Fits in with the narrative. We're going to be working for longer, and clearly the economic arguments are failing, so this being brought to the fore fits the narrative nicely. I am sure that you'll find other reports highlighting the health benefits of retirement if you were to look carefully. As others have said here on this thread - if retirement is making you I'll, then you are doing it wrong.

This comes the same week that Boris Johnson called workers "lazy" http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/articles/46718 ... s-lazy.htm

A far cry from those "hard working tax payers" of whom we hear so much.



This clearly is the term of abuse of choice for right wingers this week.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-22579346

When I post on this forum, I try to show respect for other people's opinions, whether they are in align with mine or not. Clearly we will agree on very little - I understand that and I respect your right to hold a differing opinion. I do hope that others will afford me the same courtesy.

Clearly you do not.

Tapatalk double posting again.

You broadcast a visceral loathing for all who disagree with you. You do that when you claim that your views are based on evidence and theirs are based on stories; that you are motivated by truth and all opposed are driven by greed.

You aren't showing respect for people when you assume they are inferior to you on the basis of their different conclusions to yours. No temperance in the choice of words you deploy will obscure the contempt you demonstrate by always presuming bad faith. If you wish to extend genuine courtesy, treat others as if they are not intent on evil and take into consideration that those opinions of theirs may have a rationale.

The claim I referred to was sheer swivel eyed lunacy. You've developed an obsession recently with narrative and somehow have drawn the conclusion that it's a tricky scheme that the vicious mean spirited right uses, and above which the pure of heart leftist rises. That in itself is a risible narrative, and you deserve a little mocking for your hypocrisy.

Now that somebody has used data to say something you don't like, you seem to have lost your preference for facts and want to subsume it within story. This is exactly what you accuse your opponents of, and you deserve some mockery for that hypocrisy too.

Stock markets are back to where they were a decade ago, and unless you received dividends your investments in the stock market will only have risen marginally. Obviously we have had a spectacular property bubble over thirty years and if you were involved then you may have done well, depending on your leverage and timing. For many pension funds they have barely returned much above interest rates when you take management fees, plus if you retired at the wrong time you would be have been hit buy failing interest rates impacting annuity rates, and stock market falls. While stock markets have recently done well as a result of QE, they are at risk if QE ends, or interest rates rise appreciably. Which is not likely for a year at least.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

I don't know what stock market you are looking at but 19/05/2003 FTSE 100 closed at 3,971 points.
Yesterday it closed at 6,723 which is 69.3% higher.
Not to mention that dividends paid are stripped from FTSE 100 every day so 69.3% is WITHOUT dividends!

In addition, the way you invest in pension is that you put in money every month so even if the the FTSE was at 6,723 10 years ago, the law of averages means that your break-even point would much lower and therefore you'd be in profit. When share prices are low the £100 will buy you more shares. Simple concept really, google it.


Yes, I did. In fact everybody did. FTSE 100 dividend yields for the last five year as per FTSE 100 UCITS ETF
2012 3.27%
2011 3.52%
2010 3.41%
2009 3.08%
2008 3.68%


I'll tell you a secret: Only minimum of people invest their pensions in property. And if you do they you shouldn't allocate more than 10%-20% of your portfolio to it. And I am pretty sure the prices are higher that 10 years for those who did. Plus there is a little thing call "rent". You know, the thing that people pay you when they are using your property. Kind of like dividend that you think people don't really get.


I've just proved you wrong on that. Feel free to adjust for inflation and inv. man. fees, you are still wrong.


Yes, this is the one you got right, so your post is not a complete distaster, well done.

Not to mention that you have conveniently forgot to mention bonds which indicates to me you have at least a slight idea how well they've done.

So same old same old Amnesia, it's all just your dreamed up reality that you are presenting as facts. But let's not get facts get in the way, it is easier just talk rubbish with confidence, isn't it?

It will be interesting to see if I get cautioned or straight banned for this post, I've really struggled to keep the "less attitude" attitude with all this non-sense in this thread. I'll guess we'll find out soon.

Same old same old Koli, too.

I'm not really sure why I'm bothering to get involved, but for a bit of anecdotal nonsense, my parents retired last year having paid a lot per month into their pension over the last 30 years and they've ended up with about half what they were expecting. Looking at what they've put in to what they're getting out, something's not performed well over the last 30 odd years and I'm very not tempted to start a pension.

As I said, I've struggled. Lies and ignorance bring it out of me.

Without knowing their circumstances the reduced rate is the fact that the amount you get per £1000 of amount saved has reduced due to Quantative Easing forcing down the value of government bonds and the fact that with people living longer insurance companies have reduced the payouts

Did they shop around for the best annuity and the amount you can get also varies from company to company

I don't know to be honest, but I would imagine they did.

Back to the OP of course retirement is harmful to health. Everyone who retires dies.

Yes, but some do seem to last slightly longer than others.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

Not only that, you'll find that the percentage of the population that dies after retiring is much higher than those that die without being exposed to retirement. Conclusive proof I think you'll find.

Have you managed to exclude sleeping and eating as causes as these also have high correlations with death?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.