500,000 pensioners pay the price for the indebted.

lostinrates

Jennifer_Jane wrote: »

Really2 - perhaps I'm getting a bit dithery, but I didn't completely understand your post, or perhaps your stance.
.

Thanks...I thought it was just me!

Jennifer_Jane

SingleSue wrote: »

You do realise that with my anal retentive way of loving to work with figures, that you have just set me a task to do today.

Yep, work out how much I have earnt since I left school!

I can't do that - too long, but the other day I worked out that I have received £190,000 in salary since July 2000. Compare this with the CEO who received £2.6 m last year.

Jen
x

Really2

Graham_Devon wrote: »

The point is, these people, talked about on this thread, have a very slim chance of getting help, because they have been prudent.

Now, for the prudence, they are paying, dearly.

The point about many of the older they never had the chance to be prudent.
Mine workers, sweat shops etc.

Many passed away before retirement leaving skint other halfs.

Being prudent relies on the fact you have money to save so I presume most of these "savers" had a better job etc anyway.

So are we saying the middle and upper classes deserve more and the lower classes should just get state benefit?

so sorry you can only be prudent if you had the money in life to do so. Many worked for nothing and died supporting this country they never had the rewards while working so why should the ones that did deserve more?

Graham_Devon

Really2 wrote: »

The point about many of the older they never had the chance to be prudent.
Mine workers, sweat shops etc.

Many passed away before retirement leaving skint other halfs.

Being prudent relies on the fact you have money to save so I presume most of these "savers" had a better job etc anyway.

So are we saying the middle and upper classes deserve more and the lower classes should just get state benefit?

so sorry you can only be prudent if you had the money in life to do so. Many worked for nothing and died supporting this country they never had the rewards while working so why should the ones that did deserve more?

You can only be prudent if you had the money in life?

Tell you what, why don't you take my other leg and start yanking on that too.

You really are having a laugh here...and no....only YOU are saying that about the middle and upper classes. I said nothing of the sort and you aint gonna drag me into that one.

beecher

Really2 wrote: »

The point about many of the older they never had the chance to be prudent.
Mine workers, sweat shops etc.

Many passed away before retirement leaving skint other halfs.

Being prudent relies on the fact you have money to save so I presume most of these "savers" had a better job etc anyway.

that's not how I see being prudent - it means living within your means and not getting into debt.

i also don't understand your earlier post about people over the age of 65 being better off than they were in the 70s - they weren't pensioners then so I don't get your point.

dealsearcher

Radiantsoul wrote: »

It strikes me as a little odd for asset rich, cash poor people to plead poverty. Generally I think pensioners have done rather well with low inflation, rising asset prices and a bouyant stock market for the past decade.

Assets only provide their value when they are sold, and only at the actual sale price then.

Shares also only return a value when they are sold. The FTSE reached 6990 at the end of 2000. What is it now?

Really2

Jennifer_Jane wrote: »

Really2 - perhaps I'm getting a bit dithery, but I didn't completely understand your post, or perhaps your stance.

It does, however, raise the point that the new pensioners, the Baby Boomers, who are just coming on pension now, are the spoilt post-war generation who are going to complain vociferously about things. The really old people in their 80's and 90's are more stoical, and perhaps have less energy for complaint and less access to computers/internet.

My point is many pensioners worked and just about lived and never had the opportunity to save for retirement.

They are supported (rightly) by a generation that may never get a state pension.

The true losers in this are the more well off pensioners but they have the funds there to survive better than there poorer counterparts.

If they to struggle the state is there for them also.

It seems the outrage is that they are not able to carry on a life they are accustomed to without dipping in to there savings.

Times are hard do people deserve to be made redundant an lose their house and savings?

We do protect our elderly as much as we can but in the end of the day we are all going to be losers in this recession.

like the rest of us they are unfortunately going to have to take it on the chin and the sooner this is all over the sooner they can start earning "higher interest"

SingleSue

Jennifer_Jane wrote: »

I can't do that - too long, but the other day I worked out that I have received £190,000 in salary since July 2000. Compare this with the CEO who received £2.6 m last year.

Jen
x

Blimey!

I have worked out a rough (very rough!) £150k from June 1986 - October 1993 (full time work), short period of working 2 jobs between Nov 1993 - April 1994, Feb 1995 to October 1996 and then from Jan 2001 - Dec 2005 (part time work from 1993). In the period of Jan 2001 - Dec 2005, I earnt approx £55k even though my job was only supposed to be 11.25 hours a week.. I love overtime.

Really2

beecher wrote: »

i also don't understand your earlier post about people over the age of 65 being better off than they were in the 70s - they weren't pensioners then so I don't get your point.

They were not 65 then but they also saw pensioners struggle that is my point and that interest 3%+ below inflation makes you a net loser and hits the poorer harder.
We are all going to go through such a time in retirement is my point (providing we survive that long)

[Deleted User]

dealsearcher wrote: »

It is not only pensioners. At least pensioners have their pension.

What about people who have had to take early retirement or have been made unemployed for medical or other reasons? They are not old enough to take their pension, have 'too much' in savings to claim benefit and are totally reliant on their savings.

So much for being prudent!

That is us to a T dealsearcher. My dh had to retire at 60 and his company pension will not be vested until he is 65, if there is anything left!!!. We live on my small state pension and my much smaller teachers pension and we use our savings to top up and will be doing so until 2012