UK workers would rather splurge on holiday than save for old age

LONDON Wed Feb 20, 2013 12:06am GMT

British tourists drink beer in central Prague August 12, 2008. REUTERS/David W Cerny

British tourists drink beer in central Prague August 12, 2008.

Credit: Reuters/David W Cerny

Related Topics

Quotes

   

LONDON (Reuters) - More than half of British workers would rather spend spare cash on a holiday than save it for their retirement, a survey from banking group HSBC said on Wednesday.

Some 58 percent of employees in Britain would choose to pay for a holiday over retirement if they could afford to save for only one of these options in a year. This was a higher percentage than in the other countries surveyed in the bank's latest The Future of Retirement report.

In Britain, only 38 percent of workers are regularly putting money aside for retirement, according to the HSBC study, based on data from more than 15,000 people in 15 countries.

Out of the 15 countries surveyed, only Egypt had fewer retirement savers than Britain with 29 percent.

The countries with the highest percentage of savers were Taiwan and India with 67 percent and 62 percent respectively.

HSBC's report pointed to data from the United Nations showing that the number of people over the age of 60 would match those under the age of 15 by 2050, with retirees making up around 1-in-5 people on the planet.

"People are living longer, through tougher economic times, but expectations about their standard of living in retirement remain unchanged," Simon Williams, group head of wealth management at HSBC, said.

"As a result, millions of people around the world are facing years of hardship after their savings run out."

Currently, nearly half of workers covered in the HSBC's survey have never saved towards their retirement.

In Britain, the government is trying to address the shortfall in pension savings with an "auto-enrolment" scheme to get more people into a workplace pension.

Countries surveyed in HSBC's report, which is published regularly, were Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Egypt, France, Hong Kong, India, Malaysia, Mexico, Singapore, Taiwan, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom and the United States.

(Reporting by Sarah Mortimer. Editing by Jane Merriman)

FILED UNDER:
We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/
Comments (2)
J999 wrote:
Of course they would. Our Government changes the tax rules on contributions and entitlements almost every year. I’ve already made decisions based on old promises that pension contributions would be tax-free, and then (now) found them taxed at 55%. Why should anyone invest in pensions when that can happen.

If our Government wants us to invest in our pensions, they MUST make decisions on a 20-year basis, not a 5-year basis. Right now I feel betrayed by promise made and reneged on.

Feb 19, 2013 12:55am GMT  --  Report as abuse
FordTimelord wrote:
This comes as no surprise. People think the State will be there to pick up the tab, I think. Many on reasonable incomes receive tax credits and some benefits; they probably think they will probably end up with more benefits when they retire. The thing is, the State’s finances are appalling now; but the chances are they’re going to be even worse in twenty or thirty years’ time.

Feb 19, 2013 1:06am GMT  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.