Pensions, annuities, and “retirement”
"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." Pension in this instance seems to mean pension income (as opposed to pension pot). This money would be determined by whatever assets are being invested in. It may be fixed, it may be variable. Completely dependant on the underlying investments. An annuity is a product. In simple terms, you hnd over a lump sum of cash and receive an agreed annual income until you die. The underlying investment required to reach that income level is not your concern, it's the provider's worry. So there is a hige mount of security to the retiree in having an annuity. The downside of annuities is that the level of income may be too low for your liking. For instance, £400/£10,000 would mean £400 for every £10,000 given to the provider. That's 4% and would take 25 years to break even (ignoring inflation, opportunity cost of investing yourself). Therefore, the gamble is whether you 'outlive' the deal. You could hand over £50,000 to a provider and drop dead a year later. Your £50k got you, say, £2k and then you popped your clogs. Provider wins. Or you could like 40 years after retiring and then you end up costing the provider £80k. You win. Best way to think of an annuity is a route to guaranteed, agreed income. To secure that guarantee, there's a price to pay - and that is, a lower income rate than you might like. Hope that was the kind of reply you were hoping for. If not, edit your OP and ask again. Chris. PS. The explanation on the link you provided is pretty dire. Very confusing use of the term 'pension' and even if that were better, the explanation is still bad due to vagueness. THis is much better: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-26186361 With an annuity, you invest directly into an annuity with money you have earned as wages/salary/etc. You pay for it, and trade your payments into the annuity for guaranteed payments from the annuity issuer in the future. The more you pay in before the annuity payments begin, the more you will receive for your annuity payment. With a pension, most often you invest implicitly, rather than directly, into the pension. Rather than making a cash contribution on a regular basis, it is likely that your employer has periodically invested into the pension fund for you, using monies that would otherwise have been paid to you if there were no pension system. This is why your pension benefits are often determined based on years of service, your rate of pay, and similar factors. "An annuity is a product. In simple terms, you hand over a lump sum of cash and receive an agreed annual income until you die. The underlying investment required to reach that income level is not your concern, it's the provider's worry. So there is a huge mount of security to the retiree in having an annuity. It is worth pointing out that with simple annuities where one gives a lump sum of money to (typically) an insurance company, the annuity payments cease upon the death of the annuitant. If any part of the lump sum is still left, that money belongs to the company, not to the heirs of the deceased. Fancier versions of annuities cover the spouse of the annuitant as well (joint and survivor annuity) or guarantee a certain number of payments (e.g. 10-year certain) regardless of when the annuitant dies (payments for the remaining certain term go to the residual beneficiary) etc. How much of an annuity payment the company offers for a fixed lump sum of £X depends on what type of annuity is chosen; usually simple annuities give the maximum bang for the buck. Also, different companies may offer slightly different rates. So, why should one choose to buy an annuity instead of keeping the  lump sum in a bank or in fixed deposits (CDs in US parlance), or  invested in the stock market or the bond market, etc., and making periodic withdrawals from these assets at a ""safe rate of withdrawal""? Safe rates of withdrawal are often touted as 4% per annum in the US,  though there are newer studies saying that a smaller rate should be used.  Well, safe rates of withdrawal are designed to ensure that the retiree does not use up all the money and is left destitute just when medical bills and other costs are likely to be peaking.  Indeed, if all the money were kept in a sock at home (no growth at all), a 4% per annum withdrawal rate will last the retiree for 25 years. With some growth of the lump sum in an investment, somewhat larger withdrawals might be taken in good years, but that 4% is needed even when the investments have declined in value because of economic conditions beyond one's control. So, there are good things and bad things that can happen if one chooses to not buy an annuity. On the other hand, with an annuity, the payments will continue till death and so the retiree feels safer, as Chris  mentioned.  There is also the serenity in not having to worry how the investments are doing; that's the company's business. A down side, of course, is that the payments are fixed and if inflation is raging, the retiree still gets the same amount. If extra cash is needed one year for unavoidable expenses, the annuity will not provide it, whereas the lump sum (whether kept in a sock or invested) can be drawn on for the extra expense. Another down side is that any money remaining is gone, with nothing left for the heirs. On the plus side, the annuity payments are usually larger than  those that the retiree will get via the safe rate of withdrawal method from the lump sum. This is because the insurance company is applying the laws of large numbers: many annuitants will not survive past their life expectancy, and their leftover monies are pure profit to the insurance company, often more than enough (when invested properly by the company) to pay those old codgers who continue to live past their life expectancy. Personally, I wouldn't want to buy an annuity with all my money, but getting an annuity with part of the money is worthwhile. Important: The annuity discussed in this answer is what is sometimes called a single-premium or an immediate annuity.  It is purchased at the time of retirement with a single (large) lump sum payment. This is not the kind of annuity that is described in JAGAnalyst's answer which requires payment of (much smaller) premiums over many years. Search this forum for variable annuity to learn about these types of annuities."
I want to know ideally how much should a person save for retirement   funds? A person should save enough such that your total retirement resources will equal the amount you personally need for a comfortable retirement at the point in time when the person desires to retire. If you want to retire at 40, you may need to save quite a lot each year. If you want to retire at 70, you may need to save less each year. If you will have a pension, you may wish to save somewhat less than someone who won't have a pension. The same is true for Social Security (or your local equivalent). I am getting a feeling retirement funds is equal to financial   independence because one can live without needing to borrow money from   anyone. Sort of, but it depends on your goals. Some who are financially independent never choose to retire, but choose jobs without regard to financial need. "I was able to attend an open discussion on Illinois pensions a few years back.  Dick Ingram, head of the Illinois Teacher's Retirement System spoke, as did a public employee union leader, Governor Quin's budget director and Christine Radogno who is a state lawmaker.  It was eye opening on many levels.  Some of the points that stick with me are:      * The state has never, over 30 years, followed standard practice and used an actuary to determine how much to put into the pension funds each year.  The legislators just pulled numbers out of the air each year.  As a result the pensions have never been properly funded.   The benefits are rich but, according to the people on this panel the main issue is this under funding.     * Some years the state declared a pension holiday and put nothing into the pension funds at all.  When this was brought up the largely union crowd started to turn on Radogno but she held up her hand, said she had voted against that and then commented that the unions all signed off on the pension holidays.  As one the crowd's heads turned to the union rep on the board.  He turned red and stared at the floor.     * 2/3 of the teacher's pension hole is for people already retired.  Changing benefits for current teachers will not help enough.     I asked Mr Ingram how much additional tax he would need to plug the hole in the system he manages.  He answered ""double"".  I asked for how long.  He said ""It doesn't work like that.  I'd need double the current amount forever.""  I came away much better informed but deeply saddened.  Like 69% of the people polled, I want these teachers and public employee to get their money.  I just don't see how it can happen." "Agreed. The idea that one goes into ""retirement"", or is expected to, at a certain age, is a little confusing to me.  Since when did it become not-the-norm to work until you had enough money saved up, and then stop working. While I take full advantage of retirement tax vehicles, the idea of a dedicated retirement fund, retirement benefits, pension payouts, etc... is a relic of the 1960s." As you point out, the main benefits of a pension/retirement account over a traditional cash/taxable account are the legal and tax benefits.  Most Western countries establish a specific legal definition for an account which is often taxed less or not at all relative to taxable accounts and which contains some protection for the owner in case of a bankruptcy.  The typical drawbacks for investing within such structures are limited investment choice, limited withdrawal rights (either in terms of age or rate of withdrawal), and maximum contributions.  The benefits are usually very clear, and your decision whether or not to open a pension/retirement account should depend on a careful weighing of the benefits and drawbacks. As to whether you may end up with less than you started, that depends on what you invest in.  As with all of finance, you must take more risk to get more return.  Although the choices inside a pension/retirement account may be worded somewhat differently, they are usually fundamentally no different than some of the most popular investments available for ordinary taxable accounts. "I can think of one major income source you didn't mention, dividends.  Rather than withdrawing from your pension pot, you can roll it over to a SIPP, invest it in quality dividend growth stocks, then (depending on your pension size) withdraw only the dividends to live on. The goal here is that you buy quality dividend growth stocks.   This will mean you rarely have to sell your investments, and can weather the ups and downs of the market in relative comfort, while using the dividends as your income to live off of.   The growth aspect comes into play when considering keeping up with inflation, or simply growing your income.   In effect, companies grow the size of their dividend payments and you use that to beat the effects of inflation. Meanwhile, you do get the benefit of principle growth in the companies you've invested in.   I don't know the history of the UK stock market, but the US market has averaged over 7% total return (including dividends) over the long term. A typical dividend payout is not much better than your annuity option though -- 3% to 4% is probably achievable.   Although, looking at the list of UK Dividend Champion list (companies that have grown their dividend for 25 years continuous), some of them have higher yields than that right now.   Though that might be a warning sign... BTW, given all the legal changes around buy-to-lets recently (increases stamp duty on purchase, reduction in mortgage interest deduction, increased paperwork burden due to ""right to rent"" laws, etc.) you want to check this carefully to make sure you're safe on forecasting your return." "Yes, this is restricted by law.  In plain language, you can find it on the IRS website (under the heading ""When Can a Retirement Plan Distribute Benefits?""): 401(k), profit-sharing, and stock bonus plans Employee elective deferrals (and earnings, except in a hardship distribution) -- the plan may permit a distribution when you: •terminate employment (by death, disability, retirement or other severance from employment); •reach age 59½; or •suffer a hardship. Employer profit-sharing or matching contributions -- the plan may permit a distribution of your vested accrued benefit when you: •terminate employment (by death, disability, retirement or other severance from employment); •reach the age specified in the plan (any age); or •suffer a hardship or experience another event specified in the plan. Form of benefit - the plan may pay benefits in a single lump-sum payment as well as offer other options, including payments over a set period of time (such as 5 or 10 years) or a purchased annuity with monthly lifetime payments.  Source: https://www.irs.gov/retirement-plans/plan-participant-employee/when-can-a-retirement-plan-distribute-benefits If you want to actually see it in the law, check out 26 USC 401(k)(2)(B)(i), which lists the circumstances under which a distribution can be made.  You can get the full text, for example, here: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/401 I'm not sure what to say about the practice of the company that you mentioned in your question.  Maybe the law was different then?" mhoran answered the headline question, but you asked - Could someone shed some light on and differentiate between a retirement account and alternative savings plans? Retirement accounts can contain nearly anything that one would consider an investment. (yes, there are exception, not the topic for today). So when one says they have an S&P fund or ETF, and some company issued Bonds, etc, these may or may not be held in a retirement account.  In the US, when we say 'retirement account,' it means a bit more than just an account earmarked for that goal. It's an account, 401(k), 403(b), IRA, etc, that has a special tax status. Money can go in pre-tax, and be withdrawn at retirement when you are in a lower tax bracket. The Roth flavor of 401(k) or IRA lets you deposit post-tax money, and 'never' pay tax on it again, if withdrawn under specific conditions.  In 2013, a single earner pays 25% federal tax on taxable earnings over $36K. But a retiree with exactly $46K in gross income (who then has $10K in standard deduction plus exemption) has a tax of $4950, less than 11% average rate on that withdrawal. This is the effect of the deductions, 10% and 15% brackets.  As with your other question, there's a lot to be said about this topic, no one can answer in one post. That said, the second benefit of the retirement account is the mental partitioning. I have retirement money, not to be touched, emergency money used for the broken down car or appliance replacement, and other funds it doesn't feel bad to tap for spending, vacations, etc. Nothing a good spreadsheet can't handle, but a good way to keep things physically separate as well.   (I answered as if you are in US, but the answer works if you rename the retirement accounts, eg, Canada has similar tax structure to the US.) "Firstly, you should familiarise yourself with your options for your pension fund. They changed as of 6th April 2015 so it's all quite new. The Government's guidance on it is here. If you haven't already taken a tax-free lump sum from your pension fund, you can take up to 25% totally tax free immediately. That makes getting a house for 40K very accessible. Beyond the 25%, you can take any of it out whenever you want (""flexi-access drawdown"" or ""lump sum payment"", depending on whether you take the 25% out up front or not). That'll be taxed, as if you earned it as income. So if you didn't have any other income, you can take another £10600 without tax this tax year, and then another £10600 or whatever the allowance goes up to next tax year, and so on. Above that you'd have to pay 20% tax until you reach the higher-rate tax threshold at about £40K/year. You say you do have other income so you'll have to take that into account as well when calculating what tax you'd have to pay. If you've reached state pension age that will add some more income, of course. Or, as you suggest, you can buy an annuity. You can do that with some or all of the money, and you can still take the 25% tax-free first. If you do buy an annuity the income from it will all be taxed, but again your personal allowance will apply. Essentially an annuity is the least risky option, particularly if you get one that is uprated with inflation. Uprating with inflation makes the initial income even lower but protects you against cost of living rises as you get older. In exchange for avoiding that risk, you probably lose out on average compared to some more risky options. You might choose to get an annuity large enough to cover your basic needs and take more chances with the rest."