Help! I cannot afford a pension

Harvey Jones
by Lovemoney Staff Harvey Jones on 08 June 2009  |  Comments 22 comments

When is saving into a pension a complete waste of money? And if you can't afford to save right now, will you be OK? Harvey Jones investigates.

One of the most plausible excuses people give for failing to start a pension is that they can't save enough money to make it worthwhile.

After my recent article trying to frighten people into saving, In Retirement Nobody Can Hear You Scream, several lovemoney.com readers posted messages saying that on their incomes, they simply couldn't afford it.

Our sister website The Motley Fool calculates you need to save Half a Million Pounds to really enjoy your retirement, so I can see their point.

That is far beyond the reach of most people. No wonder nine million people are saving nothing whatsoever.

This got me thinking. At what point is doing nothing for your retirement a rational approach?

Can pay. Must pay

Let's start by whittling out those who definitely should be saving.

First, this category includes everybody who can afford to do so. If you have a decent income, it is your moral duty to save for retirement, rather than blowing your cash and expecting the taxpayer to provide. It is also the only way of maintaining your current lifestyle after you quit working.

As if you needed more encouragement, the Government even gives you pension and ISA tax breaks to help you on your way.

Time is on your side. Don't waste it

Second, anybody in their 20s or 30s should be saving, even if they think they have better things to spend the money on.

You may only be able to manage tiny contributions now, but these are worth more than anything you invest when you are older, because they have longer to grow in value, explains Jane Baker in How To Double Your Pension.

As Tom McPhail, pension specialist at Hargreaves Lansdown, told me while preparing this article: "To suggest anybody under the age of 40 shouldn't bother investing in a pension is a counsel of despair."

In other words, fail to invest in your pension when you're young - and you'll only have yourself to blame when you end up old, poor and miserable.

In fact, here at lovemoney.com, we go so far as to recommend you start saving into your child's pension as soon as they're born. Seriously - it might even make your child a billionaire!

Mid-life pensions crisis

Having said that, anyone in their 40s or 50s should also be saving, even if they haven't saved a penny so far.

You've left it a bit late, but may still have another 15 or 20 years' working life ahead of you.

You may not hit that dream half a million, or even come close, but if you set aside all you can, top it up with tax relief, Boost Your Pension by 52% by deferring it for up to five years, and bring in some extra cash with a part-time job, then you should muddle through in reasonabe shape.

That's better than simply giving up.

Ooh, aah, just a little bit

So that's a lot of people who should be saving into their pension. I know many of them will be on low incomes, and will be reluctant to bury their money in a pension fund, which they can't touch until age 55 at the earliest.

But you don't have to save in a pension in order to save tax-efficiently for your retirement. It might be better to start with a cash Isa, which is lower risk and tax-free, but lets you get at your money in an emergency.

Somebody on a low income aso has more to gain by saving £1,000 than a higher earner. If you've been living on a financial knife edge, having just a bit in the bank can give you a fantastic sense of security and achievement.

Although I admit it won't buy you much of an annuity.

Read more about the benefits of Pensions versus ISAs.

Mean test

Things get trickier when you take the case of somebody in their 50s with zero pension or savings, and little income to spare at the end of the month.

They have two worries. Saving seems hopeless, because they are likely to assemble only a tiny sum, plus any savings they do muster risk being taxed into oblivion by the Means Test.

The Means Test is a worry, partly because people on low incomes can face marginal tax rates of 70% or more, and partly because it is so complicated.

But from November, the first £10,000 of pensioners' savings will be exempt (up from the current £6,000).

So that's something.

And the state rewards those over 65 who have saved for their retirement, by granting single people savings credit up to £20.40 a week, and couples £27.03 a week. This is open to those with incomes up to £181 a week and couples up to £266 a week.

And between you and me, if you did seem likely to fall foul of the Means Test, I don't think the Department for Work & Pensions could complain if you decided you needed, say, a new kitchen or a holiday.

Plus of course pensions legislation is changing all the time, and the Means Test could have been scrapped or radically amended by the time you retire.

So again, the balance is in favour of saving rather than doing nothing.

The exception that proves the rule

I embarked on this article in a bid to find somebody who really shouldn't be saving for retirement.

It wasn't easy but I've racked my brains - and finally I've thought of someone.

If you have major debts, such as an overdraft or credit card balance, you should focus your fire on clearing them first. The interest is likely to cost you much more than you'll ever reap from an investment or savings plan.

Plus, if there is one thing worse than going into retirement without a pension fund, it's having debts as well.

But once you are back in the black, start saving.

So with one notable exception, everybody should be saving for their future right now, although not always in a pension fund.

No excuses. Sorry.

More: How to choose the right SIPP | In retirement, nobody can hear you scream

Enjoyed this? Show it some love

Twitter
General

Comments (22)

  • suewhistle
    Love rating 3
    suewhistle said

    If you are on the margins of falling foul of the means test far better than a holiday or new kitchen if you own a house are investments to keep your costs down: insulate, maybe solar domestic hot water etc. These aren't taken into account when benefits are paid, and in the future if there is still a winter fuel allowance it might end up paying your whole year's usage.

    Report on 08 June 2009  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • rightoncommander
    Love rating 14
    rightoncommander said

    Harvey, if you had to rack your brains to figure out that people in debt shouldn't be saving for a pension, you would be in the wrong job! Actually, I'm sure there was a stylistic purpose to this claim, though I am at a loss to understand it. You most especially want 20- and 30-somethings to get a pension - the very group most likely to be in debt, much of it necessary, such as student debt. Also, there is an exception to the exception, in that employers often match contributions, thus meaning the gain from the pension contribution may be greater than the interest on debt.

    Also, no word from you on whether a mortgage constitutes "debt" in your definition? I'd be interested to know your thoughts - this issue is not as clear-cut as you would like to make out.

    The idea that drawing a State pension is immoral is utterly repellent to individuals who have spent their working life paying into the National Insurance system that is designed to provide that very benefit. If you want a moral discussion, join a debating society, or go to church.

    Oh, and what are these "tax breaks" you speak of? They have now been whittled down to nothing - most people wouldn't consider deferring a tax bill as a tax "break". This benefit also comes at the cost of having your money tied up for decades, and entails an increased risk, in that most of the pension pot must be used to purchase an annuity, which ceases to pay out on the death of the recipient. Reading this article it's almost as though Gordon Brown was never Chancellor at all!

    It may be foolhardy to fail to provide for one's future, but there is no one-size-fits-all solution, and telling everyone to get a pension could be very damaging advice to a large minority of your readers. Now there is a real moral question for you to ponder.

    Report on 08 June 2009  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • Tiger Moth
    Love rating 2
    Tiger Moth said

    It seems perfectly rational to me to 'invest in ones-self'. In a sense, student debt is just that. Maybe that means spending nothing on a pension in the early years, despite all the claims for growth of the pension pot over time, but then 'going heavy' in later years - perhaps by 'buying-to-let'.

    I agree that 'one size fits all' means most get something that does not fit. 

    Report on 09 June 2009  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • antonyob
    Love rating 5
    antonyob said

    i dont know why an insurer doesnt launch a cash pension like your cash isa. equity performance is used as an excuse not to save enough on the gamble that the growth makes up the shortfall and equities for many are a big scary monster. its all very well saying equities outperform everything else in the long term but theres a generation of workers who have been saving for 10 years who've seen the opposite.

    if you said to someone you will get 3-5% growth therefore your fund is 95% likely to be £x then they may crack on and save more and maybe more employers would look at the numbers and ask whether they were doing enough for their employees.

    Report on 09 June 2009  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • IFAPaul
    Love rating 2
    IFAPaul said

    Hi Antonyob

    You can invest in cash in a pension and a lot of people have their pension pots in cash at the moment having chosen to switch to cash to avoid the drops. This does of course mean that you miss out on any potential gains in the market. If you are investing over the long term in a pension it makes sense to take some risk as when the market is low you are buying more units.

    The underlying factor with anyone looking for a pension is that each person is different and there definitely isn't a one fits all. I would suggest seeking independent advice to look at your own situation and the options you have.

    The other thing to bear in mind is that if you have debts that you are going to pay off by retirement, then the amount of income you need to generate from a pension will reduce by this amount. Hypothetically, and in simple terms if you earn £1200 per month now and pay out £600 in mortgage and loans that all finish by retirement, then in theory your pension only needs to provide £600 pm less state pension.

    Hope this helps.

    Report on 09 June 2009  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • atseyes1
    Love rating 4
    atseyes1 said

    This is all very well for the financially astute, but for many millions of ordinary workers, there is a real problem. Where do they get advice? The pensions plans, or the ISAs, are provided by the financial sector, and it is the financial sector - the banks - that most people would have gone to, to get advice on their pensions provision.

    And how many people trust the banks these days, either for advice, or with their money?

    Report on 09 June 2009  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • supersol
    Love rating 1
    supersol said

    Ah, no need to worry. Come 2012 the government will force all employers and employees into pension saving, including the millions of employees for whom it will be money down the drain.

    Nobody is going to advise these poor saps that they would be exponentially better off opting out, and saving in an ISA and spending down to £10K on retirement.

    Report on 09 June 2009  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • jmarke
    Love rating 1
    jmarke said

    Why are you working? - I am working so that I can stop and do something more interesting.

    I don't care who you are or what you do for a living, with very few real exceptions you can save for retirement if you want to - the problem is most people are too short sighted and too busy spending next years income to care.

    I am 45 and by choice have had no debt and haven't had any since I was 30. Our single income family is not well off, in fact as a small business owner (self-employed) we are up against it at the moment, but we will definately survive because our overheads are so low. 

    We deliberately chose a more modest lifestyle, with no debt and therefore retained the ability to do some saving for our retirement. The thought that societies parasites can go through life, living it up and expect to put their hand in my pocket when they are retired and broke is enough to make me sick. 

    Stop making excuses!!! Save or starve your choice.

    Report on 09 June 2009  |  Love thisLove  1 love
  • matchmade
    Love rating 38
    matchmade said

    I started saving into a personal pension in 1997, at the age of 35. Before that, I really did not have any spare money, after counting money saved for a deposit on my own house. Post-1997 I invested in equities, with income reinvested, and initially saw a bit of growth, but since 1999 I have had absoutely no net return. The last ten years have been a complete waste of time as far as the stock markets are concerned: two major slumps from 2000 and 2008 mean any gains have been completely wiped out.

    In contrast, I also invested in buy-to-let property from 1997, and the overall returns, despite the current slump, have been excellent. My net non-pension assets have climbed from about £40K to £900,000 in 2007 to about £500,000 now, plus planning permission on my property sites to build 4 new flats and 2 detached houses, and 4 more houses in the planning pipeline.

    Of course all those people who hate landlords and developers and claim we put up house prices will be laughing at my heavy paper losses, but they never offer any constructive suggestions about where I was meant to invest my surplus money instead, if being a landlord or a housebuilder is so evil. If I'd put as much as possible into cash, pensions and ISAs, and stuck with just owning my own home, I'd have got nowhere. Instead I've used my own initiative to made some profits; provided rental housing for people who couldn't afford to buy (as

    I couldn't myself until I was 35, renting throughout the 80s and most of the 90s); I've done a hell of a lot of property

    maintenance and improvement on the battered houses I bought; and as a small builder and developer I've provided direct employment for about four people a year on average over five years.

    The fact is that personal pensions are probably worth doing, but only if people have plenty of cash savings, own their own home and are on top of the mortgage with decent prospects of paying it off through an investment vehicle like ISAs, and aren't the sort of person who wants to be self-employed and run their own business. Arguably instead of investing in a pension, they will get far better returns by paying down their mortgage, especially given the disastrous performance of the stock market over many years, and its unreliability compared with bricks and mortar.

    Report on 09 June 2009  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • mnp
    Love rating 0
    mnp said

    Unless you're in a final salary pension scheme or your employer pays your pension, the present system provides a disincentive to save as saving a small amount will result in a small pension which could deprive you of the right to claim means tested benefits (which may be worth more than the pension itself).

    When saving more money, you are reducing your standard of living and relying on reaching retirement age (something which 1 in 6 don't). If the retirement age is raised to 70 then even more people won't get to enjoy their pension.

    Personally, I prefer to overpay the mortgage or invest money in a way where I can see the benefit regardless of whether I make it to 70.

    I don't have a partner who would benefit from any pension I pay into.

    Report on 09 June 2009  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • Quarket
    Love rating 25
    Quarket said

    For those private sector workers who think stripping public sector employees of their pension rights that they have built up over decades in low paid jobs is a good idea, imagine the following scenario:

    You have a 30 year mortgage on your house and you are in the 29th year of that mortgage and never been in arrears, but because of financial incompetence by the morgage supplier, they suddenly tell you that they can't pay off your loan at the end of the 30 year term. To compensate for this they will extend the loan at the same rate for another 10 years or only pay off 70% of your loan. To some extent this has happened with endowment mortgages, but do you remember how angry you felt about it?

    Remember that pension accrual is really deferred salary and by taking away pension rights of current employees, you are effectively stripping them of salary that they earned years or decades ago. Not that different to the mortgage example I have given above. Also, in the case of public sector employees, the pension is a comparitively larger slice of the salary package and is meant to protect the low paid public workers in their retirement. If you start stripping away that protection after decades of work, you will have another pensions scandal which will drive people away from the idea of saving for the future.

    Report on 09 June 2009  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • fenemore
    Love rating 203
    fenemore said

    Overheard two young ladies discussing the benefits of their respective "latest" mobile phones. After comparing all the pointless functions of the devices one said to the other "...and I get 200 minutes and 500 texts and it only costs me £80 a month."

    It only cost her "£80 a month" - I nearly choked on my Fishermen's Friend, if I spend more than 80p a month on mine I get worried - but it does sum up some people's priorities. No doubt these same girls would claim they cannot afford to save for a pension, and anyway they are never going to get old are they?

    Ok - you cannot spend all those years focused on your old age - you do want to live! But there is a difference between "living" and "blind stupidity".

    One of the biggest tragedies of the Labour government was to undermine company final salary pension schemes. Most companies had membership of the scheme a condition of employment. It did therefore, enforce a discipline, one which is now lost.

    Leaving it to personal choice is never going to work - there will be too many dependant on the State pension (assuming it survives) and/or welfare. An incentive is required - I suggest to HMG that on reaching retirement age income-tax liability ceases completely, both pension and savings. To help offset the loss, HMG could cease basic rate tax relief on pension contributions. The relief on savings is an obvious winner, after all the tax was paid on the earnings that went into savings! Don't forget that HMG will get a slice of everything you spend (other than food) via VAT, so it is not as if you cease contributing completely - politicians take note!

    Report on 09 June 2009  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • gardener
    Love rating 25
    gardener said

    One 18 y.o. took your advice, and invested some savings into a stakeholder pension. Hard to convince her as there are so many other things you could do with that money. Within 1 year her investment has crashed, losing her over £500 of the original £1000 invested + £280 top up from the government. Try to explain now why saving for your retirement is a good idea. When they are that young, long-term just doesn't exist and to loose that much money in so short a time was shocking. I've hidden her statement and hope she doesn't notice it until things pick up again one day...

    Report on 09 June 2009  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • McLeodC
    Love rating 13
    McLeodC said

    "...if you did seem likely to fall foul of the Means Test, I don't think the Department for Work & Pensions could complain if you decided you needed, say, a new kitchen..."

    That doesn't stop them trying to complain! I once did casual work for an indeterminate period that eventually lasted one year. Because of the uncertainty, I made no pension contributions until near the end of my employment, when I paid my year's-worth of savings as a lump sum into my stakeholder personal pension plan. Soon afterwards my job ended, and I had to claim benefits for a few weeks until I found new employment. As usual, the benefits office asked to see my latest bank statements to assess that my savings did not exceed the threshold for entitlement to means-tested state benefits. The large cheque payout immmediately attracted their suspicions, and despite my explanation (with full supporting evidence) that it represented my pension contributions for the year, I was accused of "deliberate deprivation of assets", and my benefits claim was rejected!

    This decision was overturned on appeal, and I received my full backdated benefits after some delay - which in itself could have caused real problems for many people. The final outcome might have been different if I'd been less able to argue my case, and would almost certainly have been different if I'd spent the money on fripperies like a holiday or kitchen!

    Report on 09 June 2009  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • antonyob
    Love rating 5
    antonyob said

    ifapaul

    yes i know there are cash funds and i understand pound cost averaging but you sell an unknown and you get fear. that is a straightforward human response to something you dont know about. you can remove it by giving a guarantee. the guarantee is "at least your money back" in a cash fund. in fact your money back plus at least 20% plus whatever growth you achieve. Sell any product with those credentials and you have a winner. Add in the dark arts of equities and you put alot of people off.

    Its not for the sophisticated investor or even the rich one, they can look after themselves. A new approach is needed for the many who are not the above.

    Report on 09 June 2009  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • Tiger Moth
    Love rating 2
    Tiger Moth said

    fenemore said

    "I suggest to HMG that on reaching retirement age income-tax liability ceases completely, both pension and savings. To help offset the loss, HMG could cease basic rate tax relief on pension contributions." 

    Assuming that policy applies to everyone, the immediate effect is that people drawing a pension today (all those over 65) will benefit and all those paying into a pension (almost all under 65) will lose.

    Get real.

    Even dumb polititians might realise that this is politically explosive.

    Report on 09 June 2009  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • ponyboy
    Love rating 1
    ponyboy said

    I'm fifty this year and most of my friends are roughly the same age and we have all worked in the private sector all our working lives.

    None of us has a pension to speak of and we all believe it's morally acceptable to throw ourselves on the mercy of the state as we've been paying for the massive public sector pensions for years. I know the argument twenty years ago was that public sector salaries lagged behind the private sector, but this clearly hasn't been the case for a substantial number of years. If I'm paying for public sector pensions, why shouldn't they pay for ours?

    Report on 10 June 2009  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • Sandwichman888
    Love rating 0
    Sandwichman888 said

    Have recently retired. Previously spent more than 10 years paying into a personal pension plan some £30000. have been rewarded with a "pension pot" some £2000 in total less than that. This means I have lost an absolute packet because the Pension Fund in which I invested had the use of my money all those years!! Not exactly a great Pension savings advert!!

    Report on 10 June 2009  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • londonschild
    Love rating 8
    londonschild said

    Hi all

    In Ireland they have recently imposed a levy on all public sector workers to pay for the pensions ferocious resistance of course but in the end it was accepted as the alternative was to 'do a Barclays' and lose it all. I am within 2 years of claiming my public sector pension after working in public service for 40 years the thought of losing it induces a measure of both terror and despair. I am particularly distressed by the vindictive glee of some public sector pension opposers who appear to think I have been idling around leaching off the poor taxpayer for all that time when in fact I have been nursing and teaching and to a large extent getting the qualifications needed self funded in my own time. I once worked out that I had done 11 years overall of part-time higher education when my peers were out enjoying themselves. All my own choice of course but when did I become a villain?

    Incidentally it is by no means definite that public sector pensions are unaffordable there are reputable studies that say they are not and we are going through the same process we went through in the 80's when the Tories hired tame commentators to say that the public sector was wasteful and unaffordable before trashing it.

    Report on 10 June 2009  |  Love thisLove  1 love
  • Kent
    Love rating 6
    Kent said

    Just a few suggestions on types of people who do not need to save for a pension.

    1. Me. My state pension is just over £7,000pa, because of a bit of SERPS and some other state addition I paid for once upon a time. Anyway, if you are on the state minimum pension, then your income will probably be made up to a figure higher than this (I forget what this figure is called, or its current amount - too lazy to look it up again) Last year I lived very happily on less than this. This year will be just the same.

    2. Anyone with kids. Spend it on the kids now. When they leave home you will, comparatively, have money coming out of your ears, so save then for a pension, if you want to save at all. Enjoy times with your kids while you can. Most people really do not NEED a retirement pot of £x00,000. A few tens of thousands will be more than enough for a reasonable standard of living.

    3. Anyone with any employer-provided pension, including pension earned in the past, and now deferred.

    Harvey - Ever thought of talking to some real actual pensioners, instead of the PR people from the pensions industry?

    Report on 10 June 2009  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • fenemore
    Love rating 203
    fenemore said

    Tiger Moth said...

    Assuming that policy applies to everyone, the immediate effect is that people drawing a pension today (all those over 65) will benefit and all those paying into a pension (almost all under 65) will lose.

    Get real.

    Even dumb politicians might realise that this is politically explosive

    I take your point - but whenever legislation changes there are winners and losers. Or are you saying that nothing must ever change because of this?

    Report on 11 June 2009  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • SiGl26
    Love rating 26
    SiGl26 said

    Surely there is a way to calculate (under current rules; we all recognise that governments can change the rules as the game progresses...) how much extra income one needs to have to be better off with basic state pension + private provision vs. basic state pension + pension credits + other benefits. If one can't hit that, spend up and retire on the state, just like those who've never even thought about helping themsleves. If one can hit that target, do so and be better off in retirement, avoid resenting those who are nearly as well off without your sacrifices, and enjoy life while you have it!

    Report on 03 September 2009  |  Love thisLove  0 loves

Post a comment

Sign in or register to post a reply.

Our top deals

Provider & account name AER/Gross Interest paid Apply
now

Aldermore
1 Year Fixed Rate Account

1.85% /
1.85%
On Maturity Apply

Derbyshire BS
Derbyshire NetSaver Issue 11

1.70% /
1.70%
Yearly Apply

Nationwide BS
MySave Online Plus

1.70% /
1.69%
Monthly Apply
W3C  Thank you for using CGWEBLIV4