[mrmistoffelees]

Originally Posted by Paul

None of that answered the question.



Again, why ?

The "state" as you call it states (!) they will be there to support them, in the form of a "state" pension.

Once again you blindly assume that everyone everywhere could afford a private pension, the real world isnt (and wasnt) like that.

I’d wager more people historically could afford it than present day.

---------- Post added at 21:26 ---------- Previous post was at 21:24 ----------

Originally Posted by jfman

While I accept that’s true - do you think the average person thinks that or thinks there’s an “I’ve paid in all my days” side pot?

Successive Governments - of both colours - likening the macroeconomics of the state to a household budget will not have helped in this regard either. Both my parents got hit by state pension age increases, and while they didn’t rely on getting it on time since they retired early with a lump sum, it’s very easy to see how working class people in low paid jobs reasonably expect a pension and budget for it.

I’m at the front of the queue to argue for transparency around this, and costs of both health and social care. We’d very quickly see the erosion of opposition to wealth taxes and acceptance of tax avoidance as fair game if the average person saw it in plain sight.

Sorry but if the average person doesn’t think far enough ahead about their financial security and just blindly assumes they’ll be ok, then whose fault is that ?