We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
Debate House Prices
In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
MP's want compensation for pensioners suffering low interest rates
Comments
-
Graham_Devon wrote: »Yep, agree totally.
And this, I believe, is where it becomes blurd. Afterall, Even Mervyn King is suggesting that QE was used to bolster up house prices, and therefore suggests they should take into account their assets may have risen.
Either Mervyn believes retired folk do, in the majority have assets they can simply sell, or he was talking predominently about house prices. He suggests their drop in income have been offset by the rise in asset prices that QE has fuelled.
as set out above, i believe that king's argument is that pensioner's income isn't actually reduced. i've no idea if his argument is actually correct though.I can see the argument people such as the MPs have, I just think it will cause a domino ripple effect across every else, especially the younger generation priced out of everything, housing, pensions, education, the lot.
i can understand the argument, i just think it's illogical.
i agree that the natural conclusion is that everyone will want compensation for their perceived hard done by position. i am not sure that a generation which has benefited from huge rises in house prices which were based on the "miracle economy" of cheap debt should receive protective treatment to lock in the upside of the gains they made in that period of time whilst being protected from the downside of the implosion of the miracle economy.
whilst people may have thought in 2007 that their assets would provide them with a pension of X, they were wrong, because everything was based on a pack of lies. sorry if they were lied to, but i didn't do it, and i'm not very keen to pay extra tax so their pensions can be calculated by reference to about 10 years of accelerated consumption.0 -
chewmylegoff wrote: »as set out above, i believe that king's argument is that pensioner's income isn't actually reduced. i've no idea if his argument is actually correct though.
I have no idea either, but it sounds plausable, and actually could have been what he was referring to when he stated asset prices. Doesn't seem like anyone on the guardian or telegraph sees it that way though, they all see house prices, but Merv often talks in a "different language" expecting us to keep up.
He's referred to houses as assets before now though, when talking about borrowers, so I took it from there. I would have thought if he was talking about shares themselves, he's have used the word commodities / investments or such like.0 -
chewmylegoff wrote: »Not really sure what you're saying - are you saying that the only point in making financial investments is if the govt underwrites their performance, and that if it doesn't then you should just spend all of your money and hope that the govt will pay you enough for a comfortable existence?
i find it quite hard to believe that you would really do that.
If people want their investments to be insured by the govt, then that is fine, but I should think tax will need to quadruple or something.
Savings aren't investments though.
No I probably wouldn't blow the lot - tempting though., but millions do and I as prudent person am having to pick up th etab for them.
Is that fair?"If you act like an illiterate man, your learning will never stop... Being uneducated, you have no fear of the future.".....
"big business is parasitic, like a mosquito, whereas I prefer the lighter touch, like that of a butterfly. "A butterfly can suck honey from the flower without damaging it," "Arunachalam Muruganantham0 -
But how much of that £200k was investment income (i.e. interest, dividends, capital gains etc), as opposed to premiums paid in?
You could argue that they benefited from over-generous investment returns during the artificially good years.
Certainly, if the fund was relatively old, a lot of its value would have been from the boom years.
It's only if the funds had been paid in relatively recently that they wouldn't have benefited from the artificial boom years.
Yes, it's tough that a timing issue has lost them a load of pension, but that's life isn't it? It worked the opposite way for a lot of people who benefited by retiring when times were good - i.e. annuities were arguably too high! Sometimes it's a matter of luck. Also, there is the other issue of whether it was wise to put all their pension plans in one "pot" - common sense would dictate having a number of different vehicles for funding your retirement, not just a single pension scheme, in order to spread the risk of this kind of scenario.
Agree it is atiming issue but that is little solace if you have been careful for 40 years or more.
Agree that a spread of investments is key but for many the pension is the only thing they can afford and not spend.
IMO pensions as we know them have run their course.
A new set of vehicles are required.
I personally have a wide portfolio and with hindsight I am glad I didn't stuff it all into pension."If you act like an illiterate man, your learning will never stop... Being uneducated, you have no fear of the future.".....
"big business is parasitic, like a mosquito, whereas I prefer the lighter touch, like that of a butterfly. "A butterfly can suck honey from the flower without damaging it," "Arunachalam Muruganantham0 -
I can't see any recompense being paid or underwriting of previous pension provision.
What I think is more likely is that this is the flag being run up to mark a new I/R tack.
I won't hold my breath."If you act like an illiterate man, your learning will never stop... Being uneducated, you have no fear of the future.".....
"big business is parasitic, like a mosquito, whereas I prefer the lighter touch, like that of a butterfly. "A butterfly can suck honey from the flower without damaging it," "Arunachalam Muruganantham0 -
-
grizzly1911 wrote: »Savings aren't investments though.
No I probably wouldn't blow the lot - tempting though., but millions do and I as prudent person am having to pick up th etab for them.
Is that fair?
i'm still not clear what you want. are you saying that the govt should top up savers' interest payments to compensate them for low central bank rates?0 -
It might be useful to note that out of all the demographic groups, pensioners tend to vote more often and in greater numbers than anyone else. That might account for this particular situation.0
-
It might be useful to note that out of all the demographic groups, pensioners tend to vote more often and in greater numbers than anyone else. That might account for this particular situation.
You do realise the treasury select committee is based on members from all political parties? Even the SNP are involved.
So trying to write this off as a vote buying exercise is poor.0 -
Cheers for the mentionGraham_Devon wrote: »Such as middle aged savers?
0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.1K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.5K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.2K Spending & Discounts
- 245.1K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.7K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.5K Life & Family
- 258.9K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards