chrisp65 Posted March 26 Share Posted March 26 At some point in the next few years I think we might be selling our house to our kids and then renting it back from them. That appears to be the safest way of attempting to get our major asset over to them rather than over to a care home for 8 months of school dinners or whatever you get for a few hundred thousand these days. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted March 26 Moderator Share Posted March 26 6 minutes ago, chrisp65 said: At some point in the next few years I think we might be selling our house to our kids and then renting it back from them. That appears to be the safest way of attempting to get our major asset over to them rather than over to a care home for 8 months of school dinners or whatever you get for a few hundred thousand these days. Dunno, you might just find flying from Switzerland to the UK might become incredibly cheap 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rds1983 Posted March 26 VT Supporter Share Posted March 26 16 minutes ago, chrisp65 said: At some point in the next few years I think we might be selling our house to our kids and then renting it back from them. That appears to be the safest way of attempting to get our major asset over to them rather than over to a care home for 8 months of school dinners or whatever you get for a few hundred thousand these days. If you do decide to sell your house to your kids, assuming that you do it on the cheap then make sure you consider the potential tax implications. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tinker Posted March 26 VT Supporter Share Posted March 26 1 hour ago, Panto_Villan said: 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. There uk figures, most of us live and work in and around Birmingham, we don't get the London weighting or the home counties extra funding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted March 26 Share Posted March 26 42 minutes ago, Rds1983 said: If you do decide to sell your house to your kids, assuming that you do it on the cheap then make sure you consider the potential tax implications. My understanding is selling it for a quid is a problem, and selling it within 7 years of death is a problem. But selling it to OurHouse2024 Ltd., for a few tens of thousands, and paying rent to OurHouse2024 Ltd of a few tens of thousands and living 8 years is acceptable. That’s a very abbreviated version, but there is a route. Just an idea for now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rds1983 Posted March 26 VT Supporter Share Posted March 26 1 hour ago, chrisp65 said: My understanding is selling it for a quid is a problem, and selling it within 7 years of death is a problem. But selling it to OurHouse2024 Ltd., for a few tens of thousands, and paying rent to OurHouse2024 Ltd of a few tens of thousands and living 8 years is acceptable. That’s a very abbreviated version, but there is a route. Just an idea for now. I'm not an accountant or financial advisor so couldn't say for certain. Just recommending you speak to one beforehand to make sure it's done right. Spend a little to save a lot kinda thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mandy Lifeboats Posted March 26 Share Posted March 26 2 hours ago, chrisp65 said: At some point in the next few years I think we might be selling our house to our kids and then renting it back from them. That appears to be the safest way of attempting to get our major asset over to them rather than over to a care home for 8 months of school dinners or whatever you get for a few hundred thousand these days. If you do this it has to be a legitimate transaction. You'll need boiler checks, carbon monoxide detectors and tenancy agreements. The rent you pay to your kids will be taxed. They will need to make tax returns. Its not as easy as it seems. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sidcow Posted March 26 VT Supporter Share Posted March 26 (edited) 6 hours ago, tinker said: 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. Yep. The new generation should ultimately enjoy plentiful, cheap as chips power and not be held to ransom by foreign states and mega corporations profiteering. And it won't kill them in the process. Think of the billions the NHS should save without all the respiratory diseases to treat. If the Government had the balls to make people pay the correct price for gas and the correct price for the actual cost of Electricity now so much stuff would make absolute sense and save people a load on heating and transport costs. Heat pumps would trounce Gas Boilers and EVs would be SO much cheaper than ICE vehicles,they're far cheaper to run now even with artificially high electricity prices. The cost of building the infrastructure is dwarfed by the end prize. I bet the Boomers weren't feeling particularly smug about their wealth during the oil crisis and nor did anyone last year when the Russian invasion caused the massive Gas cost spike. Edited March 26 by sidcow Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted March 26 Share Posted March 26 47 minutes ago, Mandy Lifeboats said: If you do this it has to be a legitimate transaction. You'll need boiler checks, carbon monoxide detectors and tenancy agreements. The rent you pay to your kids will be taxed. They will need to make tax returns. Its not as easy as it seems. Feels like a less dispiriting end than handing it over to the Pleasant View Care Facility plc.. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Genie Posted March 26 Share Posted March 26 There’s probably a clever way with trust funds and trustees. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted March 26 Share Posted March 26 Perhaps I could get the national trust interested. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panto_Villan Posted March 26 Share Posted March 26 3 hours ago, tinker said: There uk figures, most of us live and work in and around Birmingham, we don't get the London weighting or the home counties extra funding. You can't really talk about huge things like inequality and the affordability of pensions on the scale of a single city, but the life expectancy figures for Birmingham broadly follow the same trend as everywhere else. You're right that life expectancies have declined over the past five years, but even if you take that into account then they've still increased significantly overall in recent decades. Men today live 2.2 years longer than they did in 2001. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MakemineVanilla Posted March 26 Share Posted March 26 44 minutes ago, chrisp65 said: Feels like a less dispiriting end than handing it over to the Pleasant View Care Facility plc.. Don't worry, if Labour get in, Assisted Dying will become available. Starmer is a big fan apparently - it's the first time he can say he has a cure for poverty and mean it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robtaylor200 Posted March 27 Share Posted March 27 20 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. I wrote something similar when I was the younger generation . I have worked for 49 years, paid taxes and Ni for 49 years. Yep I reckon I have paid my way Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VILLAMARV Posted March 27 Share Posted March 27 (edited) 18 hours ago, Panto_Villan said: 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. The graph you are presumably looking at when writing this is based on life expectancy at birth. Therefore a baby born in 1980 would on average be expected to have a lower life expectancy than a baby born in 2019 or now in 2024. However that finding at birth is not replicated in the older generations. An important thing to understand from these ONS figures is that a 66 year old today can expect, on average, to reach an older age than a baby born today. If we look at the ONS life tables (which is the source data for the above graph) they state that a 66 year old male in 1980 could expect, on average, to live an extra 12.35 years (So roughly until 78) whereas now (in 2022 - the last available data) a 66 year old male could expect an extra 17.48 years. (i.e to live until they are 83/84). Which is higher than babies born today (males @78.57 - females @82.57) and therefore why epidemiologists have raised the alarm regarding "declining life expectancy". Life expectancy is falling. For the first time in our recorded history babies being born today are not expected to reach the same age as their parents/grandparents. It's really important that we don't attribute life expectancy at birth to life expectancy of somebody retiring today. It's obviously really complicated, but important to note that some of the 'gains' in life expectancy are to do with less 0 year old babies dying. It's too simplistic to attribute these gains only to retired people living to an older age. What we are seeing in these historic times is that I'm not expected to live as long as my parents and my (hypothetical) children are not expected to live as long as me. Edited March 27 by VILLAMARV wordwang 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VILLAMARV Posted March 27 Share Posted March 27 13 hours ago, Panto_Villan said: You're right that life expectancies have declined over the past five years, but even if you take that into account then they've still increased significantly overall in recent decades. Men today live 2.2 years longer than they did in 2001. see above Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fightoffyour Posted March 27 VT Supporter Share Posted March 27 Work for 50 years, half of your waking hours for 5 days a week and you can expect to retire for 6-12 years before you die, But you might spend that time living in poverty. Wonderful. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panto_Villan Posted March 27 Share Posted March 27 4 hours ago, Robtaylor200 said: I wrote something similar when I was the younger generation . I have worked for 49 years, paid taxes and Ni for 49 years. Yep I reckon I have paid my way I expect you saved up and bought and house when you were younger, too? Do you think it’s just as easy for the younger generation who have to save up and buy a house today? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robtaylor200 Posted March 27 Share Posted March 27 (edited) 17 minutes ago, Panto_Villan said: I expect you saved up and bought and house when you were younger, too? Do you think it’s just as easy for the younger generation who have to save up and buy a house today? Not sure how you can compare. We did save for a deposit, but there was little else to spend money on. No mobile phones, no gadgets, no sky subscription, we all drove old tatty cars and went to Wales once a year for a holiday and at 19 years of age I was earning £56 aweek. Edited March 27 by Robtaylor200 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MakemineVanilla Posted March 27 Share Posted March 27 8 minutes ago, fightoffyour said: Work for 50 years, half of your waking hours for 5 days a week and you can expect to retire for 6-12 years before you die, But you might spend that time living in poverty. Wonderful. 40% of UK pensioners are living in poverty. Tory MP David Willets wrote a book called The Pinch, which was an attempt to make a case to shaft the boomer generation. He basically framed boomers as a kulak class, his party could target for benefit cuts. Definitely an instance of the politics of envy, his party claimed to despise. I think the problem is that the media tend to frame boomers as all having moved into the property-owning middle-class, and forget that the vast majority did unskilled jobs, which paid very little money, and didn't provide the luxury of a final-salary pension. These are the people who would have been made unemployed during Thatcher's jobs cull. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts