I've got a stakeholder pension. I pay about £50 a month in, which is topped up by the government (so far) by the same amount.

I'm under no illusions it will even begin to pay a living pension when I retire, but I'm happier doing something than nothing. I can't afford to bung a ton a month into savings at the moment.

The suggestion of an ISA pension also took advantage of the tax relief, to boost the fund. The point made was that the costs of administering a normal pension were probably between 1.0% and 2.5% per year and that and ISA pension had no costs bar the cost of the self administered pension wrapper that it was within. If you exclude the tax relief pensions over the last few years have performed very badly, why do you think that companies are dropping final salary schemes? Because they are simply not growing enough to cover the future liabilities. Then why did people rush headlong into property because it seemed to do better than the stock market. And that was partly because you could even avoid paying capital gains taxes if you declared it as your main home. Yes you have the possibility of capital growth but then also the chances of capital losses. Also many people are having to give up on the prospect of retiring simply because the stock market crash of 2007/8 wiped out those dreams. If they had been in cash or a final salary scheme that would not have been a problem.

At the moment the UK and US stock markets are still over valued, and if fell to a more realistic Price to Earnings level it would wipe out may pension schemes. They have only been held so high because of the huge sums pumped into banks, and many pension schemes are required to invest in the stock market.

Are you sure you understand how final salary scheme works? If you are in one and stock market has plunged you won't be getting your money either as there simply won't be any.

It is not that final salary schemes perform badly, problem is that companies promised too much (final salary) and they simply can't deliver promised amount of benefits.
Final salary schemes are being replaced by direct contribution so I can't see what your point is.

If you have a pension you need to managed it (or get somebody do it for you). Closer you get to retirement more you need to switch into cash. But everybody who's done some reading will know.

And yes, compared to ISA you have to pay 1%. Have you seen my calculation on the previous page? So just do 25%-1% and you are still 24% better of...

Final salary schemes leave the liability for risk with the employer. So if the fund collapses the company is liable to make up the shortfall. So a person will still get their final salary pension but if the pension collapses before they are awarded then they become simple creditors like anyone else. You only have to see the case of Allied Steel and Wire. The directors retired then the company went bust. Because the directors were pensioners their pensions were guaranteed. Those who had been contributing but not yet retired were treated as unsecured creditors, with pensions likely to be a fraction of what they would have expected. This only becomes an issue if the company collapses. It is also why companies have abandoned final salary schemes because the funds ares simply not there to support the final salaries of future pensioners because stock markets have not grown enough to cover them.

In the ISA Pension you also get a 25% boost because of tax relief. So comparing the two means that a ISA pension could get a no risk 25%+ boost whereas a conventional pension may get a 24% boost, plus lots of risk, from your calculations. Then compound that over a working lifetime.

How can a company offer too much salary? The final salary scheme is based on the salary that a company offers. It also makes contributions based on that same salary.

There are two main types of pension. Defined benefit such as final and average salary schemes and defined contribution schemes which includes money purchase schemes. These shift the risks to the pensioner from the company and that is why they are becoming more popular with companies.

What is "ISA pension"?
What tax relief do you mean?

It is basically a self administered pension which uses the pension contributions plus the pension tax relief to pay into Cash ISA. Hence it can boost savings by 25% without any risk.

The only people I know that have been successful in their retirement have no savings or pension scheme. They just have excess property, normal a house and 2-5 flats with a small house abroad, providing you can save up enough cash for the 10% deposit the rent will normally cover the mortgage. Meaning that by retirement age your mortgage free.

Of course this is harder nowadays with the massive surge in property prices over the last 15 or so years but I still think its the best way.

Ok, I wasn't aware of this product. So it is basically SelfI nvested Pension (SIP) that you put into cash ISA.
But for other people reading this: This is not just any ISA. Make sure you save for a pension using "pension" products so you get "income tax relief" on your contributions. Not to be confused with "capital gains tax" or "tax on interest" relief.

And just my opinion: saving for pension in cash is not a good idea unless your are only few years away from the retirement.

Before the Global Financial Crisis I would have agreed. Though with interest rates so low the annuities that would normally fund your pension from what ever source will also be substantially lower. These are usually invested in long dated Gilts or government bonds but with rates so low annuity rates will struggle to maintain respectable rates. So longer term even well funded final salary schemes could be in trouble, as these are converted to Gilt backed annuities.

Stocks are only worthwhile if you have a long time to save and make up for any crashes. Anything less than 15 years and you should be starting to switch out of stocks and slowly into safe investments. Though stocks have gone nowhere over the last decade.

I don't know about that. Don't forget that indexes go "ex-dividend" regularly so just looking at FTSE100 levels now and x yrs ago won't do...

Ok, I didn't mean numbers. Of course numbers work. I was referring to the state of the market over the past 10 years. I didn't know you could have a pension in cash.
I don't have a mortgage and I don't have any intention of getting one any time soon. As it is, I can't to rent either. The realities down here are a little different to the rest of you with the lowest salaries and highest property prices.

The global system of money is designed to make me poor and a few bankers rich. Why help them?

Indexes do not go ex-div individual stocks do though. Though even adding back returns from dividends has only help marginally. Then you have to add in churning by managers to generate a fee income. In many ways you would be better off investing the pension fund in an low cost Exchange Traded Fund, with costs as low as 0.1% annually, which at least tracks the market and which very few of the active managers to exceed.

first we had NI to pay pensions
it was found that 50 or 60 years down the line it couldn't cover the costs

then we had 'opt' out of SERPS for a private pension
the Govt. then taxed all private pensions to death when they became profitable

now we have a 'new' personal pension plan or savings plan on top of your NI and guess what
in 30 to 50 years it will be found that it doesn't have enough funds or will have been taxed to death or used for other things that don't include paying a pension

best way, keep the cash under the mattress so no Govt. asshole can get to 'your' money …

That is worst of all. If it is in a bank you will at least get interest on the sum. If you have a fire you will need a very understanding insurance company to pay out.

if i have a fire then it will be women and children last, the money first …