Workplace, or auto-enrolment pensions were of themselves a reform, an attempt to reintroduce some form of compulsion to retirement savings. In the days of paternalistic final-salary pensions, paid-for by the big employers and supported/enforced by the all-powerful unions, this was rarely an issue. Nowadays a job-for-life is as rare as was redundancy until 30 years or so ago, and auto-enrolment was at least an admission of some kind that market forces and the freedom of the individual are not the answer to everything. Those who most need to save are, however, least likely to, and making pensions cheap and non-advised will not square that circle. Should both employers and employees be forced to pay in more? Apparently, it’s the ‘Australian model’ of pensions which is being seen as the ideal, and the minimum required payments there are double ours. I’m not sure what other options we have, but please not yet another new-model of pension to add to all the others. How about increasing National Insurance to pay for a better State Pension? Ah, we’re abolishing NI, aren’t we? Hey ho.
“Aegon: Living to 100 is no longer a fantasy, but are we prepared?”
Not sure how many of us actually fantasise about living into our hundreds nor the extent to which we can prepare for it.
