EXCLUSIVE Almost 40% of young workers mistakenly believe they are in a final salary pension
Nearly 40 per cent of people aged between 18 to 24 said they thought they were part of a final salary pension scheme, found research by campaign Get Britain Pension Ready.
This is despite the fact most final salary pension schemes were phased out in almost all of the private sector long before the time that 18 to 24-year-olds entered the workplace.
Final salary schemes are a type of defined benefit pension, where the employer is responsible for payments in retirement, based on an employee's years of service and their pay at their career's end.
Even in the public sector, most have now been replaced by less generous career average defined benefit schemes, which pay out based on earnings smoothed over time.
Over a quarter of people aged between 18 and 24 claimed they had a 'great deal' of understanding about pension terminology, data seen by This is Money from the campaign run by Annuity Ready reveals.
However, the findings suggested the high levels of understanding about pension products and how they work appeared, in some cases, to be 'misplaced' when tested against knowledge of certain terms.
Most workers in the private sector are now in defined contribution pension schemes, where both they and their employer contribute to a pot invested to provide a fund for retirement. Turning this into retirement income is the saver's responsibility.
Defined contributuon schemes are less generous than defined benefit schemes, put the onus on the saver rather than the employer, and are less likely to provide a comfortable retirement.
On the topic of retirement planning, 30 per cent of 18 to 24-year-olds said they would turn to social media for assistance, nearly four times the national average of 8 per cent.
Across all age groups, 41 per cent said they believed their parents had an easier experience with pensions and retirement planning than they do, with 52 per cent of those aged 18 to 24 claiming their parents' generation had it easier.
The belief in a good knowledge about pensions - misplaced or not - declined with age, the survey said.
Annuity Ready found that more than a quarter of those in the Generation X age group - typically born between 1965 and 1980 - admitted to having 'no understanding at all' about pension terminology.
This is despite older members of Gen X being 'next in line' to retire.
Dr Eliza Filby, independent generational expert for Annuity Ready, said: 'What we're seeing here reflects broader societal shifts that have particularly impacted Generation X.'
She added: 'This cohort entered the workforce during a period of significant pension reform, witnessing the decline of final salary schemes and the shift toward more complex, individual responsibility for retirement planning.'
What is an annuity?
An annuity is a financial product that provides an income for the rest of someone's life.
Until relatively recently, this is how most people turned their defined contribution or personal pension pots into retirement income.
Rock bottom annuity rates after the financial crisis led to an event called pension freedom, where the requirement to buy an annuity was removed from people - and they could choose to keep their pension invested and draw on it instead.
Most savers moving into retirement now take this option, although a recovery in annuity rates has made them much more attractive again.
On the topic of annuities, 35 per cent of over-65s said they knew about annuities and what they were. This is notably higher than the national average of 25 per cent, Annuity Ready said.
Of those aged 55 to 64 years old surveyed, 27 per cent said they had a strong understanding of annuities.
Annuity Ready said: 'With this group being made up of the older half of Generation X and young Baby Boomers likely still in employment, this may suggest the cohort's proximity to retirement has likely driven familiarity with specific pension products.'
People aged 45 to 54 and those aged 35 to 44, showed the lowest levels of understanding of annuities, the research claimed.
Over-65s generally appeared to take a self-reliant approach to retirement planning, as 27 per cent said they do not ask anyone for advice. This compared to 13 per cent across all age categories.
Sarah Lloyd, commercial director at Annuity Ready, said: 'Education is such a fundamental part of pension preparedness, and the earlier we can help people get the information they need to start planning for retirement, the better.
'The misconceptions we're seeing - like 39 per cent of young adults believing they're enrolled in final salary pensions that were largely phased out before they entered the workforce - highlight just how important accessible, accurate information is.'
Filby added: 'While Gen Z's over-confidence in their understanding may be concerning, Gen X's knowledge gaps represent a more immediate crisis, as this generation approaches retirement with limited time to plan for their future beyond work.'
The research was was conducted by OnePoll on behalf of Annuity Ready and surveyed 2,000 adults living in Britain between 3 and 5 May 2025.
Pension jargon and shifting policies
Pensions can feel complicated and the jargon involved means it is no wonder people struggle to keep abreast.
With terms like defined contribution, income drawdown and enhanced annuities, it is not difficult to see why some people's knowledge is lacking.
Equally problematic are ever-shifting pension policy changes and rumours of further tinkering.
The new full state pension went up by £472 a year from 6 April. Under an arrangement called the triple lock, the state pension goes up each year by the highest of 2.5 per cent, inflation, or earnings growth. This policy is regularly being debated as unaffordable, with talk of it being axed.
In Rachel Reeves' Budget last year, the Chancellor announced plans to bring pensions into scope for inheritance tax from 2027. At present, only people who die aged 70 or under do not have their pensions
In May, the government reportedly fleshed out its plans for reforming the pension industry, including the creation of £25billion 'megafunds' which will be instructed to make a portion of their investments locally to help fuel economic growth.
Rachel Reeves said the overhaul, designed to follow the example of Australia and Canada's huge pension investment funds, would also help boost people's pension pots.
How to sort out your pension if you fear it's falling short
1) If you are worried about whether you will have saved enough, investigate your existing pensions. Broadly speaking, you need to ask schemes the following questions.
- The current fund value.
- The current transfer value - because there might be a penalty to move.
- Whether the pension is in a final salary or defined contribution scheme.
Defined contribution pensions take contributions from both employer and employee and invest them to provide a pot of money at retirement.
Unless you work in the public sector, they have now mostly replaced more generous gold-plated defined benefit - career average or final salary - pensions, which provide a guaranteed income after retirement until you die.
Defined contribution pensions are stingier and savers bear the investment risk, rather than employers.
- If there are any guarantees - for instance, a guaranteed annuity rate - and if you would lose them if you moved the fund.
- The pension projection at retirement age. You can use a pension calculator to see if you will have enough - these are widely available online. Try This is Money's pension calculator here.
2) You should add the forecast figures to what you anticipate getting in state pension, which is currently £230.25 a week or around £12,000 a year if you qualify for the full new rate. Get a state pension forecast here.
3) If you are tempted to merge your old pensions, read our guide first to ensure you won't be penalised.
4) If you have lost track of old pots, the Government's free pension tracing service is here.
Take care if you do an online search for the Pension Tracing Service as many companies using similar names will pop up in the results.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
16 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Australian billionaire Mike Cannon-Brookes paints himself a climate crusader - but his private jet trips with his new girlfriend tell a different story
Tech billionaire and green energy investor Mike Cannon-Brookes has built his public image around tackling climate change, but the flight log of his $75 million private jet paints a very different picture. The Atlassian co-founder, 45, has openly acknowledged the 'deep internal conflict' he feels about using the emissions-spewing jet. In less than a year, his Bombardier Global 7500 has flown more than 440,000 kilometres - the equivalent of travelling to the moon and starting the journey back -across four continents and 43 airports. His globe-trotting itinerary reads like a billionaire's bucket list: European capitals, American national parks, luxury Pacific resorts, and high-octane Formula One events. According to flight data, the jet has spent over 531 hours in the air, nearly 22 full days, and has flown on 309 separate days since last September. Analysts estimate the carbon dioxide emissions from Mr Cannon-Brookes' flights would be enough to power a town of 2,400 homes for a year. The tech mogul showed more environmental awareness when he arrived back in Sydney after a holiday in Fiji with new partner Amelia Beaumont, a tech worker, after he separated from his wife Annie last July after 13 years of marriage. The pair exited the private jet and climbed into a $121,000 Kia EV9 electric SUV, a low-emissions vehicle that was a stark contrast to the CO2-belching journey they had just taken. It was the final leg of a whirlwind July tour that took the couple through Europe, the US, and the South Pacific. Mr Cannon-Brookes defended his private jet use by pointing to what he described as an 'extremely rigorous carbon regime' applied to his flights, including sustainable aviation fuel and direct air capture technology. 'These options aren't practical for commercial flights but are viable privately,' he told The Australian. 'This means my flights actually have a net negative carbon footprint.' He admitted to wrestling with his conscience over whether to buy a private jet, but ultimately his requirements trumped climate concerns. 'There's a couple of reasons I've purchased a plane. Personal security is the primary reason ... but also so I can run a global business from Australia, and still be a constantly present dad,' he said. 'So, this is a hard, continual trade-off I've decided to make.' A single private jet emits as much carbon dioxide in an hour as the average person does in an entire year, with private flights 14 times more polluting (per passenger) than a commercial plane. Despite flying around the world in a private jet, Mr Cannon-Brookes previously warned the world needs to change its eating habits by adding insects to its daily diet if the planet is to feed a global population of eight billion. 'Insects are a huge part of a sustainable future,' he said. 'I'm a big fan of cricket flour and insect eating in general. The logic totally stacks up – low planet footprint, high protein, sustainable etc. 'Always looking for interesting opportunities in that space!' Mr Cannon-Brookes believes Australia could be the 'Saudi Arabia of renewable electricity' if the political will was there. He added: 'We could power the entire world five times over from the Australian sun that we have. 'It's a good measure of how large our country is, and how much great sun we have. We have a country almost designed to benefit most from the renewable boom. 'And we have 3 billion consumers nearby who can take our sunlight when we ship it up to Asia. We absolutely can be a renewable energy superpower.' As part of his climate change agenda, Mr Cannon-Brookes became AGL's largest shareholder in 2022, purchasing an 11 per cent stake to pressure the company into accelerating its move to renewable energy. He used his influence to block AGL's proposed demerger, which would have extended the life of its coal-fired power plants, and publicly called AGL 'one of the most toxic companies on the planet' due to its high carbon dioxide emissions. The tech mogul, who has amassed a staggering fortune of about $24.38billion according to the latest Financial Review Rich List, split from Annie, his wife of 13 years, in 2023. The news of the separation raised questions about how the pair would carve up their fortune, in addition to a $300million property empire. This included the 1.1 hectare Fairwater estate, the home of the late Lady Mary Fairfax, in Sydney which they acquired in 2018 for $100million. Just before the pair split, in June 2023, they also forked out $14.25million to buy a home in Newport, on Sydney's northern beaches, neighbouring the $24.5million estate they purchased in 2020. Mr Cannon-Brookes made headlines earlier this week after Atlassian announced it was axing 150 customer service and support roles, with some tasks set to be replaced by AI. The layoffs were revealed in a pre‑recorded video sent by Cannon‑Brookes early Wednesday morning, bluntly titled 'Restructuring the CSS Team: A Difficult Decision for Our Future.' Staff were reportedly given no prior warning and were forced to wait 15 minutes for confirmation via email, after which their laptops were immediately locked. The announcement came just hours before Atlassian co‑founder Scott Farquhar addressed the National Press Club, where he championed the rise of AI, urged the nation to move beyond 'jobs of the past,' and cited Australia's 'very strong social safety net' as support for displaced workers. Affected employees are understood to be receiving a minimum of 12 weeks' pay.
Times
42 minutes ago
- Times
What is fair pay for a CEO? Modern bosses need to think long-term
What is fair pay? This week, Eamonn O'Hare, the boss of a little-known telecoms company, Zegona, listed on the London Stock Exchange, was paid £1.8 million; on top of that he was paid £129 million in shares — the highest ever sum awarded to the chief executive of a UK-listed company. Meanwhile, resident doctors have been on strike demanding an increase to their salaries, which now average £54,300, arguing their pay has failed to keep pace with inflation since 2008. You get 2,375 doctors for every O'Hare. To compare the pay packet of a telecoms chief executive with a doctor may seem strange. But 30 years ago this exact same contrast was being drawn after Sir Iain Vallance, the then boss of BT, was hauled in front of a parliamentary select committee. BT had been privatised for a decade and in that time the pay of the chief executive had increased in real terms by 970 per cent, with Vallance paid a total of £1.24 million, compared with £36,000 for the best paid junior doctors. Back then you got 34 doctors for every Vallance. He pointed out that he worked a 70-hour week, adding he 'would quite like a job as a junior doctor. It might be relaxing'. As you might imagine, the junior doctors of the time were about as amused by his comment as today's are when you point out their strikes are damaging the reputation of medics. Vallance's gaffe is retold with glee by Michael Aldous and John D Turner in their enjoyable recent book, The CEO — The Rise and Fall of Britain's Captain of Industry. The two are business historians, both at Queen's University Belfast, and their book is partly a rollicking tale of Britain's most famous bosses from the end of the Victorian era to 2020, including some who are now forgotten. I had never heard of Sir John Ellerman, who, when he died in 1933, had a probate valued at £36.7 million — the largest estate ever declared in Britain, three times bigger than the Guinness fortune. His vast riches came from shipping, before he expanded into mines, brewing, newspapers and London property. I also learnt that Alfred Lyttelton — the first man to be capped by England at both cricket and football — chaired the Law Union Insurance Company until his untimely death in 1913 from a stomach abscess which he developed after being struck by a cricket ball. The more famous figures — Lord Leverhulme, Ralph 'five times a night' Halpern, Fred 'the Shred' Goodwin of RBS infamy, and Cedric 'the Pig' Brown of British Gas also get a run out as the book tells the tumultuous history of Britain's strange relationship with its business leaders. Do we admire them for creating wealth, jobs and contributing to our tax base? Or do we revile them for being mostly 'concerned with making money', as Jim Slater famously declared, a class of executives responsible for the widening disparity between the 0.1 per cent and the rest? What makes Aldous and Turner's study more than just a series of pen portraits is their analysis, drawing on a database of 1,387 bosses at 475 of our largest companies. There has been a long-standing assumption that Britain became the sick man of Europe after the Second World War because, in Harold Wilson's 1963 reprimand, even though the MCC had abolished the snobbish distinction between amateurs and professionals in cricket, 'in science and industry we are content to remain a nation of gentlemen in a world of players'. Too many ill-qualified toffs were running Britain's top companies. One of the interesting conclusions of Aldous and Turner, however, is that Wilson was resoundingly wrong. Yes, in the first two decades of the 20th century, four in ten bosses were peers of the realm, but this had fallen to 5 per cent by the 1960s and you were far more likely in the UK to make it to the top as son of a bricklayer or postman than in the United States. Also, in the first two decades when aristos were in charge, their study 'shows no discernible difference in profitability and stock market valuation between companies led by gentlemen or players'. In more recent years, despite Britain catching up with America in sending bosses to business school, modern chief executives have failed to boost the productivity or the prosperity of the country. They argue, in fact, that the modern professional chief executive — 43 per cent of whom lose their job by being sacked or ousted after a takeover — is now too short-termist. Like football managers, they know they won't last long in the job so push for as high a salary as possible. O'Hare at Zegona was paid such a huge sum because the shares of his company leapt fourfold between 2021 and 2024. Zegona shareholders have done very well; no wonder they were happy to vote for his large pay packet. However, part of the company's impressive performance was down to slashing 28 per cent of the workforce. Aldous and Turner argue that the Edwardian aristos, and founders of family companies, were surprisingly good managers because they had long-term 'skin in the game'. The welfare of staff mattered to them. Crucially, many had a 'purpose' — that modish term. Lord Leverhulme, a Congregationalist, made such a success of Sunlight Soap because, in part, he genuinely believed in the importance of cleanliness. To pin the robustness of early 1900s companies on the noblesse oblige of the bosses, as Aldous and Turner suggest, seems a touch romantic. But they believe corporate Britain needs to recapture that spirit by chief executive pay being tied not just to the interests of shareholders but wider society too. That's ambitious at best, a legal quagmire at worst — but it is true more bosses need to act as longer-term stewards if they want a role in revitalising Britain's economy. There are only so many doctors they are worth.
Sky News
an hour ago
- Sky News
What is the car finance scandal - and what could today's ruling mean for motorists?
The UK's Supreme Court is set to deliver a landmark ruling today that could have billion-pound consequences for banks and impact millions of motorists. The essential question that the country's top court has been asked to answer is this: should customers be fully informed about the commission dealers earn on their purchase? However, the Supreme Court is only considering one of two cases running in parallel regarding the mis-selling of car finance. Here is everything you need to know about both cases, and how the ruling this afternoon may (or may not) affect any future compensation scheme. What is the Supreme Court considering? The Supreme Court case concerns complaints related to the non-disclosure of commission. This applies to 99% of car finance cases. When you buy a car on finance, you are effectively loaned the money, which you pay off in monthly instalments. These loans carry interest, organised by the brokers (the people who sell you the finance plan). These brokers earn money in the form of a commission (which is a percentage of the interest payments). Last year, the Court of Appeal ruled in favour of three motorists who were not informed that the car dealerships they agreed finance deals with were also being paid 25% commission, which was then added to their bills. The ruling said it was unlawful for the car dealers to receive a commission from lenders without obtaining the customer's informed consent to the payment. However, British lender Close Brothers and South Africa's FirstRand appealed the decision, landing it in the Supreme Court. What does the second case involve? The second case is being driven by the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) and involves discretionary commission arrangements (DCAs). Under these arrangements, brokers and dealers increased the amount of interest they earned without telling buyers and received more commission for it. This is said to have incentivised sellers to maximise interest rates. The FCA banned this practice in 2021. However, a high number of consumers have complained they were overcharged before the ban came into force. The Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) said in May that they were dealing with 20,000 complaints. In January 2024, the FCA announced a review into whether motor finance customers had been overcharged because of past use of DCAs. It is using its powers to review historical motor finance commission arrangements across multiple firms - all of whom deny acting inappropriately. The FCA also said it is looking into a "consumer redress scheme" that means firms would need to offer appropriate compensation to customers affected by the issue. An estimated 40% of car finance deals are likely to be eligible for compensation over motor finance deals taken out between 2007 and 2021, when the DCAs were banned. To find out how you can tell if you've been mis-sold car finance, read the following explainer from our reporter Megan Harwood-Baynes. How does the ruling affect potential compensation? In short, the Supreme Court ruling could impact the scale and reach that a compensation scheme is likely to have. The FCA said in March that it will consider the court's decision and if it concludes motor finance customers have lost out from widespread failings by firms, it is "likely [to] consult on an industry-wide redress scheme". This would mean affected individuals wouldn't need to complain, but they would be paid out an amount dictated by the FCA. However, no matter what the court decides, the FCA could go ahead with a redress scheme. The regulator said it will confirm if it is proposing a scheme within six weeks of the Supreme Court's decision. What impact could this have on lenders? Analysts at HSBC said last year the controversy could be estimated to cost up to £44bn. Alongside Close Brothers, firms that could be affected include Barclays, Santander and the UK's largest motor finance provider Lloyds Banking Group - which organises loans through its Black Horse finance arm. Lloyds has already set aside £1.2bn to be used for potential compensation. The potential impact on the lending market and the wider economy could be so great that Chancellor Rachel Reeves is considering intervening to overrule the Supreme Court, according to The Guardian. Treasury officials have been looking at the potential of passing new legislation alongside the Department for Business and Trade that could slash the potential compensation bill. The Treasury said in response to the claim that it does not "comment on speculation" but hopes to see a "balanced judgment".
