Genie Posted March 24 Share Posted March 24 6 minutes ago, Panto_Villan said: They wouldn't be affected by means testing though, most likely - you'd either need income (which comes from a private pension / investments) or lots of assets. If you've got lots of assets then again it's not unreasonable to expect people to sell down to a more normal level before starting to get state support, imo. It depends on what means testing is done, how aggressive it is. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sidcow Posted March 25 VT Supporter Share Posted March 25 9 hours ago, mjmooney said: Anybody hoping to retire purely on the state pension is out of their mind. That said, my parents did. And boy, were they ever skint. I remember contracting out of SERPS in the early 90s with my views being regardless of how the pension performs I want that money in my pot now as I don't trust the Government to offer it to me when I retire. I stand by my judgement on that 30 years later. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Robtaylor200 Posted March 25 Popular Post Share Posted March 25 I am now 66 and should have retired in January, but I cant afford too, not if I want to carry on eating etc At the age of 50 I left my first wife, Marriage had been dead for years and I looked elsewhere for TLC. After the divorce I lost the house and half my pension. I moved into a rented house with Sarah (the real Mrs T, married 14 years next month) No money for a deposit and not enough years left for a mortgage We both had debt and paid it all off by me cashing in another pension at 55. Sarah has a recently been diagnosed with S.U.N.C.T.S syndrome and cant work but cant claim. She is also 8 years my junior so cant claim her OAP for quite a while. So we live on my wages. My pensions that are left and OAP would come to around £16,000 and my rent is half of that. This is not a sob story. We do have savings from inheritance to cover a few years and I now claim my OAP as well as my wage and I don't pay N.I now I am 66. I will be saving most of my OAP and going on holiday twice a year. and I have no debt. Which I know is better than most people So the moral is lads. Bang as much as you can into your pension now, oh and don't give it away if you divorce. How long I will go on working for, well who knows. But I don't regret ii for second, I have a fantastic life with Mrs T and have 3 holidays booked this year. You never know when your time is up. I have lost four friends this year of my age group 7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fightoffyour Posted March 25 VT Supporter Share Posted March 25 5 minutes ago, Robtaylor200 said: So the moral is lads. Bang as much as you can 2 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobzy Posted March 25 Share Posted March 25 10 hours ago, Genie said: Pension is slightly different in that theoretically you’re putting money aside for yourself later. Many will have been earning good money but not putting anything aside privately as counting on the public pension. They’re just daft, then. Same as people overstretching on borrowing to get as big a house as possible… then watching interest rates rise. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRO Posted March 25 Share Posted March 25 (edited) On 23/03/2024 at 14:46, Davkaus said: I think the problem the younger generations have is twofold It really, really **** stinks that the state pension has a triple lock while working people have been shafted for a generation. Wages stagnate, the cost of living goes up the pension goes up. An ever increasing number of working people reliant on benefits and living in poverty while their taxes go towards a triple locked pension for the wealthiest generation in history is vile. And yes, there are lots of pensioners in poverty and lots of youngsters living the life, but we're talking broad trends. This is obviously a systemic issue. Individual boomers aren't the problem, the broad group of pensioners voting for their own interests and pulling the ladder up behind them is, though. The political class and wealthy elite encouraging this is a bigger one. Secondly, particularly over the last 20 years, the younger generations have been shafted again and again. People in their 30s and younger know nothing but the government making their deal worse. Ask people in their 20s and 30s what they think their state pension will be and most of them will laugh in your face. It's not something that the two flavours of centre right corporate bitches are putting to the electorate, so what's the alternative? Riot like the french, I guess. I think you are making it too political, when it doesn't have to be. may I remind you, all the pensioners today, was the youth of yesteryear, and we all paid in to the pot....some of us, also took a further hit and paid in to a works pension too, when that money could have been used in the home. There is no us and them here.....That may I say is a jaundiced view. This in theory is to ensure working people of today, have a comfortable retirement.....its the very people, who come behind me, that the suggested fight is for. The fight, I talk about is not, so as one group shafts the other....that is not the point, I have been making.....Its to ensure a life after work, thats worth looking forward too, for those that are in work now....The Government raise the retirement age, because they lack the creativity and will, to honor it...instead they find questionable elements to prioritise...that's the bit that needs challenging. That's the challenge.....not throw the towel in and bitch about which political party should provide it. I think that is the biggest challenge to folk, not to mix it with political ideology.....and fight for a deal irrespective of the party in power. Edited March 25 by TRO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davkaus Posted March 25 Share Posted March 25 4 minutes ago, TRO said: That's the challenge.....not throw the towel in and bitch about which political party should provide it. I have no idea what the **** you're talking about to be honest. 3 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRO Posted March 25 Share Posted March 25 (edited) 3 hours ago, Davkaus said: I have no idea what the **** you're talking about to be honest. That makes 2 of us...but no need for the implied language. Edited March 25 by TRO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tinker Posted March 25 VT Supporter Share Posted March 25 3 hours ago, TRO said: I think you are making it too political, when it doesn't have to be. may I remind you, all the pensioners today, was the youth of yesteryear, and we all paid in to the pot....some of also took a further hit and paid in to a works pension too, when that money could have been used in the home. There is no us and them here.....That may I say is a jaundiced view. This in theory is to ensure working people of today, have a comfortable retirement.....its the very people, who come behind me, that the fight is for. The fight, I talk about is not, so as one group shafts the other....that is not the point, I have been making.....Its to ensure a life after work, thats worth looking forward too, for those that are in work now....They raise the retirement age, because they lack the creativity and will, to honor it...instead they find questionable elements to prioritise...that's the bit that needs challenging. That's the challenge.....not throw the towel in and bitch about which political party should provide it. I think that is the biggest challenge to folk, not to mix it with political ideology.....and fight for a deal irrespective of the party in power. It's not a pot, the tax payers of today pay for the pensioners of today, you paid for the pensioners of your day. The promise of the triple lock is to win older voters, plain and simple. To do that while raising the age for others to retire, while life expectancy is pretty much static (lower in areas of social deprivation and poverty.......) is wrong on so many levels and just sticks another division in, culture wars 2, old V's young. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xela Posted March 25 Share Posted March 25 19 hours ago, Genie said: It depends on what means testing is done, how aggressive it is. Yeah it depends on what level the means testing comes in at. If its £100k private pension then I don't think there would be a huge backlash from the masses.. £25k? Rioting I'd hope. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xela Posted March 25 Share Posted March 25 9 hours ago, Robtaylor200 said: I am now 66 and should have retired in January, but I cant afford too, not if I want to carry on eating etc At the age of 50 I left my first wife, Marriage had been dead for years and I looked elsewhere for TLC. After the divorce I lost the house and half my pension. I moved into a rented house with Sarah (the real Mrs T, married 14 years next month) No money for a deposit and not enough years left for a mortgage We both had debt and paid it all off by me cashing in another pension at 55. Sarah has a recently been diagnosed with S.U.N.C.T.S syndrome and cant work but cant claim. She is also 8 years my junior so cant claim her OAP for quite a while. So we live on my wages. My pensions that are left and OAP would come to around £16,000 and my rent is half of that. This is not a sob story. We do have savings from inheritance to cover a few years and I now claim my OAP as well as my wage and I don't pay N.I now I am 66. I will be saving most of my OAP and going on holiday twice a year. and I have no debt. Which I know is better than most people So the moral is lads. Bang as much as you can into your pension now, oh and don't give it away if you divorce. How long I will go on working for, well who knows. But I don't regret ii for second, I have a fantastic life with Mrs T and have 3 holidays booked this year. You never know when your time is up. I have lost four friends this year of my age group Good positive story Rob. It would have been easy to stay in a loveless marriage if only for the financial aspect, but you gave it up for a better life. Fair play for starting again. On a separate note, i'm seeing a lot more people staying single now as they don't want to end up financially rinsed when they are older. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MakemineVanilla Posted March 26 Share Posted March 26 On 23/03/2024 at 14:46, Davkaus said: I think the problem the younger generations have is twofold I think the main problem for the younger generation will be the lowering of their standard of living due to the sacrifices resulting from the move to a Carbon Neutral economy. The boomers tried a bit of minimalism voluntarily when they went through their hippie phase but had the luxury of changing their minds. Whether Gen Z will have the same luxury, remains to be seen. Every generation has a problem they have to solve or deal with, whether it is actual Nazis, the imminent threat of nuclear annihilation, or environmental catastrophe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panto_Villan Posted March 26 Share Posted March 26 1 hour ago, MakemineVanilla said: I think the main problem for the younger generation will be the lowering of their standard of living due to the sacrifices resulting from the move to a Carbon Neutral economy. Sure, a lot of investment will be required to make that happen. But in any sensible world that money will be raised by increasing taxes on the most well-off in our society, which is generally (though not exclusively) the older generations due to the many decades of rising asset prices they enjoyed throughout their lifetimes. I think the assumption that it's a problem for the younger generations is quite indicative of the actual problem - the fact the older generation think they've already "paid their way" and shouldn't have to share the hardship, when the numbers don't back that up at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tinker Posted March 26 VT Supporter Share Posted March 26 2 hours ago, Panto_Villan said: Sure, a lot of investment will be required to make that happen. But in any sensible world that money will be raised by increasing taxes on the most well-off in our society, which is generally (though not exclusively) the older generations due to the many decades of rising asset prices they enjoyed throughout their lifetimes. I think the assumption that it's a problem for the younger generations is quite indicative of the actual problem - the fact the older generation think they've already "paid their way" and shouldn't have to share the hardship, when the numbers don't back that up at all. It's not really a generational problem (just like it wasn't immigrants causing last years problems) the older generation haven't and don't cause the issue it's the inequality between the very rich and the very poor thats the issue. The media and our leaders like us arguing who's fault it is because its not highlighting the real problem, the rich wanting more of a share and taking that share away from the low level workers, hence pensions and conditions being eroded year after year, to pay share holders more money out of the profits. As for zero emissions causing it , that's just inaccurate right wing media. Wave, tidal, wind ,nuclear are all low cost after initial investment. That investment is being blocked because the whole world economy has been pandering to oil rich nations and their wealthy owners. Advancements in technology should improve everyone's lives but it's not, while millions starve some rich ****'s can fly into space! Have a nice day 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villa89 Posted March 26 Share Posted March 26 (edited) On 25/03/2024 at 08:24, Robtaylor200 said: I am now 66 and should have retired in January, but I cant afford too, not if I want to carry on eating To be honest for most people under fifty will have to accept working,maybe not full time, until they are 70. There isn't the population of young people to replace older people in the workforce and as people are living much longer now the cost of a pension is huge. If you are forty and you plan to retire at 65 then you need to budget that you will live for another 25 years after that. Yep, a quarter of a century. Assuming you have a reasonable standard of health. Edited March 26 by villa89 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tinker Posted March 26 VT Supporter Share Posted March 26 9 minutes ago, villa89 said: To be honest for most people under fifty will have to accept working,maybe not full time, until they are 70. There isn't the population of young people to replace older people in the workforce and as people are living much longer now the cost of a pension is huge. If you are forty and you plan to retire at 65 then you need to budget that you will live for another 25 years after that. Yep, a quarter of a century. Assuming you have a reasonable standard of health. We are not living longer, it a lazy headline and it isn't going to get any better with poverty and the underfunding of the NHS Life expectancy at birth in Birmingham and West Midlands metropolitan county from 2001/03 to 2020/22, by gender https://www.statista.com/statistics/1404827/birmingham-life-expectancy-by-gender/#:~:text=For the period 2020 to,when compared to 2017/19. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xann Posted March 26 Share Posted March 26 Those last few years might be a bit painful, as you wait for that operation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted March 26 Share Posted March 26 It is a bloody bugger of a problem, too few younger people to back fill all the job roles and play keepy uppy with the GDP. I just hope that once they’ve stopped all this immigration it’s the next thing they turn their laser focus on. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panto_Villan Posted March 26 Share Posted March 26 17 minutes ago, tinker said: We are not living longer, it a lazy headline and it isn't going to get any better with poverty and the underfunding of the NHS Life expectancy at birth in Birmingham and West Midlands metropolitan county from 2001/03 to 2020/22, by gender https://www.statista.com/statistics/1404827/birmingham-life-expectancy-by-gender/#:~:text=For the period 2020 to,when compared to 2017/19. It's not a lazy headline. Life expectancy hit a peak in 2019 and has been declining since then, but it's clearly still increased significantly since the 1980s. Men would have expected to live 5 years after retirement in 1980, and now they'd expect to live about 12 years if they retire at 66. That's clearly a huge difference. Your points about inequality do seem like lazy headlines though - it has increased significantly since the 70s, but not to the extent that it's causing all the social issues you're ascribing to it, and it has barely changed at all in the last 15 years. In fact inequality has fallen since the 90s in general (the earnings of the top 1% have held up, but haven't really increased over the past 15 years). People are living longer and the boomers (who were a large population bulge) reaching retirement age means that the number of working people relative to the number of retired is increasing significantly. And the steadily rising asset prices over the past 50 years that sustained the pensions of the older generations are now reaching the point where similar future returns are impossible; e.g. house prices can't keep going up forever because fewer and fewer people can afford to buy them. Which means more costs will fall on the younger generations who have to support the current retirees. Feels like you're picking facts to suit a narrative rather than the other way around. There's several bigger problems than inequality in our society imo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MakemineVanilla Posted March 26 Share Posted March 26 1 hour ago, villa89 said: Assuming you have a reasonable standard of health. 40% of people over 65 have a limiting long-term illness or disability (4.5 million), which is expected to rise to 6 million by 2030. Most of the people I know who carry on working, mostly in retail, after they qualify for a pension, only do it because the combination of both a wage and a state pension add up to the best income they've ever had. Make "double-dipping" illegal and the incentive is removed; experienced workers are lost. As the man said, if you want your kids to visit you when you are old, make sure they know you have a few bob salted away! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts