Poverty for pensioners thanks to Browns plunder.

Image via Wikipedia

Here is an item I read in yahoo about pensioners, I think it was published in "THE TELEGRAPH" newspaper.


Myra Butterworth, 22:23, Monday 26 April 2010

Couples need to budget nearly £600,000 to cover the cost of their retirement, new figures have disclosed.

It means each pensioner needs an income more than double the basic state pension just to cover everyday costs such as food, petrol and clothing.

The annual expenditure is a third higher than five years ago, with retiring workers hit by a double whammy of falling income from their pensions and rising costs.

Laith Khalaf, a pensions expert at wealth managers Hargreaves Lansdown, said: "Millions of people are sleepwalking into an impoverished old age. You cant expect to spend twenty or thirty years in retirement without stashing away a substantial amount of money while you are still working."

The latest figures, compiled by MGM Advantage, suggested the average household needs £564,227 to cover the cost of the first 20 years after quitting the workforce.

The calculation is based on annual household expenditure for those aged 65 to 74 at £23,107, compared with £14,926 for those aged 75 and over. Five years ago, the figures were £17,737 and £11,700 respectively.

The higher cost of living in London means an average retired couple needs a total of £668,553 over 20 years while the lower cost of living in the North East means households need £473,178.

Chris Evans, chief executive of MGM Advantage, said: "There is significant pressure on pensioner income. Those people retiring today can expect to live for twenty years but with annuity rates falling and the cost of living rising, funding retirement is a difficult task.

"With such large regional discrepancies in the cost of living in retirement, we wouldn't be surprised if more people considered relocating to other less expensive parts of the country in order to search out a better quality of life.

As expenditure has risen, pension incomes have declined as investment companies factor in the cost of the aging population and lower returns during the financial crisis.

A pension pot of £564,227 currently secures an annual income of £35,806, compared with £37,656 five years ago, according to Hargreaves Lansdown.

The basic state pension of £97.65 per week equates to £10,155 per year for a couple in retirement.

Only the very wealthy and those in the public sector with generous gold-plated schemes can guarantee a financially secure retirement, experts said.

Ros Altmann, a pensions expert and governor at the London School of Economics, said: "We have a real pension crisis and politicians have not woken up to it. Most peoples pensions are not going to deliver the figures they would have expected when they first started saving unless of course, you happen to work in the public sector."

Separate research by equity release specialists Key Retirement Solutions suggested pensioners are entering retirement with average debts of £36,000, including credit cards, loans, mortgages, and overdrafts.

With more immediate financial concerns such as avoiding having their homes repossessed and covering the cost of rising petrol bills, charities said households were failing to save enough for their retirement.

Michelle Mitchell, charity director at Age UK, said: "This report is another powerful reminder of the need for adequate pension provisions. Its not surprising many people are shocked by the drop in income and standards of living they experience at retirement."


Gordon Brown still has no conscience about his plundering of the pension funds which added to pensioners problems.
We did our bit to keep the pensioners that were around when we were working, with the pledge that we would be looked after in our retirement but quite the opposite has occurred.
We are among the poorest pensioners in Europe, with our savings for retirement in private, or work pensions, taxed three times before it reaches us, and a state pension that is impossible to live on thanks to Margaret Thatcher doing away with the earnings related pension, and Labour plundering our pension schemes.
Why in the world should we vote for any of them?

Related articles by Zemanta

• Couples must budget £600,000 for retirement (telegraph.co.uk)
• Pension Pains: States Slice Benefits (abcnews.go.com)
• General Election 2010: In this pensions mess, it's every man for himself (telegraph.co.uk)

Tory and Labour running scared.

Image by Getty Images via Daylife

Since Nick Clegg outshone his opposition in their last debate all Tory and Labour can think of is how to try and degrade the surging Lib-Dems rather than fight for their survival by having faith in their own policies.

The fact that the knives have been out for Nick and the Lib-Dems proves that they are now a force to reckon with, and that the other parties are running scared of a party that they had discounted in every election till now.

This is just the kick up the backside the Tory and Labour candidates needed.
All to often they have been so confident that it was a race between them, and all they had to do was to outdo each other to win the election, then once in, all the promises made were forgotten about and they governed to suit themselves, ignoring the wishes of the general public who put them there.

Tory and Labour must have as much faith in their own manifestos as the general public has if they have to stoop so low, by using tactics that attempt to discredit the Lib-Dems rather than win the public vote by assuring them that they have the right manifesto to put this country back on its feet.

"THEN AGAIN, WE ALL KNOW HOW LOW POLITICIANS ARE PREPARED TO STOOP."

We all knew both Labour and Tory were all washed up, but were afraid to vote for another party in case our vote was wasted.

NOT SO NOW, we know our votes were wasted on the other two parties in elections of the recent past, history is proof of that, and the real change is with the Lib-Dems according to the manifestos declared by all for this election.

We know now that our votes will count, and can now put our X in the box where our convictions lie, which will make this coming election all the more interesting.

Nick Clegg has shown the two arrogant parties that it is time they listened to the electorate when in or out of power, so now perhaps, they will sit up and take notice, learn the lesson dished out to them and eat the humble pie that has been well and truly place in front of them.

The Lib-Dems certainly can be no worse than the present government given the disasters they have laid at our doors in the last few years, and considering the Tory party has no interest in the working man, also given the fact that their policies are not much different from Labours, the two parties could well amalgamate rather than face each other in combat, which they may well have to do in the next debate, when they have to come face to face with the WRATH of Nick Clegg this time.

This time they will not agree with him the way they did in the last debate, but they will have to come up with some NEW ideas of their own, THAT is the only way they can prove their worth to a disillusioned public, NOT go down the road of OLD politics by using tactics to discredit the opposition.

We want responsible adults with a strong manifesto to lead us forward, not stupid schoolboys who think they are still fighting in the playground, and so far Nick Clegg is the only one who can hold his head high enough to make us sit up and take notice.

When it comes down to the nitty gritty, they all will have to remember, that it is US and OUR wishes they will have to take notice of if they want to be elected, not score points off each other.

Related articles by Zemanta

• You know the Lib Dems are flying when ... (guardian.co.uk)
• Tories struggling in Lib Dem marginals (newstatesman.com)
• A vote for the Lib Dems is a vote for the Lib Dems (guardian.co.uk)