The Most Important Document You Will Never Read....

chucknorris

kabayiri wrote: »

Next step is to make people leverage their own assets to fund retirement I reckon.

How would you anticipate this working, I'm not really sure what you mean but I think I'm not going to like it.

RenovationMan

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I've told you before, I'm on call as it were. Today I'm sitting at home doing a few bits and pieces. At 10pm tonight I'll be logged in updating systems while everyone is off the system.

Not everyone works 9-5. Indeed, I don't even have hours, rather a job to get done however I best see fit.

Plenty of time to work a part time job then or do 'clicks' for income. You should go to the 'Up your Income' board for ideas.

Alternatively, if your current job doesn't pay enough then perhaps you could, and you might want to sit down for this because it's a bit radical, you could get a better paid job with more regular hours and pay?

Oh, hold on, I forgot, you're on some sort of indentured employment and can't better yourself until you work off your apprentiship debt. That or the fact that there are no jobs at all for skilled labour. None at all.

wotsthat

kabayiri wrote: »

The lack of political will is because the public can be alarmingly inconsistent when canvassed.

If you ask "Do you believe our elderly should be looked after" most people would say yes.

If you ask "Should you be forced to save more for your retirement" many of those same people will say No.

I'm convinced governments will continue to use sleight of hand techniques to eke more money out of pensioners with money, to try and reduce the burden of those pensioners without. It's already happening with the talk about means testing benefits to pensioners. Next step is to make people leverage their own assets to fund retirement I reckon.

That's the worry. If pensioners have to use the value of their houses (probably the biggest asset they have) they're going to find themselves in a market with a load of other pensioners doing the same thing i.e. the asset price will be worth less than they thought.

This will be compounded by an increased demand for smaller houses, and an increase in outgoings (tv licenses, transport prescriptions etc.).

RenovationMan

chucknorris wrote: »

How would you anticipate this working, I'm not really sure what you mean but I think I'm not going to like it.

I don't see why people can't have their own personal pension plan that employers pay into (and which therefore follows you around as you change jobs, rather than having lots of zombie company pension accounts everywhere), that the employee pays into and that also receives an element of NI similar to contracting out (i.e. in the scenario where we no longer have a state pension).

Everyone would have a single pension pot that they can see accumulating money, which would encourage them to put more in. The contracted out element could receive some sort of 'protected rights' treatment where it can only be invested in a government fund.

kabayiri

chucknorris wrote: »

How would you anticipate this working, I'm not really sure what you mean but I think I'm not going to like it.

I can see 3 possibilities if we use the house as an asset example.

1) the free market is expected to provide solutions, so equity release. If we rely on that expect to hear stories of pensioners being scammed because not everyone in the finance industry is honourable.

2) a deferred charge on your property, repayable on death with interest, state administered with the charge reflecting your individual needs.

3) a bit like 2) but a blanket insurance type charge levied on all. This would be an attempt to even out extremes, such as the person needing specialised care and the other extreme where someone needs no support at all.

Personally, I favour 3). Others may disagree of course

chucknorris

kabayiri wrote: »

I can see 3 possibilities if we use the house as an asset example.

1) the free market is expected to provide solutions, so equity release. If we rely on that expect to hear stories of pensioners being scammed because not everyone in the finance industry is honourable.

2) a deferred charge on your property, repayable on death with interest, state administered with the charge reflecting your individual needs.

3) a bit like 2) but a blanket insurance type charge levied on all. This would be an attempt to even out extremes, such as the person needing specialised care and the other extreme where someone needs no support at all.

Personally, I favour 3). Others may disagree of course

I don't mind 1 or 2 as we are financially independant and would not need to participate. I also don't mind 3 as long as everyone pays for it.

kabayiri

chucknorris wrote: »

I don't mind 1 or 2 as we are financially independant and would not need to participate. I also don't mind 3 as long as everyone pays for it.

I know someone whose mother chose an equity release scheme (option 1) up in Geordieland. She wasn't savvy financially, and it's proved to be a disaster. I'm sure others will work out fine, but it's such a big risk to trust a finance supplier.

I'd be happier with 2) or 3).

chucknorris

kabayiri wrote: »

I know someone whose mother chose an equity release scheme (option 1) up in Geordieland. She wasn't savvy financially, and it's proved to be a disaster. I'm sure others will work out fine, but it's such a big risk to trust a finance supplier.

I'd be happier with 2) or 3).

What I meant was that we would never have to resort to 1) so we could not suffer from it personally, rather than actively supporting it. Obviously I don't like the idea of people being exploited.

I agree that for care 3) is better especially if you could pay for optional top up insurance for a better quality care (should you need care).

grizzly1911

wotsthat wrote: »

It's silly to pretend that every £4k pay rise comes with an equal and opposite increase in spending need.

I'm afraid the answer is simple. If someone can manage on £26k and they get a £4k increase in income they could save it.

Graham's still not told us what his person, used to provide hard discussion data, would need to earn before they could save £4k.

Unless they were getting into debt living on the lower amount and then started to repay the debt and actually afford to live.

RenovationMan

grizzly1911 wrote: »

Unless they were getting into debt living on the lower amount and then started to repay the debt and actually afford to live.

Or they will have a student loan and have to pay that back. Or some other reason.