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: »Then fine, with your real world model, the guy had £384 left for 'spends' after all of his outgoings and after paying into a pension plan, which for a single bloke is a decent amount of money just to blow on nights out and partying. Which was pretty much the point that was made at the start of the conversation - prior to all the bleating about it not being a real-world example because his broadband is not included
The £384 wasn't after all his outgoings it was after a token list of outgoings plucked from thin air for the purpose of debate.
It also ignores the £100 ish pounds a month for Student Loans or ongoing professional fees for development.
Yes you do particularly well in your self invested pension pot because you are smart. That route just isn't available for the masses. I am sure the basic pension plans that people sre shortly to be coerced into will offer returns far short of that. Can't find the site now , burt iread on an industry site earlier in this thread that the average return over the last 10 years, post inflation, across all funds good and bad was less than 2.5%, I couldn't see whether that was pre or post costs.
Pension Funds may be a tax efficient long term provisioning vehicle but they are only part of an individuals savings needs.
As chewmyLO says ISAs, for example provide a way of providing flexible savings, whilst still obtaining some relief.
Individuals may wish to get married, buy a property to live in, have children or even god forbid just have a blast while they can.
My son educate me today with a new phrase YOLO, you only live once ( one to which he doesn't aspire) but perhaps reveals the mindset of a proportion of the late teens, early twenties an their perception of the mess they see ahead of them."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 -
RenovationMan wrote: »
Certainly not as good as a Money Saving media that is sure.
We don't know what investments pqrdef has. Perhaps they are maxed out on a range of investments. It is tax free after all.
Perhaps they want a token risk investment where their capital is still safe. Perrhaps they want a bit of gamble, you never know a big win may come along, and fully invested they may even get a head of the average for specific periods.
Again there is a world of saving opportunities, to meet individual needs outside of pension alone.
If pensions meet your needs and aspirations then that is good for you."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 -
OK. You've rubbished the idea that someone on £30k can save £4k based on your application of real data.
Let's say I accept this. I'm going to ask again - how can people live on £26k but it's impossible for someone else on £30k to save £4k?
I'm also going to ask again what is the level of income your real world chap needs to earn before he can save £4k/ year?
Perhaps one lives in Blythe and other in Greenwich;).
Peoples circumstances all differ.
Yes if you only have £26000 you may live within it but do without a whole load of stuff that might make life worth living. Just because you move to £30000 may mean you have to buy a car and incur bigger comutting expenses that wipe out a large proportion of any benefit, for example..
And of course there is another argument that if they simply saved the difference then there would be ow benefit to the economy generally through consumption now."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 don't you think someone, somewhere must do something about the huge immorality there is in our society – which has been passed down to the young today? Are not the shady, massive tax-avoidance practices not going to backfire one day against the bloated toads who are so immoral? I wouldn't actually mind such practices if it wasn't for the fact that people who earn a mere fraction of what these people do have to pay full taxes all their lives.
Is it only severe crises, like wars, or personal traumas, that bring out the best in people? If humans lead a life of ease, do they become more and more corrupt and selfish?
Camels and needles indeed.
They can have as much as the want but when the grim reaper cometh it is of absolutely no use.
I don't think it has passed down to all the young though. There are still a big proportion that do work hard, do keep largely out of debt and are "careful" trying to make a future through endeavour for themselves.
Whilst a few thousand may have rioted last summer and gained media attention, the ~ 350 000(?) that went off to Uni got little mention
Pushing many of the young into massive debt for university fees doesn't help though just loading them with a heavier tax take at modest income at the off."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 -
That's evidence that SOME people are going to find it difficult to save sufficient to get them over a means testing threshold. That goes without saying. It's not evidence that saving for retirement is a bad thing nor does it take away from the fact that spending 100% of earnings over a working lifetime is very likely going to lead to a pensioner with a less than sunny disposition. Of course, it doesn't disprove an awful lot of people could save more if they understood the boundaries between need and want a little better.
When do you suggest a young person gives up on themselves? At what point they say to themselves that they'll never be able to do any better than they are already?
I don't think it's when they're 19 and working in a call centre. They've 50 years of a working life ahead of them - can you imagine the opportunities?
You've extrapolated somewhat. I don't think anyone suggests young people should give up on saving, or stop taking personal responsibility.
It's not some people by the way. There are over 25 thousand people employed in call centres in the NW of the UK alone. It's one of the volume employers and is therefore relevant when we talk about general employment issues. I don't think you work and live around low income people.
I suggest we have to adapt to a potential new economic reality. Everyone knows this.
Personally I believe in a livable state pension for all, complemented with flexible savings vehicles like ISAs which adapt to changing circumstances as people gain and lose work. This is only half of it. We need to look at the major costs incurred by elderly; how to minimise those costs; and ways of enabling them to work to the age levels expected.
Some people on here are saying "because I can save plenty and invest smartly, everyone should be able to, and it's their own fault if they can't". Well, hey, not everyone out there is smart and get the right breaks or enjoy a working career devoid of illness. It doesn't mean we consign them to retirement of misery does it? Perhaps some of you think it really does..0 -
Some people on here are saying "because I can save plenty and invest smartly, everyone should be able to, and it's their own fault if they can't". Well, hey, not everyone out there is smart and get the right breaks or enjoy a working career devoid of illness. It doesn't mean we consign them to retirement of misery does it? Perhaps some of you think it really does..
This appears to be a growing problem in most of the discussions on here. Hence why I have stated people seem to see it from thei own point of wealth.
It seems the only people suggesting it's all rather easier than others may suggest are those with wealth. I can't see anyone else suggesting it.0 -
RenovationMan wrote: »
Then fine, with your real world model, the guy had £384 left for 'spends' after all of his outgoings and after paying into a pension plan, which for a single bloke is a decent amount of money just to blow on nights out and partying. Which was pretty much the point that was made at the start of the conversation - prior to all the bleating about it not being a real-world example because his broadband is not includedGraham_Devon wrote: »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?grizzly1911 wrote: »The £384 wasn't after all his outgoings it was after a token list of outgoings plucked from thin air for the purpose of debate.
It also ignores the £100 ish pounds a month for Student Loans or ongoing professional fees for development.
I find it astonishing that the 'bears' go to any lengths not to undermine each other.
I suggested to Graham that he should make his model more accurate. Graham replies that it's 'real world' and seems happy with it.
Yet instead of having a go at Graham and his model, GrizzlyBear has a go (AGAIN! :rotfl:) at me, who didn't come up with the model and did suggets to Graham that he try again.
It's amazing to see. Grizzly, let me say this one more time. It's graham's model, you idiot. :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:0 -
Graham_Devon wrote: »This appears to be a growing problem in most of the discussions on here. Hence why I have stated people seem to see it from thei own point of wealth.
It seems the only people suggesting it's all rather easier than others may suggest are those with wealth. I can't see anyone else suggesting it.
I refer you back to my earlier comment about how we were all born into wealth because we're not in 2012 where people can better themselves, we live in Graham's version of Feudal France, where the Barons live off the backs of the toil of the serfs. I'm clearly Baron Renovation and we also have Count wotsthat.
The alternative that Graham can't abide is that we actually all started off the same and some got jobs that were relatively well paid for 16 to 18 year olds and some of us were prepared to scratch along and work as shelf-stackers and cinema ushers while we improved our education and qualifications. We then got entry level jobs that didn't pay much, but me put a bit by in a pension. Looks like once again, we have the likes of Devon who, given the amount of posts he does, either can't be bothered working and is on the dole or does 'work' and won't progress and earn more because his productivity suffers because he is addicted to a internet forum.
If graham was as productive in his career as he is prolific on this forum, then he'd be chairman of the board and have an executive package and pension in no time! :rotfl:0 -
RenovationMan wrote: »I find it astonishing that the 'bears' go to any lengths not to undermine each other.
I suggested to Graham that he should make his model more accurate. Graham replies that it's 'real world' and seems happy with it.
Yet instead of having a go at Graham and his model, GrizzlyBear has a go (AGAIN! :rotfl:) at me, who didn't come up with the model and did suggets to Graham that he try again.
It's amazing to see. Grizzly, let me say this one more time. It's graham's model, you idiot. :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:
I an not having a go you Reno but do you line your pencil up in a nice line on your desk ?
Graham came up with a basic strawman to give a scenario.
You then get the calculator out and break it down to the last pound and then keep banging on about it in perpetuity
I acknowledged, as he has, that Grahams figures were a sketch and simply added a few other items to the pot which you choose to ignore.
Each time you seem to want to go back to a base calculation 50 posts ago and not move on.
As you have now chose n to throw insults I guess is it is advantage bears not that I am one I just have the koalafication."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: »I an not having a go you Reno but do you line your pencil up in a nice line on your desk ?
Graham came up with a basic strawman to give a scenario.
You then get the calculator out and break it down to the last pound and then keep banging on about it in perpetuity
I acknowledged, as he has, that Grahams figures were a sketch and simply added a few other items to the pot which you choose to ignore.
Each time you seem to want to go back to a base calculation 50 posts ago and not move on.
As you have now chose n to throw insults I guess is it is advantage bears not that I am one I just have the koalafication.
LOL, and still it goes on. :rotfl:
Graham provided the model and provided the calculations. All I did was to correct his poor mathematics and point out that people on low incomes would probably be better off using pensions rather than other savings products due to the tax advantages. I didn't suggest any changes to the model, I just corrected the maths.
We can't get past this because you keep rubishing my model and I keep telling you that it's not my model. You may have 'added' items to the pot, but it's not my 'pot' and so you're making suggestions to the wrong person. I don't know how else to tell you this. It's really really not my model.
As you seem unwilling to critique Graham's model and seem unable to understand that if you want to suggest changes that you should direct them at the creator of the model, not a third party who had nowt to do with it, the only option that seems to remain is that perhaps you might try creating your own?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