Show Hide image

Decisive action is needed to prevent a retirement crisis

Most people aged 30-45 will not have enough money to retire unless the government addresses the intergenerational inequality of the current pensions system, writes Jon Greer, retirement policy expert at Old Mutual Wealth.

After years of slogging away at work, even those who love their jobs have days where they can’t wait for that magical period of retirement. But for a generation of the UK population, daydreams of holidays, rest and relaxation are being clouded by worries about whether they will ever be able to afford not to work.

Last summer, Theresa May promised to build an economy that works “for every one of us”, and the government established an Inclusive Economy Unit. But intergenerational inequality has continued to grow, due to the longterm shift in the pensions landscape.

There is now an entire generation – those aged 30-45, the “in-betweeners” – of people who are at a huge risk of under-saving for retirement. The previous generation has been provided for through a combination of funded pension provision and home ownership, and the generation after was introduced to auto-enrolment from a younger age, which should help to ensure that their income in retirement is at least adequate.

A closer look confirms our suspicions. The ONS recently found that while household incomes have increased for retirees in recent years, non-retired households still have less money, on average, than before the 2008 crash. At the same time, it released data showing overall income inequality had shrunk to levels comparable with the 1980s. This means that the gap between high and low earners has decreased, but the gap between the young and old has widened.

The generation following these in-betweeners has time on its side. Modelling by the Pension Policy Institute in 2015 showed that a median earner would need to contribute between 11 and 14 per cent of their earnings from age 22 to the State Pension age to maintain their living standards. Even then, this isn’t certain – these people only have a two-thirds probability of maintaining their standard of living.

For people who begin contributing later, the PPI says contribution levels to replicate working life living standards could be as high as 27 per cent. The average in-betweener would have been in their 30s when auto-enrolment was introduced, meaning they face a colossal challenge to make up the shortfall. Furthermore, the PPI report shows average employer contribution levels into defined contribution schemes were below four per cent of salary in 2014. While the minimum contribution levels are due to rise in 2018, the scale of the challenge for this generation is clear.

This growing intergenerational inequality has not gone unnoticed. Labour MP Frank Field has launched a select committee review of intergenerational fairness. In its preliminary report, the committee recommended the government undertake a forward-looking assessment of intergenerational income and wealth. Old Mutual Wealth has already embarked on the same process.

We recently conducted research with YouGov to better understand this generation – who they are, what their savings habits are, and how they feel about their retirement. Of the more than 3,000 respondents, almost nine out of 10 agree it is important to save/ invest for the future. But 22 percent save £100 or less per month. Why? After they fork out each month for childcare costs, student debts and rent or mortgage payments, they simply don’t have enough money left at the end of the month. The Bank of England says this trend is set to worsen: it predicts on record as households dig into savings to fuel spending.

Another key element of the problem is that this “in-between” generation keeps putting financial planning on the back burner. On average, those aged 30 said it would take them almost 10 years to start planning. As they moved through their mid-thirties, people began delaying even more.

This planning procrastination has resulted in just 13 per cent of 44- and 45-year-olds reporting to have a plan in place and we believe this is a key contributor to high levels of concern. Over half of the people surveyed feel negatively about their financial future.

The situation these in-betweeners find themselves in is not generally of their own making. The reasons are complex, but things that may have been taken as fairly straightforward by previous generations – owning your own home and building up a funded pension – are much more challenging for this generation.

At the moment we operate a ‘pay as you go’ system for state pensions, meaning the national insurance paid today funds the current generation of retirees. While the system has its merits, society has changed and it’s creating a problem. As society gets greyer, working-age taxpayers face a growing bill to cover the state pension.

Changes to the state pension were introduced, in part, in recognition of this. The package of changes included the triple lock, rising state pension ages and the abolition of the earnings-related part of the state pension. The underlying premise of these three changes was to replace the state pension with a new deal, in which the state pension started later but was of a decent amount, indexed at a reasonable level. The triple lock ensures that the state pension increases each year by either earnings growth, inflation or 2.5 per cent, whichever is highest. The issue with the triple lock is that regardless of what is happening to people’s earnings generally or the state of the economy, the state pension will ‘ratchet’ up by at least 2.5 per cent. This ratchet effect has been key to rectifying the relative decline in the state pension that occurred between the ‘80s to the ‘00s.

However, the scenario has changed again and policy needs to reflect that. There are some options that could ensure the social contract remains in place. For instance, now that the relative decline in the state pension has reversed, the triple lock should be reviewed from 2020 and replaced with an earnings link. In times when earnings fall behind price inflation, an above-earnings increase could kick in until real earnings growth resumes. The government should also consider future policy on universal pensioner benefits. Targeting these benefits more efficiently could help leave something in the pot for younger generations.

Another option for policymakers to consider is increasing auto-enrolment contributions to help this generation make ground more quickly. An agerelated approach to maximum autoenrolment contributions and the use of ‘nudge’ techniques to minimise opt-outs should be considered.

Doing nothing is not an option. If Theresa May wants to build an economy for all of us, she must not forget that a whole generation currently has little hope of escaping work and spending its days of retirement in the sun.

To view all of Old Mutual Wealth’s retirement reports, visit:

Jon Greer is a retirement policy expert at Old Mutual Wealth.

Show Hide image

Meet Anne Marie Waters - the Ukip politician too extreme for Nigel Farage

In January 2016, Waters launched Pegida UK with former EDL frontman Steven Yaxley-Lennon (aka Tommy Robinson). 

There are few people in British political life who can be attacked from the left by Nigel Farage. Yet that is where Anne Marie Waters has found herself. And by the end of September she could well be the new leader of Ukip, a party almost synonymous with its beer-swilling, chain-smoking former leader.

Waters’s political journey is a curious one. She started out on the political left, but like Oswald Mosley before her, has since veered dramatically to the right. That, however, is where the similarities end. Waters is Irish, agnostic, a lesbian and a self-proclaimed feminist.

But it is her politics – rather than who she is – that have caused a stir among Ukip’s old guard. Former leader Paul Nuttall has said that her views make him “uncomfortable” while Farage has claimed Ukip is “finished” if, under her leadership, it becomes an anti-Islam party.

In her rhetoric, Waters echoes groups such as the English Defence League (EDL) and Britain First. She has called Islam “evil” and her leadership manifesto claims that the religion has turned Britain into a “fearful and censorious society”. Waters wants the banning of the burqa, the closure of all sharia councils and a temporary freeze on all immigration.

She started life in Dublin before moving to Germany in her teens to work as an au pair. Waters also lived in the Netherlands before returning to Britain to study journalism at Nottingham Trent University, graduating in 2003. She subsequently gained a second degree in law. It was then, she says, that she first learnt about Islam, which she claims treats women “like absolute dirt”. Now 39, Waters is a full-time campaigner who lives in Essex with her two dogs and her partner who is an accountant.

Waters’s first spell of serious activism was with the campaign group One Law for All, a secularist organisation fronted by the Iranian feminist and human rights activist Maryam Namazie. Waters resigned in November 2013 after four years with the organisation. According to Namazie, Waters left due to political disagreements over whether the group should collaborate with members of far-right groups.

In April 2014, Waters founded Sharia Watch UK and, in January 2016, she launched Pegida UK with former EDL frontman Steven Yaxley-Lennon (aka Tommy Robinson). The group was established as a British chapter of the German-based organisation and was set up to counter what it called the “Islamisation of our countries”. By the summer of 2016, it had petered out.

Waters twice stood unsuccessfully to become a Labour parliamentary candidate. Today, she says she could not back Labour due to its “betrayal of women” and “betrayal of the country” over Islam. After joining Ukip in 2014, she first ran for political office in the Lambeth council election, where she finished in ninth place. At the 2015 general election, Waters stood as the party’s candidate in Lewisham East, finishing third with 9.1 per cent of the vote. She was chosen to stand again in the 2016 London Assembly elections but was deselected after her role in Pegida UK became public. Waters was also prevented from standing in Lewisham East at the 2017 general election after Ukip’s then-leader Nuttall publicly intervened.

The current favourite of the 11 candidates standing to succeed Nuttall is deputy leader Peter Whittle, with Waters in second. Some had hoped the party’s top brass would ban her from standing but last week its national executive approved her campaign.

Due to an expected low turnout, the leadership contest is unpredictable. Last November, Nuttall was elected with just 9,622 votes. More than 1,000 new members reportedly joined Ukip in a two-week period earlier this year, prompting fears of far-right entryism.

Mike Hookem MEP has resigned as Ukip’s deputy whip over Waters’ candidacy, saying he would not “turn a blind eye” to extremism. By contrast, chief whip, MEP Stuart Agnew, is a supporter and has likened her to Joan of Arc. Waters is also working closely on her campaign with Jack Buckby, a former BNP activist and one of the few candidates to run against Labour in the by-election for Jo Cox’s former seat of Batley and Spen. Robinson is another backer.

Peculiarly for someone running to be the leader of a party, Waters does not appear to relish public attention. “I’m not a limelight person,” she recently told the Times. “I don’t like being phoned all the time.”

The journalist Jamie Bartlett, who was invited to the initial launch of Pegida UK in Luton in 2015, said of Waters: “She failed to remember the date of the demo. Her head lolled, her words were slurred, and she appeared to almost fall asleep while Tommy [Robinson] was speaking. After 10 minutes it all ground to an uneasy halt.”

In an age when authenticity is everything, it would be a mistake to underestimate yet another unconventional politician. But perhaps British Muslims shouldn’t panic about Anne Marie Waters just yet.

James Bloodworth is editor of Left Foot Forward

This article first appeared in the 17 August 2017 issue of the New Statesman, Trump goes nuclear