Pensions, why bother?
The stock market at large has about a 4.5% long-term real-real (inflation-fees-etc-adjusted) rate of return. Yes: even in light of the recent crashes. That means your money invested in stocks doubles every 16 years. So savings when you're 25 and right out of college are worth double what savings are worth when you're 41, and four times what they're worth when you're 57. You're probably going to be making more money when you're 41, but are you really going to be making two times as much? (In real terms?) And at 57, will you be making four times as much? And if you haven't been saving at all in your life, do you think you're going to be able to start, and make the sacrifices in your lifestyle that you may need? And will you save enough in 10 years to live for another 20-30 years after retirement? And what if the economy tanks (again) and your company goes under and you're out of a job when you turn 58? Having tons of money at retirement isn't the only worthy goal you can pursue with your money (ask anyone who saves money to send kids to college), but having some money at retirement is a rather important goal, and you're much more at risk of saving too little than you are of saving too much. In the US, most retirement planners suggest 10-15% as a good savings rate. Coincidentally, the standard US 401(k) plan provides a tax-deferred vehicle for you to put away up to 15% of your income for retirement.  If you can save 15% from the age of 20-something onward, you probably will be at least as well-off when you retire as you are during the rest of your life. That means you can spend the rest on things which are meaningful to you. (Well, you should also keep around some cash in case of emergencies or sudden unemployment, and it's never a good idea to waste money, but your responsibilities to your future have at least been satisfied.) And in the UK you get tax relief on your pension contribution at your income tax rate and most employers will match your contributions. James, money saved over the long term will typically beat inflation. There are many articles that discuss the advantage of starting young, and offer: A 21 year old who puts away $1000/yr for 10 years and stops depositing will be ahead of the 31 yr old who starts the $1000/yr deposit and continues through retirement.  If any of us can get a message to our younger selves (time travel, anyone?) we would deliver two messages: Start out by living beneath your means, never take on credit card debt, and save at least 10%/yr as soon as you start working. I'd add, put half your raises to savings until your rate is 15%.  I can't comment on the pension companies. Here in the US, our accounts are somewhat guaranteed, not for value, but against theft. We invest in stocks and bonds, our funds are not mingled with the assets of the investment plan company. Your gut feeling is absolutely spot on - you shouldn't be worrying about pension now, not at the age of 25. Assuming that you're not a footballer in the middle of the most productive part of your career and already have a fat wad of crunchy banknotes under your pillow that you're looking to set aside for a rainy day when you won't be able to play at your prime any longer. That doesn't mean you shouldn't invest, nor that means that you mustn't save. There are several factors at play here.  First of all as a young person you are likely to have a high tolerance for risk, there is still plenty of time to recover should expected returns not materialise. Even a pension fund with the most aggressive risk / return strategy might just not quite do it for you. You could invest into education instead, improve health, obtain a profitable skill, create social capital by building connections, pay for experience, buy a house, start a family or even a business. Next, as a young professional you're unlikely to have reached your full earning potential yet and due to the law of diminishing marginal utility a hundred pounds per month now have greater utility (i.e. positive impact on your lifestyle) than a seven hundred pounds will in 7-10 years time once your earnings plateaued. That is to say it's easier to save £700 month from £3000 and maintain a reasonable level of personal comfort than carve £100 from £1300 monthly income. And last, but not the least, lets face it from a human point of view - forty years is a very long investment horizon and many things might and will change. One of the downsides of UK pensions is that you have very little control over the money until you reach a certain age. Tactically I suggest saving up to build a cushion consisting of cash or near cash assets; the size of the stash should be such that it is enough to cover all of your expenses from a minimum of 2 months to a maximum of a year. The exact size will depend on your personal comfort level, whatever social net you have (parents, wife, partner) and how hard it will be to find a new source of income should the current cease to produce cash. On a strategic level you can start looking into investing any surplus cash into the foundation of what will bring joy and happiness into the next 40 years of your life. Your or your partners training and education is one of the most sensible choices whilst you're young. Starting a family is another one. Both might help you reach you full earning potential much quicker. Finding what you love to do and learning how to do it really well - cash can accelerate this process bringing you quicker there you want to be. If you were a start-up business in front of a huge uncaptured market would you rather use cash to pay dividends or finance growth?
I'd like to make two points: To focus on your test case of Japan.  You point out that about a third of them believe they'll work until they die.  That means more than a majority of them believe they'll retire.  In a democracy where a majority of people make decisions it is completely expected that the majority will dictate the policy.  Of course there is fuzziness around that last statement because people who believe they'll retire could very well be of the mindset that they'll handle their retirement savings themselves rather than rely on government.  Similarly some people that expect to work until they die might realize that there's a risk that they won't be able to. To focus on the case of government run pensions.  The pension program that a government runs isn't like a private savings plan where its purpose is to get you a good rate of return.  At best it's an insurance policy; more accurately it's just a tax and you should think of it this way.  The reason you should think of it that way is several fold.  One, if the pension fund is ever short, the government will make up the difference from the general fund.  Two, the government can spend the money from the pension fund on other programs if the law changes which, over the course of a lifetime, is entirely possible.  Three, no one has a legal right to withdraw their contributions directly.  Four, the point of the program is to take care of old people so they aren't starving in the street.  To do this, they take the money of the young and give it to to old people.  The money you pay in doesn't go to investments of any sort, it goes directly to the elderly.  Ultimately this is why you can't opt-out and why you should think of those contributions as a tax and not as savings. "Paying someone to look after your money always costs something - it doesn't matter whether you're inside a pension or not. Fees are highest for ""actively managed"" funds and lowest for passively managed funds or things where you choose the investments directly - but in the latter case you might pay out a lot in dealing fees. Typically pensions will have some small additional costs on top of that, but those are hugely outweighed by the tax advantages - payments into a pension are made from gross salary (subject to an annual limit), and growth inside the pension is tax free. You do pay income tax when you take the money out though - but by then your marginal tax rate may well have dropped. If you want to control your own investments within a pension you can do this, subject to choosing the right provider - you don't have to be invested in the stockmarket at all (my own pension isn't at the moment). I wrote an answer to another question a while ago which briefly summarises the options As far as an annuity goes, it's not as simple as the company taking the money you saved when you die. The point of an annuity is that you can't predict when you'll die. Simplifying massively, suppose the average life expectancy when you retire is 20 years and you have 100K saved, and ignore inflation and interest for now. Then on average you should have 5K/year available - but since you don't know when you'll die if you just spend your money at that rate you might run out after 20 years but still be alive needing money. Annuities provide a way of pooling that risk - in exchange for losing what's left if you die ""early"", you keep getting paid beyond what you put in if you die ""late"". Your suggestion of taking the dividends from an index tracker fund - or indeed the income from any other investment - is fine, but the income will be substantially less than an annuity bought with the same money because you won't be using up any capital, whereas an annuity implicitly does that. Depending on the type of investment, it might also be substantially more risky. Overall, you only need to secure the income you actually need/want to live on. Beyond that level, keeping your money outside the pension system makes some sense, though this might change with the new rules referred to in other answers that mean you don't have to buy an annuity if you have enough guaranteed income anyway. In any case, I strongly suggest you focus first on ensuring you have enough to live on in retirement before you worry about leaving an inheritance. As far as setting up a trust goes, you might be able to do that, but it would be quite expensive and the government tends to view trusts as tax avoidance schemes so you may well fall foul of future changes in the rules." Another case of a company retaining control of the pension fund and suddenly not being able to pay out. When will people learn? Pension shouldalways be paid out to a third party account that the employer can't touch once it has been deposited. That way you dont risk the company taking your pemsion with it when it goes under. the pots will be negligible, however this capital could be used better elsewhere if I was to withdraw them. You won't be able to withdraw the money. Notwithstanding the recent 'pension freedom' changes, money put into a pension is still inaccessible until age 55 at the very earliest, and probably later by the time you get there. You should have been Advised of this every time you enrolled into a scheme, although it may well have been buried in something you were given to read. The best you can do (and what I would recommend, although of course this post isn't Advice) is to transfer the pensions to a personal pension, for example a SIPP, wherein you will be able to control where the money is invested. Most SIPP providers will gladly help you with such transfers. Would it be beneficial to keep these smaller pots with their respected schemes The reason I suggest transferring is that leaving the funds in workplace schemes that are no longer being contributed to is a surefire way of finding yourself invested in poorly-performing neglected funds, earning money for no one beyond the scheme provider. "There are broadly two kinds of pension: final salary / defined benefit, and money purchase.  The text you quote above, where it talks about ""pension"" it is referring to a final salary / defined benefit scheme. In this type of scheme you earn a salary of £X during your working life, and you are then entitled to a proportion of £X (the proportion depends on how long you worked there) as a pension. These types of scheme are relatively rare now (outside the public sector) because the employer is liable for making enough investments into a pot to have enough money to pay everyone's pension entitlements, and when the investments do poorly the liability for the shortfall ends up on the employer's plate. You might have heard about the ""black hole in public sector pensions"" which is what this refers to - the investments that the government have made to pay public sector workers' pensions has not in fact been sufficient. The other type of scheme is a money purchase scheme. In this scheme, you and/or your employer make payments into an investment pot which is locked away until you retire. Once you retire, that pot is yours but there are restrictions on what you can do with it - you can use it to purchase an annuity (I will give you my £X,000 pension pot in return for you giving me an annual income of £Y, say) and you can take some of it as a lump sum. The onus is on you to make sure that you (and/or your employer) have contributed enough to make a large enough pot to give you the income you want to live on, and to make a sensible decision about what to do with the pot when you retire and what to use it as income. With either type of scheme, you can claim this pension after you reach retirement age, whether or not you are still working. In some schemes you are also permitted to claim the pension earlier than retirement age if you have stopped working - it will depend on the rules of the scheme. What counts as ""retirement age"" depends on how old you are now (and whether you are male or female) as the government has been pushing this age out as people have been living longer.  In addition to both schemes, there is also a ""state pension"" which is a fixed, non-means-tested, weekly amount paid from government funds. Again you are entitled to receive this after you pass retirement age, whether or not you are still working." @JoeTaxpayer's answer outlines how to value it. Some other considerations: As I understand it, some public pensions may be tax-free if you still live in the state that is paying the pension. E.g. when a Massachusetts teacher receives pension, it is exempt from state taxes, but if that person moves to Vermont he will have to pay Vermont income tax on those payments. So if you plan to stay in the state post-retirement, this provides additional value. Pension payments aren't fully guaranteed by the PBGC. And not all pension plans are fully funded. Depending on the political and economic environment when you hit retirement, your retirement plan could suffer. (And if you aren't working, you may not have a union vote any more when the other working members are voting on contract amendments that affect pensions.) I'm not certain of all of the rules, but I hear news reports from time to time that formulas like what you've posted in the original question are changed through negotiation with the union. If you make an employment decision using the formula in year X and then the formula changes in year X+10, your expected pension payment will change. I'm also a UK, Ltd company contractor that has pondered the same topic. I afraid, however, that I don't understand the maths in the original question. Mortgage interest is flat for the term of the mortgage rather than compounded, so, ignoring the tapering at the end of the lifespan of the mortgage, I get the amount of interest to something like £9,300 (7500 x 0.05 x 25). Does this make the decision any easier for you? As you point out, the total cost of this overpayment from your company account is £12,500. Using the above figure, it would take over 13 years to recoup the £5,000 difference (at £375 interest a year).  I used to be of the same opinion that the mortgage should be paid off at all costs first. But now I'm coming round to the American way of thinking; £12,500 invested in a pension with a 5% yield will easily outstrip the interest saved by making the over payment - 12500 x 1.05 ^ 25 = £43,300 - over 250% better off (£43,300 / (£9,300 + £7,500)). I now make no mortgage overpayments at all and instead pay all the money into my pension. This (amongst other things) keeps me below the upper earnings tax threshold, so I'm only paying corporation tax for the money I'm drawing as dividends. There's a massive caveat to this though; I'm 49. I should be able to draw the tax free element of my pension pot in six years time and pay my mortgage off and it's quite unlikely that the government will be changing pensions policy in that time (but drawing 25% tax free has been a feature of pensions for quite some time). I can then chose to keep working or retire. If my pension is still doing well (9% ish pa at the moment), I could chose to not pay my mortgage off at all. In the next twenty or so years, however, all this could change. In your position I would do a bit of both. Make a regular overpayment to pay down your mortgage (even a small amount that you'll barely notice will make quite a difference to the end date of your mortgage - £100 a month will take years off). I didn't start paying properly into my pension until fairly recently and so If you're not already, I'd also make quite substantial, regular payments into one now, directly from your company, 15-17.5% of your gross drawings. Leaving it until later will only make it more painful. Then when you get to retirement age, no matter what, you'll have a decent pension pot. An actuary I worked with pointed out that if you pay something into a pension, when you retire you should have some sort of pot; if you pay nothing, you are absolutely guaranteed to have nothing. And finally, if you haven't already, fix your mortgage. We're three years into a five year fix. The variable rate we were going to be transferred to was 3.99%. We fixed, not because of wanting any sense of security, but because the fixed rate was 2.59% with no fee. There are much better rates than that about now. Rates are starting to rise, so it's a good time. That's not how pension funds work. Individuals don't have their own account. They have a promise for a guaranteed amount of income. The money gets managed all together in one giant pool by professional investors. And these are the investors that the article is talking about.  They're not a bunch of billionaires refusing to invest idle cash. They're often bureaucrats in charge of sovereign wealth funds that are desperately trying to earn enough interest to meet their obligations. Taxing them more isn't going to help anything. He's complaining about the post freezing a pension and requiring employees to waive their right to sue when terminated to receive severance. Freezing pensions is becoming standard because it's an outdated and expensive way to fund retirement. Requiring a waiver for severance is standard.   This guy comes off like a whiner that doesn't know the way the world works. There is probably a reason the post was in trouble before Bezos. "You mean ""I don't understand why someone would sign a contract expecting the employer to observe it""?   Pensions are contractual obligations. It's only the massive mismanagement, lack of fiscal responsibility, and evisceration of employee bargaining power that puts us in a position to think that employers wouldn't observe their contractual obligations.   I mean, if this were the mortgage market, you would be arguing to banks ""What the hell made you think this homeowner would keep paying you 6% interest on this money when you're not providing any kind of value twenty years later?""" "The pension is indeed the clear winner and you haven't missed anything. It's easiest to just compare everything in current numbers as you've done and ignore investment opportunities. Given you expect to pay off your student loan in full, you should consider the repayment as a benefit for you too, so the balance is between £580 after tax and £1138 in your pension. As you say under the current tax regime you'd probably end up with £968 in your pocket from the pension. Some harder to value considerations: You might consider there's political risk associated with the pension, as laws may change over the years - but the government has so far not shown any inclination to penalise people who have already saved under one set of assumptions, so hopefully it's reasonably safe (I'm certainly taking that view with my own money!) Paying more towards your student loan or your mortgage is equivalent to investing at that interest rate (guaranteed). If you do the typical thing of investing your pension in the stock market, the investment returns are likely higher but more risky. In today's interest rate environment, you'd struggle to get a ""safe"" return that's anywhere near the mortgage rate. So if you're very risk averse, that would tilt the balance against the pension, but I doubt it would be enough to change the decision. Your pension might eventually hit the lifetime allowance of £1mn, after contributions and investment growth. If that's a possibility, you should think carefully about the plan for your contributions. If you do go over, the penalties are calibrated to cancel out the difference between higher-rate and basic-rate tax - i.e. cancelling out the tax benefits you outlined, but not the national insurance benefits. But if you do go over, the amount of money you'd have mean that you might also find yourself paying higher-rate tax on some of your pension income, at which point you could lose out. The lifetime allowance is really complicated, there's a Q+A about it here if you want to understand more." You have to read the fine print of the pension wrapper (Standard Life), and of the new fund you want to invest into to find out.  Typically here is were the fee feast could happen So you can manage actively your pension pot. But if you choose to do so you need to be mindful of the fees you have to pay. You should better find a pension wrapper with low fees and find funds with low fees If you change all your funds 4 times a year and you get a 1% charge each time, then you pay 4% of your assets. If your investments return for that year is 8%, then you wiped 50% of your return for that year! Good luck with the reading "I've been down the consolidation route too (of a handful of DC pensions; the DB ones I've not touched, and you would indeed need advice to move those around). What you should be comparing against is: what's the cheapest possible thing you could be doing?  Monevators' online platform list will give you an idea of SIPP costs (if your pot is big enough and you're a buy-and-hold person, ATS' flat-fee model means costs can become arbitrarily close to zero percent), and if you're happy to be invested in something like Vanguard Lifestrategy, Target Retirement or vanilla index trackers then charges on those will be something like 0.1%-0.4%.  Savings of 0.5-1.0% per year add up over pension saving timescales, but only you can decide whether whatever extra the adviser is offering vs. a more DIY approach is worth it for you. Are you absolutely sure that 0.75% pa fee isn't on top of whatever charges are built into the funds he'll invest you in?  For the £1000 fee, advisers claim to have high costs per customer because of ""regulatory burdens""; this is why there's talk of an ""advice gap"" these days: if you only have a small sum to invest, the fixed costs of advice become intolerable.  IMHO, nutmeg are still quite expensive for what they offer too (although still probably cheaper than any ""advised"" route)." "The end result is basically the same, it's just a choice of whether you want to base the final amount you receive on your salary, or on the stock market. You pay in a set proportion of your salary, and receive a set proportion of your salary in return. The pension (both contributions and benefit) are based on your career earnings. You get x% of your salary every year from retirement until death. These are just a private investment, basically: you pay a set amount in, and whatever is there is what you get at the end. Normally you would buy an annuity with the final sum, which pays you a set amount per year from retirement until death, as with the above. The amount you receive depends on how much you pay in, and the performance of the investment. If the stock market does well, you'll get more. If it does badly, you could actually end up with less. In general (in as much as anything relating to the stock market and investment can be generalised), a Defined Benefit plan is usually considered better for ""security"" - or at least, public sector ones, and a majority of people in my experience would prefer one, but it entirely depends on your personal attitude to risk. I'm on a defined benefit plan and like the fact that I basically get a benefit based on a proportion of my salary and that the amount is guaranteed, no matter what happens to the stock market in the meantime. I pay in 9% of my salary get 2% of my salary as pension, for each year I pay into the pension: no questions, no if's or buts, no performance indicators. Others prefer a defined contribution scheme because they know that it is based on the amount they pay in, not the amount they earn (although to an extent it is still based on earnings, as that's what defines how much you pay in), and because it has the potential to grow significantly based on the stock market. Unfortunately, nobody can give you a ""which is best"" answer - if I knew how pension funds were going to perform over the next 10-50 years, I wouldn't be on StackExchange, I'd be out there making a (rather large) fortune on the stock market." I agree that poor management can mightily contribute to subpar plan performance, but many other factors contribute to it too, and I'm not convinced that it's purely ineptitude on Ford/GM/American Airlines/whoever else that has resulted in these pension headaches. Like I said, it's difficult. I also just don't like pensions from a business strategy perspective, because it creates a long-term liability that any going concern should obviously avoid. I think that letting individuals control their own finances is better for employer and employee. If the employee wants that pension buyout option right now to go buy a Porsche, who's to say we should stop them? It's their money.