Britain's massive pensions timebomb

Ed Bowsher
by Lovemoney Staff Ed Bowsher on 28 June 2009  |  Comments 9 comments

The government faces a long-term pensions crisis.

Britain's pensions timebomb appears to be even more explosive than I had realised. S&P, the ratings agency, reportedly believes that a combination of rising pension bills and costs associated with the financial crisis means that the UK government's debt could rise to 200% of GDP.

The national debt last hit that kind of level in the immediate aftermath of the Second World War. Currently national debt is around 50% of GDP.

Admittedly, S&P doesn't expect debt to reach 200% until 2050, but it's still a shockingly high level and shows the scale of our looming pensions timebomb.

S&P isn't the only organisation highlighting the UK's pension problem this week. An organisation called the British-North American Committee will apparently say this week the government's unfunded public sector pension deficit amounts to £1,117bn or 20,000 per person in the UK. In other words, if the UK government meets all its obligations arising from public sector pension schemes, it will eventually have to find an extra £1,117bn at today's prices.

That's going to be a tall order. There are only three ways the government will be able to find the money:

- taxes go up

- other areas of public expenditure are cut

- The UK economy grows at a very fast lick for a long-time. That will give the government extra tax income for pension payments.

Of course, the government has one other option. That's to renege on its pension promise to public sector workers. Sadly, I fear that's inevitable.

We may also see cuts in the basic state pension and other government benefits for pensioners.

So it's a pretty gloomy picture. I think the only prudent approach is to assume that when it comes to your pension, you're on your own.

Trouble is, I think some people are pretty scared of the pensions issue. They may not understand the jargon, and they fear that they'll never be able to save enough.

But, in reality, pensions are simpler than you might think. And if you follow the right approach, you could build a bigger pension pot than you might have expected.

So to help you get on the right track with your pension, I'm going to write a series on my blog this week called: 'Become a pensions expert in five steps.' I hope you return here over the week and hopefully you'll no longer be terrified by the time the series finishes.

Check out more of my blog posts

Enjoyed this? Show it some love

Twitter
General

Comments (9)

  • Iniq
    Love rating 27
    Iniq said

    I stand by what I said, regarding the comparative irrelevance of longevity compared with the relevance of interest rates.

    When interest rates were three or four times greater than they are now, pensioners could have lived for ever and still been much better off.

    Do some simple arithmetic: when interest rates are high, most of a pension comes from the interest on the pension fund so life expectancy is relatively unimportant. However, when interest rates are low, most of a pension comes from running down the capital of the pension fund, so life expectancy then (and only then) begins to become more important.

    Regarding the effect of inflation, do a bit more simple arithmetic. Lets assume that when rates of interest halve, it is because inflation has halved. In such circumstances, the income from any given pension pot will halve. But the cost of living will not have halved. It will not have decreased in the slightest. Costs will still continue to go UP, albeit only half as quickly. So a drop in interest rates will always disadvantage the pensioner - or the pension provider, if it is a defined benfits / final salary scheme.

    In fact, you can buy an index-linked annuity for only about 1.5 times the cost of a flat-rate annuity. If interest rates were twice what they are now, any given size of pension pot would produce almost twice the pension, more than enough to pay for any increase in the cost of providing for inflation.

    Regarding the state pension: this was conceived in the 1940s when a pensioner's life expectancy was about 6 months. Now that this is about 20 years, that means that the pension is 40 times more expensive to provide - a totally unsustainable situation. Interest rates are irrelevant here, since the scheme is un-funded.

    In order to recover the situation, the government will have to choose between providing a piddling, pointless little pension for everyone over 60/65 even though they are fit, active and may wish to continue working; or use the same amount of money to provide a proper, useful, substantial pension to people old enough to really need it.

    The latter makes more sense to me, since people will be able to enjoy the certainty of knowing that they will only have to provide for themselves up to the age of 80, either by saving so that they can retire earlier at a time of their choosing (55 in my case!) or by continuing to work if they haven't bothered to save.

    Report on 30 June 2009  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • dickm
    Love rating 0
    dickm said

    Hi, I have been stitched up by my private pension administrators. Back in 1998, I was offered a severance package after working @ a Tractor manufacturing & sales operation in Essex for 33 years. I had achieved a fairly senior management position, after literally starting @ the bottom. I took lump sum separation incentives, one of which came from my pension pot. Everthing was OK, until alternative work dried up for me in September 2008 (the start of the last recession?), and I have not had any work since. While I was employed and taking my pension, things were great. Now I'm finding it increasingy impossible to fund my family situation with just my early private pension, which has only increased by 4.32% in 10 years! Versus RPI increases in the same period of 31.1%. My situation will not be eased until I reach State retirement age, when and a notional content for the State pension, in my existing private pension, will be deducted (approx. £1600 a year currently), and replaced with in excess of the current rate (£5,200 p.a.). However that's nearly a year and a half away. In addition, supporting my youngest son thru' university, has exacerbated the situation. I am leaning towards taking my ex-employer and/or pension fund administrators to the Small Claims Court, in order to claw back some backdated RPI increases. However, I signed a legal "Compromise Agreement" back in 1997, which covered my separation from my employee, that included a statement that the majority of my monthly pension payment would only attract increases on a discretionary basis. Although the pension plan is actively supported as of today by contributing employees, I am bitterly disappointed that not one dicretionary increase has been granted to me to-date (since I started receiving the pension in 1998). What a way to treat a loyal employee, who made significant individual contributions to improving the Co's corporate profitability over the years!

    Any constructive advice would be most welcome, or an estimate of my chances of getting a successful result by going to The Small Claims Court.

    Report on 22 June 2010  |  Love thisLove  0 loves

Post a comment

Sign in or register to post a reply.

Our top deals

Provider & account name Credit rate (AER)
Based on £1
Overdraft
rate

Based on £1
Apply
now

Santander 123 Current Account

0.0% 0% plus £1.00 per day usage fee Apply

first direct 1st Account

N/A 15.9% EAR Apply

Halifax Reward Current Account

N/A 0% plus £2.00 per day usage fee Apply
W3C  Thank you for using One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest