500,000 pensioners pay the price for the indebted.

Really2

Graham_Devon wrote: »

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.

So could you explain how my ex factory ex minor relatives mostly died before retirement never had cars, loans, houses, tv etc.

Died not long after retirement leaving skint widows with nothing also

they were pudent but being on the breadline stops you saving for retirement and thats the truth and these 500,000 are in better shape than the majority of pensioners.
There are over 11m pensioners in the UK were they all un-prudent.

tara747

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Worse?

Have you seen the price of basic living today?

Have you ever wondered why there has been a massive surge in tax credits? These things were not around in the 70's, as people, although struggling, couldllive off their own money without needing a zillion top ups. Now we live in a society that has half the population on some sort of benefit, either through tax credits or living solely off these.

The cost of living today, is far greater, I believe than in the 70's. However, the impact is somewhat cushioned by the amount of "pots" people are paid out of depending on what they are entitled to. It just means everything is more expensive, which is why so many more each day are relying on the state more and more to feed them.

Some people, do not get that state help.

I disagree. In the 70s, food was a much larger % of people's budgets and far dearer in real terms than today. I think I recall seeing a figure of 10% of the average budget today vs 30% in the 70s. Food makes up a higher % of spending for pensioners than for the rest of us, even now. So I would say that pensioners in the 70s were worse off than today as food is (relatively speaking) so much cheaper. Any thoughts?

Graham_Devon

Really2 wrote: »

So could you explain how my ex factory ex minor relatives mostly died before retirement never had cars, loans, houses, tv etc.

Died not long after retirement leaving skint widows with nothing also

they were pudent but being on the breadline stops you saving for retirement the truth is there are well over.

There are over 11m pensioners in the UK were they all un-prudent.

Your ex miner relatives and no different to any other people at those times, who also didnt have loans, TV's etc.

It was a completely different era.

As for the rest of your post, I really don't know what you are going on about, sorry. I think you may have got prudence, and poorer people mixed up. You can be prudent and earn less.

beecher

Really2 wrote: »

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"

I think the outrage they feel is due to the fact that they didn't contribute to this recession if they were prudent and saved for their own future. I'm sure anyone who is made redundant and has to live on their savings is equally angry if they didn't live in debt, or buy into the 'must have' philosophy.

Graham_Devon

tara747 wrote: »

I disagree. In the 70s, food was a much larger % of people's budgets and far dearer in real terms than today. I think I recall seeing a figure of 10% of the average budget today vs 30% in the 70s. Food makes up a higher % of spending for pensioners than for the rest of us, even now. So I would say that pensioners in the 70s were worse off than today as food is (relatively speaking) so much cheaper. Any thoughts?

Yer, food was a larger percentage. Percentages have just changed. Look at council tax. Look at commodity bills. Look at care services.

But we need more than just food to live, which is why I said basic neccestites, not food.

Wookster

Really2 wrote: »

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

Pensions are the biggest ponzi there is!

Really2 wrote: »

so sorry you can only be prudent if you had the money in life to do so.

Being prudent is not taking foolish risks & getting to heavily in debt.

JP45

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!

Well said. This is the position I now find myself in. And yet you rarely hear any mention of this overlooked yet growing group within society.

These are people who are almost wholly reliant on savings. And yet, as you point out, their savings disqualify them from claiming means-tested benefits. They also miss out on the various concessions offered to pensioners - free bus passes, winter fuel allowance etc.

The result is the perverse situation in which many relatively well-off pensioners have access to non-means-tested benefits even though they don't need them, whilst those who have been laid off in their fifities miss out altogether.

Really2

beecher wrote: »

I think the outrage they feel is due to the fact that they didn't contribute to this recession if they were prudent and saved for their own future. I'm sure anyone who is made redundant and has to live on their savings is equally angry if they didn't live in debt, or buy into the 'must have' philosophy.

I agree but unfortunatly neither did any other pensioner in previous busts.

Unfortunate a bust hits you no matter rich, poor, young or old.

As I said it is unfortunate and i do feel for them but as I said they are a well off minority of pensioners compared to the poor state supported others.

lostinrates

JP45 wrote: »

And yet, as you point out, their savings disqualify them from claiming means-tested benefits. .

This is SUCH a great unfairness. I think PN is a great example of someone who, had she the same 'value' of money in property would be entitled to claim some sort of benefit.

Assets are assets, whther they be property, cash or whatever. A home is an emptive asset, but an asset none the less. we need a reapproach to how this is regarded IMO.

Really2

Wookster wrote: »

Being prudent is not taking foolish risks & getting to heavily in debt.

So you agree most pensioners have been prudent (just skint through life)
they total 10,500,000

There are another 500,000 pensioners who have been prudent and had the opertunity to save for retirement unfortunatly due to the current climate they are losing thier interest.

Fortunatly when thing get better again they will see there interest rise.

As I said unfortunatly we are all taking a hit.

If everyone was "prudent" and never got in debt there would be no such thing as interest anyway.

It's a difficult one.