Another arithmetic puzzle

Re Kelly's suggestions on what Jo and I should do in our "golden years", taking an RV around USA sounds great - I could probably do this for a year - but I'm hoping that we don't exactly have one foot in the grave yet, and we may be around for another few decades yet - or, at least I hope so!

In my father's (and grandfather's) day, men were expected to work for 50 years from the ages of 15, when they would start their apprenticeships, to the retirement age of 65. Life expectancy for males was no more than 18 months after retirement, so you can see that funding of pensions was simple - saving small percentages of your earnings each year for 50 years would easily provide for a comfortable retirement pension for the short period when you were actually able to draw it. When Britain took on the responsibility for social welfare (including state pensions) after World War II, it wasn't exactly onerous on the Government to take on the liability for pensions.

Now the whole demographic - and people's expectations - has changed dramatically. The ratio of expected working life to retirement life is now virtually 1:1 - i.e. work for 30 years and be retired for 30 years. You can see where I'm going with this one now, can't you?

You lot - my little sprogs - must have started saving for your old age by now. You cannot rely on the state to fund your retirement - it can't do it anyway - especially not now, after giving it all to the banks!

Forget the effects of interest/investment returns and inflation - they basically cancel each other out over time anyway. If you feel you can happily live in retirement on, say, half, of what you earn now, what percentage of your earnings should you be putting aside each year whilst you are working, for you to have enough of a pension pot on retirement to live on for the rest of your days?

It's not rocket science - merely simple arithmetic - think about it.