One in five retiring this year have debts of over £33,000

amcluesent

The smart move is to load up on debt, but enjoy a lifestyle of single malts, slap-up grills with all the fixin's and then slump in front of Sky HD+ on a ginerormous plasma. When the inevitable stroke kills you at 65, your debtors can whistle...go to your grave portly and satisfied you've shafted 'the system'

Andy_L

Graham_Devon wrote: »

That's what its saying. For those with outstanding debt, 52% of them hadn't paid off their mortgages....therefore, were in debt.

Not sure what "plan" they could have, apart from downsizing, releasing equity etc.

Endowment, ISA, pension lump sum, cash savings at a higher rate than the mortgage etc.

It us, disapointingly unsurprisingly, a poorly written piece of financial journalism that gives no context so is just meaningless numbers

blueboy43

good god, it's a nonsense survey by the Prudential.

Oh, whats this - a link to an article saying "could equity release be the answer".

Could they possibly be related ?

Graham_Devon

blueboy43 wrote: »

good god, it's a nonsense survey by the Prudential.

Oh, whats this - a link to an article saying "could equity release be the answer".

Could they possibly be related ?

Yes, they are related. That's why it's under the heading "related items" as both articles are talking about pensioners in debt.

I assume you are trying to suggest prudential has a vested interest, and therefore, have asked for that link to be put there, in the hope that some pensioners may read it and think "ahhh, prudential"?

blueboy43

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Yes, they are related. That's why it's under the heading "related items" as both articles are talking about pensioners in debt.

I assume you are trying to suggest prudential has a vested interest, and therefore, have asked for that link to be put there, in the hope that some pensioners may read it and think "ahhh, prudential"?

Graham, these are free stories for newspapers and they are pumped out by PR agencies every day of the week.

Just treat this type of story with appropriate pinch of salt.

wymondham

amcluesent wrote: »

The smart move is to load up on debt, but enjoy a lifestyle of single malts, slap-up grills with all the fixin's and then slump in front of Sky HD+ on a ginerormous plasma. When the inevitable stroke kills you at 65, your debtors can whistle...go to your grave portly and satisfied you've shafted 'the system'

I'm tempted to preach at your temple!!! :T

hcb42

wymondham wrote: »

I'm tempted to preach at your temple!!! :T

Reality is it is the family who will inherit the debt not the equity:eek:

zappahey

helencbradshaw wrote: »

Reality is it is the family who will inherit the debt not the equity:eek:

No, they don't. If the debt outweighs the assets, then the balance of debt dies with the debtor.

Unlike here in Belgium where outstanding debt is inheritable.

ceridwen

diable wrote: »

I had envisaged being mortgage free by the age of 50 but divorce and paying for the children then starting life over again leaves me with paying my mortgage off when I am 64, other people may be in a worse situation.

I had wondered whether an element of people being in this situation might be helping out children even after they have reached adult age.

If I had wanted/had children I would have had them at an age where they would have reached 22 before I reached retirement age - but if people have had children at an older age than the one I would have decided on then they might not have "flown the coup" fully by retirement age. I never envisaged helping adult children with buying a house - so I don't know if that is where the problem lies in some cases (ie people are helping adult children with house purchases - at the detriment of retiring on time debtfree). I tend to think in those cases that I would have said "I want to help - and would, of myself, but its impossible for me to do so AND retire on time. So I'm afraid the only help I can give is that I'm still living in the childhood home, so you can stay living here for longer than we both expected whilst you save up - and, some time later, you will inherit the childhood home. I'm afraid I'm unable to change my plans for retirement - as I simply can't stand to continue working on."

I can understand people working on if they are fortunate enough to have a job they actually like or have nothing much else they want to do and their job is "tolerable" - but I wonder how many people are even in position 2. I would imagine most people are too busy/too ill/too harassed at work to work on and it therefore surprises me that people would accummulate debt to help out adult children in those circumstances.

I do feel sorry for those who divorce later on in life and struggle to get themselves suitably set up on the housing front to be able to have a home for the rest of their lives.

ceridwen

zappahey wrote: »

No, they don't. If the debt outweighs the assets, then the balance of debt dies with the debtor.

Unlike here in Belgium where outstanding debt is inheritable.

:eek: Yegawds - how on earth can the System expect people to be liable for OTHER peoples debt? I guess people find ways round this - to protect themselves from other peoples financial incompetence?? (say an official document - given to the debtor concerned whilst they were still alive and the relevant lawyers saying "I hereby renounce all inheritance from Debtor Person") and they wouldnt be able to get anything there WAS to get - but couldnt have debts slung round their neck either?

Put like you say - then it would even be theoretically possible for someone quite deliberately to get into debt to "set up" an inheritor for financial trouble that was not of their doing...