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!
The Most Important Document You Will Never Read....
Comments
-
RenovationMan wrote: »
Interestingly enough you have made a big thing about my air of apology, yet you just turn a blind eye to your own 'misscalculations'. There's no air of apology for your 'mistakes'.
That's because I don't need to apologise to you for a miscalculation I made. I accepted it as soon as I found you had picked up on it.
Bit different to how you went about it.0 -
Graham_Devon wrote: »That's because I don't need to apologise to you for a miscalculation I made. I accepted it as soon as I found you had picked up on it.
Bit different to how you went about it.
Nah, you're still trying to cover part of it up - namely the extra £152 you accidently put into the pension plan. :rotfl:
i.e. (again):
"The net wage on 30k is £22,762, or £1,896 a month.
If you are going to save 4k a year, then you leave yourself with £1,550 a month to live on. "
£4k to a savings plan = 333.33 per month (4000/12).
£1896-333.33 = £1562.67 not £1550. The difference is £12.67 x 12 = £152.04 extra per year.
You'll no doubt say that it was a 'rounding error' (funny how your errors are always in your favour?), but that £12.67 will cover his telephone and broadband. Funny how you dismissed wotsthat's premise that people can 'shave' their finances and find money to go into a pension if they really want to, and yet by just calculating your test case correctly we have found an extra £116 per month!
I was quite fair about the 'net' salary thing originally, putting it down to you not knowing how to calculate payroll - hence why I supplied you with a salary calculator. It was when I started finding all the other 'mistakes' that helped back up your case that made me suspicious enough to think you had done it deliberately.
Anyway, it served its purpose. It helped your argument initially because your 'example bloke' had little money to put into a pension (because you 'lost' £116 per month) and it subsequently helped you because of the ensuing 'muddle' has destracted the discussion away fromt he original argument put forward by wotsthat - that people should be saving for their retirement.
Anyway, to summarise. Misscalculations aside, we have proven that your test guy on £30k can easily put money into a pension and still have enough spends left at the end of the month to go out and enjoy himself. We proved that a guy on £8k per year can put money into a pension pot and claim back 20% tax that he hasn't actually paid and we proved that families on tax credits can put money into a pension pot and not only claim 20% tax rebate even if they don't pay tax, but also get increased tax credits because they contribute to a pension.
We have also established that even though GD supplied the test case, he and the other bears criticised me for it - despite them all being repeatedly reminded that GD, not I, created the test case. WHat's amusing is that GD created it to back up his theory and it actually undermined it - hence the attacks by the other 'bears' (on me for goodness sakes! :rotfl:).
Not a bad couple of days work. 0 -
RenovationMan wrote: »Anyway, it served its purpose. It helped your argument initially because your 'example bloke' had little money to put into a pension (because you 'lost' £116 per month) and it subsequently helped you because of the ensuing 'muddle' has destracted the discussion away fromt he original argument put forward by wotsthat - that people should be saving for their retirement.
That's how all these threads go.
Loughton Monkey made a fairly sensible statement, with which I agree, that people should be saving a proportion of their income. This allows them to build some retirement savings and, importantly, means that they get used to living on less than they earn and therefore at retirement the income drop is less of a shock.
Graham doesn't like this idea because he wants to believe that everyone is on the breadline and needs to spend every single penny they earn so his focus is to argue the detail about two numbers that were plucked from thin air to demonstrate the point i.e. someone earning £30k could save £4k year and live like they were earning £26k.
So, instead of arguing the point we end up arguing about how many tampons our person on £30k needs to use per month and whether they should be buying a brand, own-label or switching to sanitary towels. This is just where Graham wants the argument. It seems only Renoman has had the willpower to row through the muddle, and incorrect muddle at that, to try and get back to the point.
The point is that if you save nothing for retirement you'll be at the mercy of the government of the day and very likely living an impoverished, bitter and, increasingly, lengthy old age. If you've got kids they'll have to spend their own middle age worrying about you and will become bitter themselves as you become an increasing burden that is the very opposite of fun to be around.
Nothing stays the same so plans will have to adapt with them. However, one constant is that spending 100% of earnings throughout a working life is a very dangerous thing to do.
Did we ever work out why it was 'simply' impossible for someone earning £30k to save £4k even though plenty of people get by on £26k?0 -
...
Graham doesn't like this idea because he wants to believe that everyone is on the breadline and needs to spend every single penny they earn so his focus is to argue the detail about two numbers that were plucked from thin air to demonstrate the point i.e. someone earning £30k could save £4k year and live like they were earning £26k.
So, instead of arguing the point we end up arguing about how many tampons our person on £30k needs to use per month and whether they should be buying a brand, own-label or switching to sanitary towels. This is just where Graham wants the argument. It seems only Renoman has had the willpower to row through the muddle, and incorrect muddle at that, to try and get back to the point.
The point is that if you save nothing for retirement you'll be at the mercy of the government of the day and very likely living an impoverished, bitter and, increasingly, lengthy old age. If you've got kids they'll have to spend their own middle age worrying about you and will become bitter themselves as you become an increasing burden that is the very opposite of fun to be around.
Nothing stays the same so plans will have to adapt with them. However, one constant is that spending 100% of earnings throughout a working life is a very dangerous thing to do.
Did we ever work out why it was 'simply' impossible for someone earning £30k to save £4k even though plenty of people get by on £26k?
To have a good debate, you have to at least try and see it from other peoples' perspectives.
I know a lot of young people who should be putting more pension funds away, but they are getting squeezed right now. A lot work in call centres, and in the NW that doesn't often pay more than £20K unless you are management. At the last client site, 2 whole departments had a 10% pay cut effectively forced on them because a government contract had been cut back. It's a tough ask to make that back up.
It's alright for us lot to spout off how we were able to plan our finances for retirement. I suspect most of us consistently earn more than the average call centre worker.0 -
But what about the money already in the pot? Those interest rates you've cited (3% and 6% and 4.1%) have to be in real terms, not cash terms. Where are you going to get that?RenovationMan wrote: »His salary will increase with inflation and therefore, applying the 'rule of thumb', so will his pension contributions.
And your annuity rate has to be the rate for an index-linked annuity.RenovationMan wrote: »The annuity is indexed linked and so covers inflation while the pension is in payment.
And don't forget that life expectancy going through the roof."It will take, five, 10, 15 years to get back to where we need to be. But it's no longer the individual banks that are in the wrong, it's the banking industry as a whole." - Steven Cooper, head of personal and business banking at Barclays, talking to Martin Lewis0 -
In fact plenty of people get by on £22K. So even the guy on £26K could save £4K - well he shouldn't be left out surely - and the guy on £30K could save £8K.Did we ever work out why it was 'simply' impossible for someone earning £30k to save £4k even though plenty of people get by on £26k?
And then again..."It will take, five, 10, 15 years to get back to where we need to be. But it's no longer the individual banks that are in the wrong, it's the banking industry as a whole." - Steven Cooper, head of personal and business banking at Barclays, talking to Martin Lewis0 -
Graham doesn't like this idea because he wants to believe that everyone is on the breadline and needs to spend every single penny they earn so his focus is to argue the detail about two numbers that were plucked from thin air to demonstrate the point i.e. someone earning £30k could save £4k year and live like they were earning £26k.
Seems to me you didn't like it being looked into with real figures, but are perfectly happy when renovationman does it...at that point you are more than happy to discuss the detail....as you both see it the same way.
I've never once in this discussion suggested they are on the breadline. Just gave you very basic living costs against the figures you claimed it would be easy to save on.
All I've demonstrated is that it's not as easy as you may wish to make out. You need to look at all angles of society, not just yourself and lean on those equally as wealthy as yourself to suggest what others "should do".
I;ve not said they cannot save anything at all. I've not said they cannot get by. All I stated is that they oly had £200 (or £290) a month left....and we hadn't included stuff like a mobile phone, broadband, buying any item of furniture or white good etc, or provision for any service or insurance.
I don't think it's particularly argumentative to look at these real world figures, though it seems you would disagree and would prefer it if these figures weren't looked at.....at least that's what I take from your tampon whinge. There is absolutely no point in the discussion if all you want to do is suggest how others can live, but don't wish to know or have the detail discussed.
Otherwise it's bubble fantasy stuff as I've said so many times. You can simply pluck a figure out of the air and suggest everything is indeed rosy. It seems I've rocked the bubble, that is all.0 -
But what about the money already in the pot? Those interest rates you've cited (3% and 6% and 4.1%) have to be in real terms, not cash terms. Where are you going to get that?
And your annuity rate has to be the rate for an index-linked annuity.
And don't forget that life expectancy going through the roof.
I'm getting over 10% with some of the investments in my pension at the mo.0 -
Graham_Devon wrote: »Seems to me you didn't like it being looked into with real figures, but are perfectly happy when renovationman does it...at that point you are more than happy to discuss the detail....as you both see it the same way.
Perhaps you should come up with a new 'example' person then. All I did was base our discussion on the model you supplied. If you didn't supply a 'real world' model then that's your lookout.
Why not create one now and we'll 'have at it' again?0 -
RenovationMan wrote: »Perhaps you should come up with a new 'example' person then. All I did was base our discussion on the model you supplied. If you didn't supply a 'real world' model then that's your lookout.
Why not create one now and we'll 'have at it' again?
It was a real world model. I don't know what you are asking me to come up with here?0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.5K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.2K Spending & Discounts
- 245K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.6K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.4K Life & Family
- 258.8K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards