Tide turning for interest rates?

grey_gym_sock

well, it depends how low-paid. there certainly is less scope for saving when you get to a very low income.

however, a lot of ppl (on both low and high incomes) would say they have no spare money, when there is actually plenty of spending they could cut out if they thought about it.

doughnutmachine

grey_gym_sock wrote: »

annuities have rarely been the best way to retire early. certainly not now.

if you save and invest a higher enough proportion of your earnings, you can retire early. it's that simple.

some ppl do that. some have other priorities.

it's incredibly short-sighted to try to fix financial problems by making medical care less effective.

but a lot of people use annuities for their retirement. so if life expectancy goes down annuity rates will go up, and more people will be able to retire earlier....

you do know that medical care in the UK is rationed? there's just not enough money to use every single medical procedure/ medicine for every single UK citizen...

bigadaj

Glen_Clark wrote: »

Maybe, but it isn't just that though is it?.
A geology graduate, (geology is essential in many productive industries) forced to work in Poundland for her £63 a week benefits. National debt increasing at £4billion a day? I think that is a better indication of the state of the economy than Osborne's pre election statistics and spin. How can you trust anyone who devises a scheme to pump up house prices and calls it 'Help to Buy'?
QE and Credit junkies are getting high on rising share and house prices, thinking its growth. Just like before.

That was an interesting case. Geology is often necessary and considered a good general degree as well, but if you continue to expand degree courses, you produce more graduates with no expansion in jobs,and certainly not relevant ones. A graduate with a poor degree from a poor university still isn't necessarily desirable to employers, which is why there are hundreds of thousands of students potentially wasting their time and. Money getting poor value and relatively useless qualifications, adding little to employability.

grey_gym_sock

doughnutmachine wrote: »

but a lot of people use annuities for their retirement. so if life expectancy goes down annuity rates will go up, and more people will be able to retire earlier....

you do know that medical care in the UK is rationed? there's just not enough money to use every single medical procedure/ medicine for every single UK citizen...

none of which makes additional rationing of medical care, so that ppl die earlier, into a cunning way of funding earlier retirements. in fact, it's 1 of the stupidest ideas i've ever heard. no offence

doughnutmachine

grey_gym_sock wrote: »

none of which makes additional rationing of medical care, so that ppl die earlier, into a cunning way of funding earlier retirements. in fact, it's 1 of the stupidest ideas i've ever heard. no offence

so we just spend more and more money on healthcare and watch as pensions become unaffordable? you do know that rising life expectancy is a major reason why there are so few final salary pension schemes?

I personally would prefer a slightly shorter life if it meant I could have a better quality life ie longer retirement and more holidays. But I fully appreciate that some people would prefer to slave away their whole working life's then spend thirty years in a nursing home being bed washed by some girl on minimum wage while watching an antiques show on daytime telly.

should you not be getting a part time job instead of posting here? after all you could invest the money so that in future decades you could buy some medical care that extends your life by a few hours?

grey_gym_sock

better medical care has extended the average length of poor health (which some ppl go through at the end of their life), but also the average length of decent health before that. if your aim is to maximize healthy retirement - i.e. the years between retirement and deteriorating health - then you should be in favour of better medical care.

this is still true with higher retirement ages. if the ratio of working life to non-working life is kept constant, then a longer retirement is affordable without increasing the savings rate. so you're still looking at a longer average retirement, including a longer period of retirement in decent health.

you can also avoid raising the retirement age so high by increasing savings rates. collectively or individually, this the best thing to do if you want to retire earlier than would otherwise be possible. though it is much more difficult to do on very low earnings.

it's what i'm doing personally - saving a ridiculously high proportion of my earnings. thanks for your concern, but a part-time job would be pointless under the circumstances. posting here is a good way of not spending money, so it does all help to bring my retirement forward.

sabretoothtigger

I think your generally best off leaving the country when you retire. If working you are constrained so I dont get why people arent a bit more mobile when 'free' , being rich enough for lots of holidays is ideal I guess

I'd say lack of the money would be a major issue :-)
I agree that some people make choices, other simply don't have it.

If raising kids, I'd take that as a compulsory spend but otherwise lack of money is not a major issue, its a choice. People choose to spend money now and not retire early but it could be done the other way round. I have heard of people taking career breaks before then resuming the job later, nice to have a job that you are in demand for and flexibility

lisyloo

I dont get why people arent a bit more mobile when 'free'

On reason is access to the NHS (yes I know there are reciprocal arrangements in Europe but not everyone in A&E is going to speak fluent English).
My mum is 68 but has needed the doctors a few times on holiday.
Most of my relatives of that age group have some medical condition that might need attention and I'm sure they'd prefer to be in the UK.

Plus a lot of people of that age group (like my family) are just not used to going abroad. They'd rather go on a bowling holiday with their mates in the UK.
I'm sure some are - perhaps we come from different backgrounds?

In that case it's not a lack of money - because they do lots of UK holidays, it's just not something that culturally people in their late 60's and older have done and would be on bowling, dancing or coach holiday. I agree abroad might be better, but people get stuck in their ways.

but otherwise lack of money is not a major issue

I don't agree. I think there are lots of people who only have enough money to live on.

but it could be done the other way round

If there is spare money yes - but again I re-iterate my warning about people dying young or being mobility impaired (if we're including conditions like arthritis then this is probably the majority of us will be affected somehow) or you could even have full time caring responsibilities for a partner.
Living frugally in order to live the life of riley later could turn out to be the wrong choice if you have a fatal heart attack before retirement or are in a wheelchair - yes I know you can enjoy a fullfulling life in a wheelchair but physical activities are undisputably harder.

Obviously people are free to make their own choices but to me it seems sensible to have some kind of balance where you save some now and spend some now.

I totally agree it's about choice and priorities.
I do not agree about the extent to which some people have choice. I don't think low paid people have a great deal of choice (unless you are talking silly stuff like sleeping in a cardboard box to avoid paying rent). Some people really do only earn enough to pay the basic bills - food, clothing, rent and have no scope to cut back.
I suspect you move in different circles to me and your social circle isn't representative (neither is mine but I'm not claiming it is).

grizzly1911

lisyloo wrote: »

Living frugally in order to live the life of riley later could turn out to be the wrong choice if you have a fatal heart attack before retirement or are in a wheelchair - yes I know you can enjoy a fullfulling life in a wheelchair but physical activities are undisputably harder.

Obviously people are free to make their own choices but to me it seems sensible to have some kind of balance where you save some now and spend some now.

It is only as I have grown older that I have noticed the number of 1.) people that don't actually make it to early 50s let alone pensionable age. For most it wasn't because of leading a debauched life either.2.) The number that start to encounter some form of limitation which seems to rise form around 50.

There is a need for balance.

lisyloo wrote: »

I totally agree it's about choice and priorities.
I do not agree about the extent to which some people have choice. I don't think low paid people have a great deal of choice (unless you are talking silly stuff like sleeping in a cardboard box to avoid paying rent). Some people really do only earn enough to pay the basic bills - food, clothing, rent and have no scope to cut back.
I suspect you move in different circles to me and your social circle isn't representative (neither is mine but I'm not claiming it is).

We have lived through a period of prosperity and I am sure many are comfortable. I am not so sure that growth in wealth or the proportion in that position is something that will continue for future generations.

I see/have seen both camps and I agree that some people simply don't have a choice. I have seen some that have scrimped and saved only to be disadvantaged later in life for having done so. Yes they have a degree of choice that others don't but their incomes are less.

Even for those that have been lucky in life old age catches up with most physically and financially.

doughnutmachine

lisyloo wrote: »

I do not agree about the extent to which some people have choice. I don't think low paid people have a great deal of choice (unless you are talking silly stuff like sleeping in a cardboard box to avoid paying rent). Some people really do only earn enough to pay the basic bills - food, clothing, rent and have no scope to cut back.

I 100% agree with this. A lot of people in the UK cant afford to save meaningful amounts for retirement.