17-10-2013, 03:24 PM
1
Charles v Pension Funds
In a pre-recorded speech, Charles told pension funds that "your grandchildren, and mine for that matter, will be consigned to an exceptionally miserable future", if the sector merely concentrates on the short term.Charles urged investors at the National Association of Pension Funds' (NAPF) conference in Manchester "to help shape a system designed for the 21st and not 19th century" by improving their approach to social and economic changes.
The Prince's comments follow a report from independent pensions expert and former Downing Street adviser Ros Altmann, which earlier this week called for an overhaul of pensions and argued they are " not fit for 21st century lives".
Dr Altmann backed Charles's comments, saying: "Pensions are meant to deliver long-term value. What we don't want is to get hijacked by the short-term and sell our children's future away."
She said she hoped the Prince's comments will have an impact, adding: "It's clear that we need to make some changes. We are living for today in a dangerous way."
Paul Green, director of communications for over-50s body Saga, said Charles is "absolutely right" to speak out.
He said: "Whilst the heir to the throne may have a secure future, many of his potential subjects have something altogether less savoury in store for their retirement.
"The pensions and savings industry together with Government need to step up to the mark and provide good-value, long-term, flexible and secure savings and equity-release solutions. Long-term sustainability must be at the heart of the nation's plans for an older society."
Although he is known for his views on the environment, it is a rare for the Prince, who turns 65 next month, to comment on financial matters.
Charles told those who attended the conference yesterday: "I don't think you need me to tell you that we live in increasingly uncertain times. We are facing what could be described as a perfect storm.
Can we really expect insurance companies to operate for anything other than profit? Is it realistic to expect them to? They are, after all, in business to make a profit - so are they the right people for the job? Would it make more sense for the government to take over the whole pension thing and any surplus they make, they keep and at the same time, ensure that older people have a decent standard of living?
I'm no fan of Charles but well done to him for speaking up.
http://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/cha...063005877.html
18-10-2013, 01:48 AM
6
Re: Charles v Pension Funds
At the moment a person gets 9% of his/her wages payed into super. Say the income is $800 a week then $72 will be payed into their fund. If your lucky to be able to work for 30 yearsthen at that rate you would have $112320 + interest paid into the fund.
Now at the moment we are paid $632/fortnight. For 10 years that =$164320.(government aged Pension)
You would need to have approx. $106 a week paid into your fund.
I know some will say that your wages will go up over the 30 years & thus giving you a higher amount of money..I agree...I was just showing that, You need a long term good paying job to achieve a super pension that will give you a comfortable life style. This was roughly calculated only for a ten year pension!!!
18-10-2013, 11:01 AM
7
Re: Charles v Pension Funds
Originally Posted by ben-varrey
->
In a pre-recorded speech, Charles told pension funds that "your grandchildren, and mine for that matter, will be consigned to an exceptionally miserable future", if the sector merely concentrates on the short term.Charles urged investors at the National Association of Pension Funds' (NAPF) conference in Manchester "to help shape a system designed for the 21st and not 19th century" by improving their approach to social and economic changes.
The Prince's comments follow a report from independent pensions expert and former Downing Street adviser Ros Altmann, which earlier this week called for an overhaul of pensions and argued they are " not fit for 21st century lives".
Dr Altmann backed Charles's comments, saying: "Pensions are meant to deliver long-term value. What we don't want is to get hijacked by the short-term and sell our children's future away."
She said she hoped the Prince's comments will have an impact, adding: "It's clear that we need to make some changes. We are living for today in a dangerous way."
Paul Green, director of communications for over-50s body Saga, said Charles is "absolutely right" to speak out.
He said: "Whilst the heir to the throne may have a secure future, many of his potential subjects have something altogether less savoury in store for their retirement.
"The pensions and savings industry together with Government need to step up to the mark and provide good-value, long-term, flexible and secure savings and equity-release solutions. Long-term sustainability must be at the heart of the nation's plans for an older society."
Although he is known for his views on the environment, it is a rare for the Prince, who turns 65 next month, to comment on financial matters.
Charles told those who attended the conference yesterday: "I don't think you need me to tell you that we live in increasingly uncertain times. We are facing what could be described as a perfect storm.
Can we really expect insurance companies to operate for anything other than profit? Is it realistic to expect them to? They are, after all, in business to make a profit - so are they the right people for the job? Would it make more sense for the government to take over the whole pension thing and any surplus they make, they keep and at the same time, ensure that older people have a decent standard of living?
I'm no fan of Charles but well done to him for speaking up.
http://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/cha...063005877.html
Karen darlin' - I think he's got a bloody nerve!!! - his kids and grandkids will be featherbedded irrespective what else happens to the economy (unless we have a 'Socialist' revolution - bring it on I say - the sooner the better) "He's alright jack, pull up the ladder". Its time he was told in no uncertain terms to keep his nose out of politics.
As for your idea of nationalising the pensions industry - I like it!!!! - we'll make a full blown 'Socialist' of you yet Karen darlin'
18-10-2013, 11:12 AM
8
Re: Charles v Pension Funds
Originally Posted by Uncle Joe
->
Karen darlin' - I think he's got a bloody nerve!!! - his kids and grandkids will be featherbedded irrespective what else happens to the economy (unless we have a 'Socialist' revolution - bring it on I say - the sooner the better) "He's alright jack, pull up the ladder". Its time he was told in no uncertain terms to keep his nose out of politics.
if you can think up a suitable (and incredibly flattering tag 
) I shall be happy to wear it but none of the political tags at the moment suit me or the way I think 
18-10-2013, 01:07 PM
10
Re: Charles v Pension Funds
Originally Posted by Pats CG
->
I'm no Royalist, but I will never understand why he is told to keep his nose out of evrything - He is entitled to his opinion as everyone else ......
Yes Pats darlin' - he is entitled to his own views - but he has far more access to the 'mass media' than anyone else, merely because he is who he is. When Mrs Windsor 'snuffs it' he will become 'King' (unless there's a revolution in the meantime) and then he MUST remain silent.
|
|
