Pensioners' loss of interest on savings

mustrum_ridcully

Say someone retiring today has £20,000 saved away. They'll get the basic state pension and say a couple of hundred a month from private pension. The two pensions will cover food, electricity, water, heating, everyday car costs, council tax, insurance and all the other day to day bills... They won't cover replacing the gas boiler when it dies, it won't cover doing major repairs to the car - that's what the savings are for. The interest will help cover something like a week away somewhere or presents for the grandkids - suddenly that's gone.

I think some people really do struggle to see things from another persons point of view.

Sadly we live in a country where those who are responsible and decent citizens are never rewarded. Bankrupted the bank you run - here's a bailout. Saved a decent amount - here's a cut in interest rates. Not bothered saving for your retirement - here are some pension credits. Saved for your retirement - sorry you've been too responsible not pension credits for you.

lukekelly_2

I'd take £20,000 and pension credits when that money runs out over pension credits and no savings. Isn't having a large pot of money reward enough?

IveSeenTheLight

mustrum_ridcully wrote: »

Say someone retiring today has £20,000 saved away. They'll get the basic state pension and say a couple of hundred a month from private pension. The two pensions will cover food, electricity, water, heating, everyday car costs, council tax, insurance and all the other day to day bills... They won't cover replacing the gas boiler when it dies, it won't cover doing major repairs to the car - that's what the savings are for. The interest will help cover something like a week away somewhere or presents for the grandkids - suddenly that's gone.

I think some people really do struggle to see things from another persons point of view.

At the end of the day, having money in the bank is an investment and any interest gained to that investment is at the subject to the economy at the time

We started out with one hypothetical situation and its transcending into an other.

In short, one issue to be taken from this discussion is that people seriously need to be prepared for retired life and prepare to be able to live on whatever income / savings you have set aside for that day.

If you have not put enough away, then you have to cut your cloth to suit

mustrum_ridcully wrote: »

Sadly we live in a country where those who are responsible and decent citizens are never rewarded. Bankrupted the bank you run - here's a bailout. Saved a decent amount - here's a cut in interest rates. Not bothered saving for your retirement - here are some pension credits. Saved for your retirement - sorry you've been too responsible not pension credits for you.

Its a personal choice, take control and ensure you have enough to live in the means you wish to or rely on the government and make do with what your provided.

I know personally I want to make sure I am comfortable in retirement if I can.

kennyboy66_2

beaujolais-nouveau wrote: »

Two things are wrong about your comment. One, AIUI, only calcium taken in before the age of 6 will protect your bones in later life. After that, all the milk in the world will make very little difference.

Second, before intensive farming came in, a chicken dinner was a luxury.

Unfortunately it was you that said that rationing led to insufficient calcium in your diet.

Here was your quote - "or rationing meant that you did not have enough calcium in your diet when you needed it.".

Now as it happens, there is plenty of research on diet during rationing years. People were encouraged to drink milk. I repeat consumption of milk increased by 30% by 1943 (there was a corresponding decrease in consumption of syrups and sugars).
People drank 2 pints more of milk in 1950 than they did in 2000.

How therefore did war time or post war-time rationing cause a reduction in calcium consumption ?

You are half right about Calcium from the age of 6 - this is based on its effect on bone density. However if you have, or at risk of osteoporosis, then, particularly if you are post-menstrual you are are advised to take Calcium supplements. This is mainly becuase it slows down the onset of osteoporosis and that many women have a diet deficient in Calcium.

I am well aware that Chicken was for Easter and Xmas. My point was that Iron intake in children now is only 74% of children during rationing. This was because red meat was the main source of protein (now it is chicken) and that the consumption of vegetables was also significantly higher.

You appear to have no idea what you are talking about.

kennyboy66_2

Generali wrote: »

Is that really true? We do a lot of growing after the age of 6.

I thought I heard that exercise made a difference but I guess that's different to drinking milk.

About 80% of bone density depends on Calcium, Vitamin D (sunshine) and excercise during childhood to adolesence.
However bones are not just simply grown in childhood and then stay the same.
They are a living collection of cells that are constantly renewed and broken down. The substances that make up the bones are fortified with calcium. This means that without calcium these substances are weaker and do not function properly. If calcium is not included in the dietary intake, the calcium supply in the bones depletes and they become less dense and can weaken or break more easily


People at risk of osteoporosis are still advised not to smoke (depletes oestrogen), take calcium supplements and do weight bearing or resistance exercise.

Generali

kennyboy66 wrote: »

About 80% of bone density depends on Calcium, Vitamin D (sunshine) and excercise during childhood to adolesence.
However bones are not just simply grown in childhood and then stay the same.
They are a living collection of cells that are constantly renewed and broken down. The substances that make up the bones are fortified with calcium. This means that without calcium these substances are weaker and do not function properly. If calcium is not included in the dietary intake, the calcium supply in the bones depletes and they become less dense and can weaken or break more easily


People at risk of osteoporosis are still advised not to smoke (depletes oestrogen), take calcium supplements and do weight bearing or resistance exercise.

Thanks.

Mrs Generali was diagnosed with a (possibly inaccurate?) allergy to dairy products as a kid and so probably didn't get anything like enough calcium in her diet.

She doesn't smoke but her diet isn't the best. She's quite a way off the menopause I hasten to add!

McKneff

MrsGenerali wrote: »

Quite a way off!!! :mad:

:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: love it.

Mr_Matey

PasturesNew wrote: »

When I shoved my savings in the nearest bank, it paid for my rent, my bills and a spot of life.

I tried chasing some rates around, but opening up accounts is quite a long-winded process so I lost the will to live and wherever they are they're stopping ... but the rates are dire.

My savings interest income is now not enough to pay half my rent.

But my savings aren't savings - they're my one chance in my lifetime to buy a house. I sold a house, they'll buy another, but I don't know when, where or for how much, so I don't want to dip into them for a bit here, a bit there. That's a slippery slope. So they're not what most people would call "savings", which is "a bit left over from everyday life". They are the SUM total of my entire life - and I'm pretty much too old now to ever add to them again, or start again etc.

I'm not sure why you're reacting so negatively Pastures. Your "savings" include the profits you made from the housing boom, and even if you have to dip into them a little to pay your rent, I imagine your net worth is still greater than if you'd held your property and watched it's value fall.

Sure you're not getting as much of benefit out of the move as before, but big deal.

Remember... STR: not a loony then.


PS and you're no way near too old to be working and adding to savings.

beaujolais-nouveau

kennyboy66 wrote: »

How therefore did war time or post war-time rationing cause a reduction in calcium consumption ?

You are half right about Calcium from the age of 6 - this is based on its effect on bone density. ...

I am well aware that Chicken was for Easter and Xmas. My point was that Iron intake in children now is only 74% of children during rationing. This was because red meat was the main source of protein (now it is chicken) and that the consumption of vegetables was also significantly higher.

You appear to have no idea what you are talking about.

I wasn't talking only about WWII and post WWII years but pre WWII. I think that people should do their own research, if they want to know more about how to reduce their risk of osteoporosis. It is too big a subject to do justice to here. Vitamin D is necessary to absorption of calcium, and exposure to sunlight in the UK in winter (particularly in the north of the country) is probably inadequate to prevent Vitamin D deficiency. Apparently, eating more than 4 ounces of meat a day increases risk, as does drinking fizzy pop.

McKneff

We know all about this calcium etc now but did the ordinary working class people know about it then, it probably never crossed their minds.