 100k or so must be invested in safe govt bonds..after that it is a self directed ira. It can be used for a downpayment on a dwelling.
I worked and lived in Singapore a couple times and have known people there for 40 years..they are all retiring in really great shape.
This program eliminates the need for much of safety net paid for by taxes..so they have low income tax rate..10% and nearly flat.
What a concept! Maybe it should be tax free until withdrawn at retirement. Wait, we have something like that here in the USA, called 401K and IRA - the problem with them is they are VOLUNTARY programs. Maybe we should abolish Social Security and raise the the tax free contribution limit to 10% as a motivation to save for your own retirement.
Then, while were're at it, eliminate Medicare and 0bamacare and raise the tax deduction allowance on medical costs to allow citizens to privately purchase the health coverage of THEIR CHOICE.
We could go on and on about allowing Americans to have FREEDOM OF CHOICE but wait, that's been done already by a bunch of old SLAVE OWNERS over 200 years ago. It's now pretty much down to only women having a FREEDOM OF CHOICE on whether or not to kill their babies.
Sorry FRiends, for slipping into RANT mode on this THANKSGIVING DAY.
Here's an idea. Cut these government employees and put the money back in the people's pockets.
FORCE = tool of the totalitarian
Life, liberty and the pursuit and destruction of totalitarians.
If you saved, they've reduced interest income to little or nothing, and are going to tax dividends at a much higher rate. This isn't about saving money in the old sense, but about much much bigger government. By killing the possibility of saving outside of a government plan, they justify the government plan to capture another 10% of the GDP. But killing the possibility of saving, also kills the possibility of just earning a living. So, we'll all work for the equivalent of the CCC, living on government handouts from birth to (early) death.
Except for the anointed of course. Somehow I think 'carried interest' will still be tax advantaged. And folks living on the Rockefeller wealth will still be rich and have money to spend. And our Senators and Congresscritters will be protected, possibly having tax-free income like the EU desk jockeys do.
I can agree with the coming soon part, though. Something evil this way comes.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.