Second Home Ownership reaches Record Level

Bogof_Babe

Although on balance "people" (as a collective) are living longer, that just means the average is skewed towards greater longevity, not that every person alive now will live beyond the age their parents did. Pushing pension age to 70 and beyond is not going to work for those who spend their post-60s riddled with arthritis, or with incipient dementia.

I'm imagining 69 year old nurses struggling to handle patients, surgeons with failing eyesight, or teachers who are nearly three generations in age difference from their pupils so completely out of touch with modern young life. As for manual workers, unless they are exceptional for their age they would really struggle to work enough hours to fund their expenses.

How about if from the time of commencing work, everyone was obliged to pay say 5% of their gross income into a personal savings plan, that could not be accessed until age 60. This could be linked to NI code, and would build up a nest egg which could enable people to retire a few years before state pension age if they wished. This savings account would be owned by the person not the state, so if they did not survive to reach 60 it would become part of their estate. Win win?

Generali

Bogof_Babe wrote: »

Although on balance "people" (as a collective) are living longer, that just means the average is skewed towards greater longevity, not that every person alive now will live beyond the age their parents did. Pushing pension age to 70 and beyond is not going to work for those who spend their post-60s riddled with arthritis, or with incipient dementia.

I'm imagining 69 year old nurses struggling to handle patients, surgeons with failing eyesight, or teachers who are nearly three generations in age difference from their pupils so completely out of touch with modern young life. As for manual workers, unless they are exceptional for their age they would really struggle to work enough hours to fund their expenses.

How about if from the time of commencing work, everyone was obliged to pay say 5% of their gross income into a personal savings plan, that could not be accessed until age 60. This could be linked to NI code, and would build up a nest egg which could enable people to retire a few years before state pension age if they wished. This savings account would be owned by the person not the state, so if they did not survive to reach 60 it would become part of their estate. Win win?

Great idea although it'll need more than 5% going in.

In Australia where I live, employers pay 9% of gross income into a retirement fund of the employees choice. As a result, most Australians will end up with a fund that will support them through retirement if they spend most of their adult lives in work.

kabayiri

Procrastinator333 wrote: »

Hang on. So let me see if I follow.

You quote 1 line out of my post and then start talking about population increases not being enough? I said further down I'm skeptical people are still going to want to come to the UK.

You then say it is going to need innovative solutions. Well great, any suggestions?

Yes, plenty. Thanks for asking.

If we make life extremely pleasant for pensioners with money to live in the UK, they will spend their money here.

Thousands of retired Brits in Spain etc are not exactly putting money back into the local economy are they?

Make public transport cheap and safe, and pensioners (amongst others) will use it. Has it escaped your notice the bus pass rules change in 2012. Running a car is an expensive option.

It's going to need a range of measures, and of course pensionable age is going to increase.

Explain the population increase solution to me? When we have 10m additional people in UK, in 20 years time to fund pensions, are we going to be talking about increasing populace by 15m in 20 years after that? At what point does this philosophy break down.

Hamish isn't interested in pension welfare for all, just another excuse for increasing demand for houses. No point in pretending otherwise.

Procrastinator333

kabayiri wrote: »

If we make life extremely pleasant for pensioners with money to live in the UK, they will spend their money here.

Thousands of retired Brits in Spain etc are not exactly putting money back into the local economy are they?

So your plan is to tempt overseas pensioners to return? No need, the exchange rates are doing that for us. How many actually go overseas anyway? Maybe I just don't know that many pensioners, but friends / family I can't think of any who have gone overseas.

kabayiri wrote: »

Make public transport cheap and safe, and pensioners (amongst others) will use it. Has it escaped your notice the bus pass rules change in 2012. Running a car is an expensive option.

That will be a cheap money saving option. Spend more money on public transport so the pensioners can save their car running costs? How does that reduce the cost of pensioners on the state?

kabayiri wrote: »

Explain the population increase solution to me? When we have 10m additional people in UK, in 20 years time to fund pensions, are we going to be talking about increasing populace by 15m in 20 years after that? At what point does this philosophy break down.

It isn't what I'm proposing. I don't think it will work because I'm skeptical that even if the government lets them, I'm not sure they will come to the UK.

Raise the pension age. Starting tomorrow add 6 months on to the pension age every year for the next 25 years. Then have a look and see how we are doing.

kabayiri wrote: »

Hamish isn't interested in pension welfare for all, just another excuse for increasing demand for houses. No point in pretending otherwise.

I don't know what Hamish's motives are and I'm not all that bothered, but the pension issue is a valid one.

I don't see how your suggestions will reduce the cost to the taxpayer of supporting pensioners. I'm almost getting angry about this, why should I be paying for their retirement? I'm saving up for mine and paying for theirs. A joke.

Bogof_Babe

kabayiri wrote: »

Make public transport cheap and safe, and pensioners (amongst others) will use it. Has it escaped your notice the bus pass rules change in 2012.

Have you got the details on this please? I turn 60 in Feb 2012 and would like to know whether I'll get a bus pass then, or have to wait.

PasturesNew

If I had a bus pass I'd not use it. Buses are infrequent, unreliable ... and they go all round will's aunts to arrive at their destination ... which then isn't anywhere interesting either.

Bogof_Babe

PasturesNew wrote: »

If I had a bus pass I'd not use it. Buses are infrequent, unreliable ... and they go all round will's aunts to arrive at their destination ... which then isn't anywhere interesting either.

I bet you would if you needed to get into town for food and your car was on fumes. Or to a hospital appointment where the minimum parking charge is £3.50!

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

kabayiri wrote: »

Explain the population increase solution to me? When we have 10m additional people in UK, in 20 years time to fund pensions, are we going to be talking about increasing populace by 15m in 20 years after that? At what point does this philosophy break down.

*sigh*

This should be simple enough even for you to understand......

By increasing population you buy time to shift the pension burden down through the generations gradually.

If you shift the burden overnight through 3 generations, then your taxes required to care for the pensioners effectively triple. This is impossible to achieve, no matter how cheap houses are.

If you shift the burden over the course of several generations, and use population growth to maintain the ratio of workers to pensioners, you can achieve your goal without crippling an entire generation with 70% to 90% tax rates for their lifetime.

If you use immigrants to boost population, then you win twice, as immigrants generate a net profit to society as they use less services in a lifetime than the native born population, but pay the same taxes.

Hamish isn't interested in pension welfare for all, just another excuse for increasing demand for houses. No point in pretending otherwise.

And you're not interested in anything other than crashing the price of houses, no matter how much worse off you, and everyone else, ends up.

It's like watching a bunch of drunk Arsonists running around a building pouring petrol everywhere, including on themselves, and fumbling around for a match..... Sheer insanity.

kabayiri

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

And you're not interested in anything other than crashing the price of houses, no matter how much worse off you, and everyone else, ends up.

If you can find one single thread where I have declared a stance on house prices I'll concede the point.

But you can't, because I haven't.

You're just guessing.

On the other hand, I can find hundreds of threads where you promote your housing interests.

Sigh.....pathetic, really is.

Do you need me to explain it to you in terms even you can understand?

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

kabayiri wrote: »

If you can find one single thread where I have declared a stance on house prices I'll concede the point.

But you can't, because I haven't.

I await your concession.

kabayiri wrote: »

I know that to move up to a slightly larger detached is about £200K more in my neighbourhood...plus moving costs.

That differential is a bit large for me at the mo to encourage moving.

Falling house prices could lead to smaller differentials.

It's a selfish attitude, no mistake.

But then it's no different to any other VI here.