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?
Probably not. Gift cards are generally rigged up as payment-processing tools only, and you can't move the balance to a deposit account. It probably wouldn't be a horribly objectionable thing to do for the gift-card companies in general (heck, you've already paid a fee, why not let you have the money back?) It's just that they haven't bothered to set themselves up this way, since nobody does it. You may be able to buy a money order of some sort with it (at a fee). Your best option is probably to use the gift card for everyday expenses, or perhaps run an errand for someone willing to pay you in cash (which you can then put in a deposit account). Very smart.  Let other people pay you interest.  Don't pay other people interest.  And, yes, I know it's possible to borrow money from one place and lend it to another place at a slightly higher rate, but why bother. "Why? Simply: because it has been mandated as law, and so you may have no choice in the matter whether to contribute or not. Quoting from GOV.UK – Workplace pensions: ‘Automatic enrolment’  A new law means that every employer must automatically enrol workers   into a workplace pension scheme if they: Next: even if you think you will work ""until you die"", you can still access the money saved in the pension scheme when you attain the required minimum age for withdrawals under your scheme. For instance, that may be age 55, but it may also vary by scheme. Becoming fully retired — as in stopping all work — is not a requirement to access retirement income from your pension scheme. In the eyes of a pension scheme, retirement is typically when you elect to take your income benefits according to the established rules of the scheme. Quoting from nidirect – Working past State Pension age: Continuing in work and your workplace pension  If you reached the age at which you can start claiming your workplace   pension scheme, you don't need to stop work in order to claim. You have   a number of options, including taking some of the pension you've built   up while continuing to work for the same employer. As to why things are set up this way: While some younger folk may, today, expect to continue working until death, for a variety of reasons that isn't always possible. Two typical such reasons are: disability, and involuntary unemployment (i.e. willing and able but still can't land the next job). Moreover, plans change. Young workers with health and vitality may expect they'll always feel invincible, but end up learning otherwise over time, and may come to appreciate the savings that were forced upon them. The ""forced savings"" aspect of state and state-sponsored pension schemes are meant to provide some safety net for those later years when it is a strong possibility that one can't continue to work. The alternative is to be a 100% burden on family and/or society." Pensions in the UK are a real free-for-all. A few years ago, the government introduced stakeholder pensions to try and simplify things, but if anything it's just made things more complex. To give you an idea, everyone has access to a Basic state retirement pension, but there's also SERPS (state earnings related pension scheme) and the State second pension provided by the government. Then in the private sector there are the aforementioned Stakeholder pensions, Self Invested Personal Pensions, Final salary occupational pension schemes and Money purchase occupational pension schemes. For a good summary, take a look at this excellent Times article and for more details, have a look at the Pensions in the United Kingdom Wikipedia page or browse around the Which? retirement section or the moneysavingsexpert pensions pages. The main things to look out for are whether your company offers a defined benefits scheme, or a money purchase scheme where they offer pay additional contributions or offer to match your additional contributions. Either of these are likely to be better than just buying a money purchase scheme pension privately. "It depends on what kind of pension you get and your anticipated retirement income.  If you have one of those nice defined benefit plans that pays 90% of your last 5 years' average salary annually, you might not want to bother with a separate RRSP and put your money into other use instead. While most Canadians should worry about not having enough to retire on, some might end up with too much and costing them in the form current purchases and entitlements to government retirement benefits. Figuring out how much you need for retirement is not trivial either.  A lot of people talks about planning for needing 70% of what you made now as a way to preserve your lifestyle.  Well, my opinion is that those type of generalization might work for the people in the middle of the income band and is too little for those in the low-income and possibly too much for those with high income.  My own approach is estimate your retirement income requirement by listing out your anticipated expenses as if you were doing budget.  I would agree that's not the best approach either (back to my comment about no one size fits all), but it's one that I feel most comfortable with. Once you have that figure, factor in what you think you will get from the government (OAS, CPP and etc) and you will have the amount of money you need for retirement.  I will warn against using ""average life expectancy"" to forecast your retirement needs, 'cos 50% of the people will end up with extra money (not a bad problem) and the other 50% will run out of money (bad but very true problem) if you use that approach. Instead of going on and write an essay on this topic, I will simply say this - everyone's situation is different and, just like solving any other complex problems, you need to start with ""end"" in mind and work things backward, with a ton of different scenario to be able to cope with whatever curveballs life might throw at you.  If you spend enough time in the library/bookstore looking through books on the topic of ""estate planning"" and ""retirement planning"", you will find people arguing back and fro on these topics - this is a sign that this is complex and no one has the one ""good"" answer for.  Do a bit of reading by yourself and, if still unsure or just want to be sure, go spend the money and review your plan with a fee-only advisor.  They will be able to provide another opinion on your situation after thoroughly studying your situation." "That's because Ford - like many other managers of large defined benefit plans - decided that, instead of defeasing its obligations through an [effective immunization program](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immunization_%28finance%29), they would just put less money into equities and pray for the equity risk premium to carry the day for them.  Lo and behold, it didn't work for a lot of them.  In the meantime, their liabilities began to far outstrip the assets meant to offset them to the point where even a one-for-one asset-liability match wouldn't help.  So now guess what?  They tell you ""shit, we fucked this up, so here's your payout - good luck.""  As if the worker is going to have a clue as to how to effectively manage his money so as to minimize longevity and savings risk.  Let me make something clear:  It is not beyond the means of modern finance to effectively implement and administer a defined benefit program.  It involves ""doing the right thing"" by employees, which in some cases involves not taking risks with equity and instead simply ensuring that assets meant to offset liabilities are appropriate in both timing and magnitude." I'm of the opinion that speculating is for young people like you, because they can afford to lose it all. Avoiding losses becomes necessary once you have to sustain a family, and manage a somewhat large retirement funds. Even if you lose all your money when speculating, you'll probably be better off later, because you make less costly mistakes once you have larger amounts of money. "Almost all companies in the US have changed from formal pension programs to 401k plans, and most companies that still have pension programs don't allow new employees to  enroll in the new program; only the previous participants who are vested in the pension plan will get benefits while new employees get enrolled in the 401k plan. If this is the case with  your prospective employer, then demanding that you be allowed to enroll in the pension plan is likely to be futile; in fact, the likely response may well be ""Here is our offer. Take it or leave it"" or ""We are withdrawing  the offer we made"" especially if you are in a field where there are plenty of other people who could do the job instead of you. So be sure that you understand what your worth is to the company and how much leverage you have before starting to make counter-offers. With regard to money that you might have vested in your current employer's pension plan, your options are to leave it there until you retire and start getting a pension (generally not advisable in these parlous times when the company might not even exist by then), roll it over into an IRA or into your new employer's 401k plan. This last is the only matter that concerns your prospective employer and where you might need to ask; the new employer's 401k plan might not be structured to accept rollovers. If the money in your current employer's retirement plan is in a pension plan, what is paid out for rolling over might be different (and smaller) than what has been credited to you thus far. For example, my (State Government) pension plan credited 8% interest per annum on the amounts I contributed but this was fake money because had I resigned and withdrawn the pension contributions (for the purpose of rolling over into an IRA or even just taking it as cash), I would have received only my contributions plus only 4.5% interest per annum. The 8% interest credited is available only for the purpose of the purchase of an immediate annuity upon retirement; it is not something that is portable to a new plan, and if I want a lump-sum payout upon retirement instead of a pension in the form of an annuity, it would be the 4.5% rate again..."