Base stations draw a lot of power both to operate and to run cooling systems those located abroad often have backup battery systems or gas powered generators. Even with these the period that the base station can run without power is fairly limited to a couple of days or in some cases a week at most. I wasn't involved in the UK cellular infrastructure but would imagine it isn't built to be quite so tolerant of power outages as that in China or India.nobicus wrote: How about a mobile phone and a wind up charger (you did know that they make wind up chargers didn't you?). The satellites will stay up on automatic pilot for some years to come and provided the ground stations are kept going the phones will work.
[PVpost] Pensions
Moderator: Peak Moderation
Some good suggestions however if the basic communications infrastructure really does collapse I wouldn't bother with a cell phone.
Last edited by PVPoster1 on 24 Aug 2005, 05:58, edited 1 time in total.
Quick browse on the web...
The pension is a SiPP, a Self Invested Personal Pension there is lots of info and you can invest in commercial property / Land.
So possibly there is a tie-in with the idea of setting up a company to buy agricultural land and then investing part of a Sipp pension in this company ?.
Also you can invest in specific stock etc (such as oil companys) to spread risk.
You can actively choose where your money is invested or we can help you with the investment decisions. Your contributions can purchase investments over a wide variety of assets which could include insured funds with different pension companies direct investment into shares open-ended investment companies unit and investment trusts. Another investment could be the purchase of a property to use as your office and then rent it back to yourself. This provides you with an unparalleled choice in creating your own pension portfolio.
The pension is a SiPP, a Self Invested Personal Pension there is lots of info and you can invest in commercial property / Land.
So possibly there is a tie-in with the idea of setting up a company to buy agricultural land and then investing part of a Sipp pension in this company ?.
Also you can invest in specific stock etc (such as oil companys) to spread risk.
You can actively choose where your money is invested or we can help you with the investment decisions. Your contributions can purchase investments over a wide variety of assets which could include insured funds with different pension companies direct investment into shares open-ended investment companies unit and investment trusts. Another investment could be the purchase of a property to use as your office and then rent it back to yourself. This provides you with an unparalleled choice in creating your own pension portfolio.
Yes, SiPPs let you self direct your pension money. You still do not have direct access to it (can't spend it on holiday or batteries), but you certainly get far better control.
I have just completed the transfer of my and my wife's pensions into a SSAPS, since we run a company, and we are just finalizing investing this money in agricultural land as part of our farm purchase.
It is a great way to release the funds and make them useful to you now, as well as preserving their value for the future, while deriving an income from the rental of the land to local farmers (or even to yourself!)
I have just completed the transfer of my and my wife's pensions into a SSAPS, since we run a company, and we are just finalizing investing this money in agricultural land as part of our farm purchase.
It is a great way to release the funds and make them useful to you now, as well as preserving their value for the future, while deriving an income from the rental of the land to local farmers (or even to yourself!)
Not under present legislation. You can move from your present fund holder to another fund holder but YOU cannot have the money until you retire. Then you may take part of the total fund as tax free cash to do with as you wish and the rest must buy an annuity unless you are on a final salary scheme, which is very doubtful. This means that if annuity rates are low when you retire your pension will not be worth shit! I know of two chaps who had about ther same amount in pension fund monies and who retired six months apart. Because of a difference in annuity rates in the year they retired one has a pension of ?2,500 greater than his workmate. What a bummer!!!
My company and I have been paying a healthy amount into my pension for years... however just recently I moved the fund out of the equity market and split it between bonds and cash.
I'm still making contributions despite peak oil for this reason:
The fact that I'm making contributions has a very small effect on my quality of life today. Quitting the payments wouldn't make a huge difference in the short term. However if I do stop payments and by some freak occurrences business as usual does continue for another 50 years having stopped paying into the pension will seriously effect my quality of life.
I think of my pension as an insurance policy against the whole limits to growth argument being flawed... or at least premature, however slim this possibility may be.
I'm still making contributions despite peak oil for this reason:
The fact that I'm making contributions has a very small effect on my quality of life today. Quitting the payments wouldn't make a huge difference in the short term. However if I do stop payments and by some freak occurrences business as usual does continue for another 50 years having stopped paying into the pension will seriously effect my quality of life.
I think of my pension as an insurance policy against the whole limits to growth argument being flawed... or at least premature, however slim this possibility may be.
That's a good point, clv101
But nobicus, you are not quite right. You do not have to take out an annuity if you setup your own SSAPS, AND you fully control where YOUR money is gong. And that means you can direct the money to where YOU think it will do you most good, be it property, land, even a wind farm or a company manufacturing wind turbines.
Having just done it, I wish I had thought of it 20 years ago (but it probably wasn't possible then)
But nobicus, you are not quite right. You do not have to take out an annuity if you setup your own SSAPS, AND you fully control where YOUR money is gong. And that means you can direct the money to where YOU think it will do you most good, be it property, land, even a wind farm or a company manufacturing wind turbines.
Having just done it, I wish I had thought of it 20 years ago (but it probably wasn't possible then)
In April 2006 SSAS becomes the same as SIPS.
Pensions are another worrying area for me. At almost 45 I have now been contributing to a pension since I started my first job in 1982 - so 23 years. This has been into 3 different pension schemes and I have not moved any of them. My most recent pension started almost 8 years ago and because of the dot com crash 3 or 4 years ago, it isn't worth much more than I have paid into it.
I am currently looking at all the options open to me, before deciding what I will do.
Folks need to be aware that whilst the SIPS route looks a no-brainer, there are some drawbacks that are troubling me.
1. If you invest in the wrong area and it goes tits up you are buggered - so you might be moving into a greater risk!
2. SIPS have fixed set-up fees, annual administration fees plus trading fees - they can have a lot of additional expense eating away from your profits.
Overall I feel the stock markets are shaky to say the least, but having spoken to a pensions expert recently they have a different view. At least I have introduced them to peak oil!
Out of interest they are recommending growth in the Pacific Basin Funds for the next 5 years.
Finally the trouble with buying land is that the Govenment could (in the worst case scenario) sieze this land for agricultural use for the common good and you thus lose everything. This is a real tough one as to what best to do.
Pensions are another worrying area for me. At almost 45 I have now been contributing to a pension since I started my first job in 1982 - so 23 years. This has been into 3 different pension schemes and I have not moved any of them. My most recent pension started almost 8 years ago and because of the dot com crash 3 or 4 years ago, it isn't worth much more than I have paid into it.
I am currently looking at all the options open to me, before deciding what I will do.
Folks need to be aware that whilst the SIPS route looks a no-brainer, there are some drawbacks that are troubling me.
1. If you invest in the wrong area and it goes tits up you are buggered - so you might be moving into a greater risk!
2. SIPS have fixed set-up fees, annual administration fees plus trading fees - they can have a lot of additional expense eating away from your profits.
Overall I feel the stock markets are shaky to say the least, but having spoken to a pensions expert recently they have a different view. At least I have introduced them to peak oil!
Out of interest they are recommending growth in the Pacific Basin Funds for the next 5 years.
Finally the trouble with buying land is that the Govenment could (in the worst case scenario) sieze this land for agricultural use for the common good and you thus lose everything. This is a real tough one as to what best to do.
Thanks for retrieving this thread. The last post was mine and I have done nothing about my pensions situation, although I am still very concerned about the situation. 
I note that the FTSE100 has now dropped almost 100 points since a week or two ago when it managed to hit about 5370. I find myself checking the markets every day now to see what is happening. But still I do bugger all about it! It is so hard to overcome inertia.
I note that the FTSE100 has now dropped almost 100 points since a week or two ago when it managed to hit about 5370. I find myself checking the markets every day now to see what is happening. But still I do bugger all about it! It is so hard to overcome inertia.
Real money is gold and silver
-
PowerSwitchJames
- Posts: 934
- Joined: 24 Nov 2005, 11:09
- Location: London
- Contact:
Dear Mr. Brown, what will my pension be when I 'retire' in 2041?
Brown calls for national pensions debate
Staff and agencies
Monday September 19, 2005
No decision will be taken on raising the state pension age until there has been a "national debate", the chancellor, Gordon Brown, said today.
The work and pensions secretary, David Blunkett, signalled at the weekend that the retirement age could rise to 67, saying the US is already committed to achieving this over the next 20 years.
There has also been speculation that the pension age could be standardised at 65 for men and women.
But while campaigning in the Livingston by-election, Mr Brown told reporters: "There's going to be no decision on these things until there has been a national debate."
He went on: "When we have the pension commission report, there will be a national debate.
"It is the Labour government that has made possible this huge review of pensions.
"And it's the Labour government that will then listen to what people are saying right across the country."
Mr Brown said today's pensioners had greater security and dignity in retirement than ever before and he listed a string of reforms that had been put in place such as pension credits and free personal care for the elderly in Scotland.
The shadow pensions minister, Nigel Waterson, said of the chancellor's comments on pensions: "The easiest solution for the government is to make people work longer.
"But what they should be doing is tackling the savings crisis and giving real incentives to people to save for their retirement."
And SNP leader Alex Salmond accused Mr Brown of trying to backtrack over pensions.
"Labour have been caught out and are now desperately trying to backtrack, but the truth is they will pinch two years of people's pensions if they can get away with it," Mr Salmond said.
"If Gordon Brown wants a national debate, let it begin in Livingston and Cathcart where local voters will soon be heard."
Adrian Thomas, a spokesman for the charity Help the Aged, said raising the retirement age would just defer the current pensions crisis. "The government should avoid policies which will do no more than tinker at the sidelines and store up problems for the next generation." He added: "The better solution would be to introduce flexible retirement ages which would allow workers to choose with their employers when to draw a pension."
Last week, the pensions commissioner, Adair Turner, spoke of pensioners taking half their pensions and deferring the rest while they earned money from part-time work.
He cited studies showing that, while men retiring at 65 and women at 60 currently receive a basic state pension of ?82, deferring to 70 could allow payments to rise to ?130. And he said the pensions commission's report, due on November 30, would look at "removing the barriers to flexible retirement and the way pensions are paid".
Brown calls for national pensions debate
Staff and agencies
Monday September 19, 2005
No decision will be taken on raising the state pension age until there has been a "national debate", the chancellor, Gordon Brown, said today.
The work and pensions secretary, David Blunkett, signalled at the weekend that the retirement age could rise to 67, saying the US is already committed to achieving this over the next 20 years.
There has also been speculation that the pension age could be standardised at 65 for men and women.
But while campaigning in the Livingston by-election, Mr Brown told reporters: "There's going to be no decision on these things until there has been a national debate."
He went on: "When we have the pension commission report, there will be a national debate.
"It is the Labour government that has made possible this huge review of pensions.
"And it's the Labour government that will then listen to what people are saying right across the country."
Mr Brown said today's pensioners had greater security and dignity in retirement than ever before and he listed a string of reforms that had been put in place such as pension credits and free personal care for the elderly in Scotland.
The shadow pensions minister, Nigel Waterson, said of the chancellor's comments on pensions: "The easiest solution for the government is to make people work longer.
"But what they should be doing is tackling the savings crisis and giving real incentives to people to save for their retirement."
And SNP leader Alex Salmond accused Mr Brown of trying to backtrack over pensions.
"Labour have been caught out and are now desperately trying to backtrack, but the truth is they will pinch two years of people's pensions if they can get away with it," Mr Salmond said.
"If Gordon Brown wants a national debate, let it begin in Livingston and Cathcart where local voters will soon be heard."
Adrian Thomas, a spokesman for the charity Help the Aged, said raising the retirement age would just defer the current pensions crisis. "The government should avoid policies which will do no more than tinker at the sidelines and store up problems for the next generation." He added: "The better solution would be to introduce flexible retirement ages which would allow workers to choose with their employers when to draw a pension."
Last week, the pensions commissioner, Adair Turner, spoke of pensioners taking half their pensions and deferring the rest while they earned money from part-time work.
He cited studies showing that, while men retiring at 65 and women at 60 currently receive a basic state pension of ?82, deferring to 70 could allow payments to rise to ?130. And he said the pensions commission's report, due on November 30, would look at "removing the barriers to flexible retirement and the way pensions are paid".
SIPPs made simple
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4245922.stm
The government is planning to help you buy a second home for the benefit of your personal pension scheme.
It is all part of controversial legislation that comes into effect on 6 April 2006.
This affects self-invested personal pension plans, known as SIPPs.
Introduced in 1991, SIPPs give you more control over a personal pension than if you invest solely via a pension company.
From next year, even people in occupational pension schemes will be able to start one.
What is a SIPP?
A SIPP is a pension contract in your own name. You can decide where the SIPP is invested, subject to certain HM Revenue & Customs restrictions.
It can be set up with funds from existing pension arrangements, by making contributions, or from a combination of both. It is also possible for your employer to make contributions to your SIPP.
The new rules increase how much you can pay into your SIPP, with more freedom over where it can be invested and how benefits are paid on retirement and death.
... (continues)
-
Blue Peter
- Posts: 1939
- Joined: 24 Nov 2005, 11:09
- Location: Milton Keynes
I am certainly not an expert, but here is an alternative view on SIPPS and second homes:
http://www.housepricecrash.co.uk/forum/ ... opic=16605
Peter.
http://www.housepricecrash.co.uk/forum/ ... opic=16605
Peter.
-
PowerSwitchJames
- Posts: 934
- Joined: 24 Nov 2005, 11:09
- Location: London
- Contact:
PRIVATE PENSIONS BLACKHOLE
http://business.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=2048932005
PENSION experts today warned that private companies are ?130 billion short of the funds needed to finance their existing final salary pension schemes.
A report by the Association of Consulting Actuaries indicates the majority of firms are worried that it could take ten years or more to plug the massive black hole.
The ACA's 2005 Pension Trends Survey found 392 companies collectively said they had a ?130bn shortfall relating to more than 2.8 million members.
ACA chairman Adrian Waddingham said the association hoped the Government would not move ahead with "half-baked" proposals ahead of Adair Turner's Pensions Commission report, expected in November.
"For the public's sake, the Government simply cannot afford to make any further mistakes in its approach to pensions," he added. "What would be disastrous is if the Government moves ahead with its own half-baked pet ideas - and there are signs that it may be tempted to - in advance of the report's publication."
There has also been a "rapid decline" in the number of workers given the chance to join a pension scheme, said Mr Waddingham.
"Some 68 per cent of employers say present policies to promote occupational pensions are not moving in the right direction."