logo
‘I'm 30 and can't rely on the state pension. How will I ever retire?'

‘I'm 30 and can't rely on the state pension. How will I ever retire?'

Telegraph25-05-2025

On paper, Tom Atterton is doing all the right things for a comfortable retirement.
The 30-year-old has a blossoming career in financial services, owns his own home and has moved his pension into high-growth funds with a long-term horizon.
But despite this, Mr Atterton worries he could be working into his 70s. That's partly because he opted out of his workplace pension at the start of his career, preferring to boost his take-home pay instead.
'I was in my early 20s, I wasn't even remotely thinking about retirement.
'And I suppose there was a lot of doom and gloom at that point about how millennials will never retire anyway, there'll be no state pension left. So part of me just thought, 'Oh well, I'll enjoy my life now then'.'
With those years behind him, Mr Atterton hopes to retire before he turns 68, but wonders if this is now out of reach.
So far, he has just £12,500 in an old pension and £2,500 in his current scheme after three years' worth of contributions.
According to the Pensions and Lifetime Savings Association (PLSA), a single person in the UK requires an income of £31,300 for a 'moderate' retirement that includes one holiday a year and several meals out a month.
Mr Atterton, who is based in Aberdeen, says: 'It's a worry. Reliance on the full state pension on its own without any workplace pension isn't going to get you anywhere.'
Many young people face financial instability later in life due to high living costs and inadequate savings.
Defined benefit schemes – which pay a guaranteed income in retirement – have virtually disappeared from the private sector.
Meanwhile, the cost of the 'triple lock' – a government pledge to increase the state pension each year by at least 2.5pc – is expected to hit £20bn a year by 2045, raising questions over whether it will still exist by the time millennials come to retire.
Mr Atterton earns £38,000, and contributes 7pc into his workplace while his employer pays 5pc.
He wonders if he should be making more sacrifices now in order to retire before age 68.
'There will be people who pay nothing into their pension and live a fantastic life now, and then there will be people who pay in everything they can and eat beans every day of the week. I don't want to be in either camp. I want to do a bit of both – not have the most boring, frugal life possible.'
Mr Atterton has already taken some steps to grow his pension. He's switched out of the default option for both his workplace pensions and into the more growth-oriented Legal & General Global Equity Index Fund and Royal London Global Equity Select Fund.
'I'd love to do more sustainable investing. But then I look at the sheets compared to what I've got and obviously they're more expensive and they really don't seem to do as well. So if I were to move those into sustainable funds, while it would be good from a societal point of view, would it be to the detriment of my retirement?'
He hopes that when he comes to remortgage, this may free up some cash, making it easier to increase his pension contributions.
He currently pays about £480 each month on his mortgage, and his 5.3pc fixed-rate deal is due to expire in 2027.
'I know 5.3pc is quite high, but there wasn't much choice. I suppose the positive is that hopefully by 2027 the renewal rate is lower. If my mortgage rate goes down, could I add the difference to my workplace pension? Should I overpay the mortgage or save into my pension – which is the best?'
Tyron Potts, associate at consultancy Barnett Waddingham
If Mr Atterton keeps contributing 12pc of his salary into a pension – including his employer's share – steadily for the next 38 years, and his salary keeps pace with inflation, his pension pot could grow to around £760,000 by the time he reaches 68.
Taking 25pc of that as a tax-free lump sum would leave about £569,000 to generate an annual retirement income of roughly £38,000 in future terms, which would feel equivalent to roughly £11,000 a year in today's money, adjusted for inflation. If he skips the lump sum and leaves the full pot intact, that income could be closer to £15,000 in today's terms.
Right now, £11,000 a year in retirement would fall below the minimum standard of living, and even £15,000 would only just nudge above it.
To enjoy a more comfortable, moderate lifestyle – around £31,000 a year in today's money – he'd need about £1.6m without a lump sum, or around £2.1m with one. These figures are based on UK-wide estimates and don't account for regional cost of living variations. In Scotland, it may be fair to knock 5pc to 10pc off those targets.
To build a pot of that size, he'd need to increase his contributions quite a bit – to around 27pc of his salary (with 22pc from him and 5pc from his employer) to reach £1.6m, or up to 36pc in total (31pc from him and 5pc from his employer) to get to £2.1m.
When saving for retirement – especially in your 20s and 30s – every penny counts. Monthly increases invested now will be supercharged by the power of compound interest.
In practice, contributing an extra one percentage point of his salary for the rest of his working life (so around £100 per month extra to start with) would result in a fund at 68 of £930,000 – which would provide an annual income in today's terms of £18,000, or £14,000 per annum if he takes the 25pc lump sum at age 68.
An extra £200 a month (rising as his salary rises) would result in an estimated fund at age 68 of £1.1m. This could give £21,000 a year today – or £16,000 per annum with a 25pc lump sum.
It's a strong goal if affordable, but should be balanced with living well now. Retirement at 68 might not be considered worth it if life until then is a struggle.
Deborah Riding, financial adviser at Stan Sherlock Associates, part of The Openwork Partnership
Unless funds explicitly state that one of their objectives is not to invest or have any connection to investment in fossil fuels, there is no guarantee they won't be exposed to fossil fuels now or in the future. In the case of Mr Atterton's funds, the fact sheets state no specific restrictions regarding fossil fuels, so exposure is feasible.
If this doesn't sit right with Mr Atterton, then he could consider specialised ESG (environmental, social, and governance) funds for his pension. This is no longer such a niche strategy.
These funds have set guidelines of what they will exclude from their investment strategies such as tobacco, alcohol, armaments, and fossil fuels. ESG and ethical active funds range from ongoing charges of anywhere from 0.55pc to 1.02pc, and ESG and ethical passive funds range from 0.12pc to 0.36pc. The risk category of the investment will also have an impact on the performance.
Overpaying on a mortgage will ultimately reduce the amount of interest he pays. However, he may not be better off if his savings and or investments receive a higher rate of return than the interest he pays on his mortgage.
Overpayment will reduce the capital he owes and increase his equity. It could also reduce his loan-to-value, which may make cheaper mortgage deals available to him. Any money put into pensions can't be accessed until pension age, currently 55 moving to age 57 from April 6 2028. This must be money he doesn't need in the short term.
Certainly, if his mortgage is paid off before retirement, then it will make it easier for him to retire as he will not need as much income to cover any mortgage payments. If the mortgage is paid off earlier, it may allow him to retire earlier.
How quickly he could pay off the mortgage depends on what his current term is now, and the maximum amount his mortgage provider will allow him to overpay without an early repayment charge.
Some allow an overpayment of 10pc or 20pc of the original capital, and some allow an overpayment of the capital balance each year to either 10pc or 20pc. Most lenders allow 10pc, but there are those like NatWest that allow 20pc on some of their products.
It will also depend on what the future interest rates will be on his mortgage for the remainder of the term after his fixed rate deal ends, and how much he could afford to overpay.
Paying into a pension will provide tax relief at his highest marginal rate. So, even as a basic rate taxpayer, he could receive a further 20pc on top of his own funds. Paying into a pension and building up adequate funds could mean he can afford to retire before state pension age.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

BP needs to scrap its Big Oil mentality, and its buybacks: Bousso
BP needs to scrap its Big Oil mentality, and its buybacks: Bousso

Reuters

time43 minutes ago

  • Reuters

BP needs to scrap its Big Oil mentality, and its buybacks: Bousso

LONDON, June 3 - BP has jumped from crisis to crisis in recent years, severely eroding the British firm's stature as one of the world's leading oil companies. Given the increasingly challenging dynamics in today's oil market, BP may finally need to accept that it is no longer a true oil major and can't keep managing cash like one. The exclusive Big Oil club of Exxon Mobil (XOM.N), opens new tab, Chevron (CVX.N), opens new tab, Shell (SHEL.L), opens new tab, TotalEnergies ( opens new tab and BP (BP.L), opens new tab has for decades been synonymous with sprawling upstream and downstream oil and gas operations, solid balance sheets and long-term strategies that have helped generate sizeable, stable shareholder returns. But BP hasn't ticked most of these boxes for years, having dealt with a succession of crises over the past 15 years that have slashed its market cap and left it financially vulnerable and lacking clear strategic direction. Most recently, a failed foray into renewables and a management scandal saddled the company with a ballooning debt pile as it struggles to revert back to oil and gas. CEO Murray Auchincloss acknowledged the need for change when he unveiled in February a fundamental strategy reset that includes reducing spending to below $15 billion to 2027, cutting up to $5 billion in costs and selling $20 billion of assets in an effort to boost performance and rein in ballooning debt. The plan also reset the rate of shareholder returns to 30-40% of operating cash flow. But the reset has done little to alleviate investor concerns. BP's shares have declined by 18% since the strategy update, underperforming rivals. Piling on the pressure, activist shareholder Elliott Management, which has recently built a 5% position in the company, has indicated it wants BP to cut spending even more. There is, therefore, clearly a need for deeper change. While it may be challenging for the 116-year-old company to admit that it can no longer carry the same financial heft it once did, accepting reality will offer the company's leadership an opportunity to reduce some of its commitments to investors, particularly its share repurchase programme. All energy majors today have multi-billion-dollar buyback programmes that send capital back to shareholders, helping to attract investors who may be wary about the future of fossil fuel demand. But BP's buybacks feel like a luxury that is out of synch with its financial woes. In its first quarter results released in February, BP said it would buy back $750 million over the following three months. That was lower than the $1.75 billion in the previous three months, but even at this reduced rate, this would still total $3 billion per year. That doesn't seem prudent, especially given the 20% drop in oil prices to around $65 a barrel this year and the darkening economic outlook. Auchincloss' financial objectives assume a Brent oil price of $70, meaning the Canadian CEO will most likely struggle to meet his targets without borrowing further. Removing the annual $3 billion buyback would certainly upset investors, but it would go a long way towards reducing BP's net debt to between $14 and $18 billion by 2027, compared with $27 billion at the end of March 2025. The 'ground zero' of BP's financial decline was the deadly 2010 Deepwater Horizon disaster in the Gulf of Mexico, which generated $69 billion in clean-up and legal costs, opens new tab. The company continues to pay out over $1 billion per year in settlements. The financial shock forced BP to sell billions of dollars of assets and issue huge amounts of debt to foot the bill. Its market value dropped to around $77 billion today compared to $180 billion in 2010. BP's debt-to-capitalization ratio, known as gearing, reached 25.7% at the end of the first quarter of 2025, significantly higher than those of other oil majors, including Shell's 19% or Chevron's 14%. And, importantly, BP's current $27 billion net debt figure omits several major liabilities held on its books. This includes $17 billion in hybrid bonds, an instrument that has qualities of both equity and debt, including a coupon that must be paid or accrued. While companies may issue hybrids for many reasons, including maintaining flexibility, they often do so in part because rating agencies do not treat hybrids as regular debt, which flatters the issuer's leverage ratios. Anish Kapadia, director of energy at Palissy Advisors, calculated BP's adjusted net debt hit $86 billion at the end of the first quarter of 2025, when including net debt, hybrids, Gulf of Mexico liabilities, leases and other provisions. Ultimately, cutting the buybacks should enable BP to tame its huge debt pile and repair its balance sheet faster. That, in turn, should create a strong foundation for rebuilding investor confidence. The departure of current BP Chairman Helge Lund in the coming months could be a good opportunity for the company to consider such radical change. It's unclear who will take this job, but one qualification for whoever succeeds Lund should be a much-needed sense of financial realism. Want to receive my column in your inbox every Thursday, along with additional energy insights and trending stories? Sign up for my Power Up newsletter here.

Customer service is collapsing in high-tax Britain
Customer service is collapsing in high-tax Britain

Telegraph

timean hour ago

  • Telegraph

Customer service is collapsing in high-tax Britain

Want to pick up some groceries after a late night at the office? Forget it. Or, if you can get to a supermarket, fancy grabbing a coffee after traipsing around with a couple of kids? It's no longer possible. Trying on a pair of jeans at the clothes shop? Good luck finding someone to help you. One by one, companies are cutting back on opening hours, reducing checkout staff and cutting in-store services. Many are closing branches completely. Following the huge rise in employment taxes imposed by the Government, bosses don't have much choice. Companies have to save money on staff somehow. But with every cut they make, the experience gets a little worse. In Labour's high-tax Britain, customer service is dying – and we will all end up poorer as a result. It has been a worrying few weeks for anyone who cares about the quality of customer service. Self-checkouts are becoming more ubiquitous, opening hours are getting shorter and manpower is being cut back. Over the weekend, we learnt that Tesco is trialling the closure of some of its Express stores at 10pm rather than 11pm, and will have fewer staff on hand for the hours that they remain open. It is not hard to guess why: after Rachel Reeves's recent increase to employers' National Insurance, the company has said it will have to pay an extra £235m in contributions. That is just the latest example of a broader trend. The self-service checkout is proliferating even though it has become very unpopular with shoppers, and not just in the supermarkets. Next revealed earlier this year that it is to start trialling automated checkouts as it looks to find ways of coping with the extra £67m the chain estimates it will have to pay in employment taxes this year. Others are slashing services. Morrisons said in March that it was closing down cafes in its stores, along with florists and specialist meat counters. Sainsbury's said that it would lose 3,000 jobs by closing down in-store cafes, bakeries and pizza counters. The National Insurance increase was not directly blamed but both chains said they had to reduce costs. There are even examples of pubs closing at 9pm so they can cut back on the staff hours, and therefore lower their tax bill. Add it all up, and one point is clear: the customer is no longer the number-one priority – bosses are more obsessed with managing costs. There is no point in blaming the big chains for these decisions. After all, they are all commercial companies, and their primary duty is to their shareholders. If the Government is determined to tax them based on how many people they employ, instead of on their profits, then the only rational response is to skimp on staff as much as possible. We may only be seeing the start of the process. Before long, there will be QR codes in place of waiters and waitresses at restaurants (after all, in fast food places it is already almost impossible to place an order with a human being any more). Get ready for self-serving beer kegs at your local 'Spoons, while an app will check you into your hotel room, and the estate agent will just send you an AI-generated video link over actually showing you around the new home you were thinking of buying. It won't be possible to interact with a human being any more. Conventional economic statistics don't capture the impact of all this on our day-to-day lives. If you spend £200 at the supermarket, that is an extra £200 added to the total GDP figure regardless of whether you had to struggle with a self-service checkout for 20 minutes or if you were whisked through the till by a smiling sales assistant who chatted to you and wished you a pleasant day as you left. It may not make a difference to the economists but it makes a big difference to you. Likewise, it doesn't make any difference to GDP if you have to rush out of the house or your office to get to Tesco Express at one minute to 10 because you don't have any food and it will close soon. But again, it makes a big difference to you. A successful economy is not just about maximising raw output. It is about maximising total consumer satisfaction. As service levels collapse, GDP may stay the same, but we are all worse off in ways that the figures don't reveal. More worryingly for the GDP statistics, companies can't innovate. The most successful businesses find new and original ways of delighting their customers. It might be by staying open for different hours, or offering a broader range of services or products, or a more complete experience, or all sort of things that we have not thought of yet but which might prove very popular. The best ideas can then be taken out to the rest of the world. And yet instead of encouraging companies to try out new ideas, we are forcing them to put all their energy into cutting staff. Over time, that will impact the competitiveness of the British economy. The Chancellor may or may not raise the extra £25bn she is expecting from her increase in employers' National Insurance contributions. We will find out over the next few months as the tax starts to bite. But the costs of the tax raid are becoming painfully clear. It will be measured in fewer jobs, lower wages, higher inflation and, perhaps worst of all, in a country characterised by poor service and declining innovation. When you find the doors to Tesco Express closed at 10.01pm, at least you will know who to blame.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store