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!
How old will you be when you can retire?
Comments
-
Loughton_Monkey wrote: »"If the number of retired people are increasing as a percentage of the whole then one would expect the amount of money being spent on retired people to increase too." may be a true statement. Then again, it might not. I don't know what you mean by "spent on", nor do I know how much is "spent on" children, or young adults, or old but not retired adults.
You have an interesting concept of "Spending GDP" which is alien to most peoples' thinkng. GDP tends to generate tax. Tax goes into government coffers. Government borrow more on top. And then they spend that. Maybe there's a loose correlation between GDP and [tax plus borrowing] but I don't know how you would measure it. A lot of Government spending out of tax is, itself, GDP.
The government spent £4 million last month on MP's salaries. Could you enlighten us how much of this related to people of my age (retired), how much to working people, how much to children, and how much to non working, non retired people? And which exact part of our "GDP" did this money come from?
I don't really understand your rant
but broadly speaking there is a broad relationship between the spending (or consuming) by an age group and the size of that age group
so if the number of young increase as a proportion of the total population I would broadly expect more (%age) of our GDP to be used (consumed) by the young than was formally the case
similarly if the number of retired people increases as a percentage of total population I would broadly expect their consumption of goods and services to increase as a percentage of the whole GDP
In this particular thread, the assumption is that the number of retired people will increase as a percentage of the whole, so it seems entirely reasonable that the total proportion of GDP consumed by them will increase in parallel.
This consumption may show itself in financial terms by increase in state spending on state pensions and/or more private sector pensions or savings etc depending upon circumstances at the time.0 -
I believe the vast majority of people buy an annunity.
Yes, people do funny things.Perfectly normal volatily to some maybe but a great many people would be horrified if this was explained to them.
Not if it was explained properly.Do you any fact about actual pensions taken being greater after 2008 than prior to this?
Assuming that the pension was "lifestyled" into fixed income in the last five year, as is advised for those intending to take an annuity, the soaring capital values of these gilts and bonds will cancel out the lower annuity caused by lower yields.
Of course, annuities are also paying out less due to longer life expectancies etc., but that's a long term trend.I am not a financial adviser and neither do I play one on television. I might occasionally give bad advice but at least it's free.
Like all religions, the Faith of the Invisible Pink Unicorns is based upon both logic and faith. We have faith that they are pink; we logically know that they are invisible because we can't see them.0 -
gadgetmind wrote: »Yes, people do funny things.
Not if it was explained properly.
Assuming that the pension was "lifestyled" into fixed income in the last five year, as is advised for those intending to take an annuity, the soaring capital values of these gilts and bonds will cancel out the lower annuity caused by lower yields.
Of course, annuities are also paying out less due to longer life expectancies etc., but that's a long term trend.
that's very interesting : do you have a reference to figures that show that the total payout has been maintained in the fact of QE and falling annuity rates?0 -
And...don't let him hear this...but he has been right. So far, property has "done good". You can also flog it off at times of need.
I've also done OK out of property but nothing like as well as from other investments. At the point I retire, I expect my other investments to have about double the value of my property, which feels about right to me.I am not a financial adviser and neither do I play one on television. I might occasionally give bad advice but at least it's free.
Like all religions, the Faith of the Invisible Pink Unicorns is based upon both logic and faith. We have faith that they are pink; we logically know that they are invisible because we can't see them.0 -
that's very interesting : do you have a reference to figures that show that the total payout has been maintained in the fact of QE and falling annuity rates?
http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/monetarypolicy/pages/qe/mpcviews.aspx
See the "Has QE affected retirement incomes?" section.
Individual cases could well have different outcomes depending on their asset choices, but those intending to buy an annuity are strongly recommended to "lifestyle".I am not a financial adviser and neither do I play one on television. I might occasionally give bad advice but at least it's free.
Like all religions, the Faith of the Invisible Pink Unicorns is based upon both logic and faith. We have faith that they are pink; we logically know that they are invisible because we can't see them.0 -
I don't really understand your rant
Yes, you do tend to struggle at times....but broadly speaking there is a broad relationship between the spending (or consuming) by an age group and the size of that age group
So you've changed from "spending on" to "spending by". OK. I can buy the fact that the amount spent by any age group will go up if that age group increases in size. Fine.so if the number of young increase as a proportion of the total population I would broadly expect more (%age) of our GDP to be used (consumed) by the young than was formally the case
Indeed. More children means more consumption by children. Nothing wrong with that.similarly if the number of retired people increases as a percentage of total population I would broadly expect their consumption of goods and services to increase as a percentage of the whole GDP
Again. No problem with that. Us oldies continue to consume. Quite a bit of gin & tonic in my case....
Mind you... there's a little trap, there. Imagine if all the 'extra' new pensioners have only £6K to "consume" every year, then when all the working people are "consuming" £25K, this syndrome would be damped down a bit wouldn't it?In this particular thread, the assumption is that the number of retired people will increase as a percentage of the whole, so it seems entirely reasonable that the total proportion of GDP consumed by them will increase in parallel.
Hunky Dory! Quite right. We've established us oldies consume, and the more there are, the more we will consume!This consumption may show itself in financial terms by increase in state spending on state pensions and/or more private sector pensions or savings etc depending upon circumstances at the time.
Ah! Here you're losing me. All that "may" business. "Depending on circumstances".... Not explaining what you mean very well are you? Let me help.
Yes. With all these massive numbers of oldies about, we all understand that the taxpayer needs to beef up how much it throws at state pensions, and perhaps extra health and care. No doubt about that. And we are all 100% all square in agreeing that state pension, and health, are paid directly out of taxation, and taxation falls quite a bit on the working man.
A round of sympathy for the working man.
Thank goodness we have tax revenue from Corporation profits. Thank goodness we have taxation from some wealthy pensioners. Thank goodness we have loads of tax from stamp duty now houses are selling.......
But I thought with the passage of time, all us boomers are supposed to be as rich as croesus? Isn't it therefore wonderful if we are moving from a situation in which new oldies are bringing with them nice nest eggs which they can use to consume and pay more tax, and help to keep the hard-pressed working man in his job?
What's the alternative? Us oldies should not have saved for our retirement so the taxpayer has to spend more than state pension on us? Or are you suggesting our consumption is wrong? We should hold onto it and pass it to our children?
I am thinking of buying a new car early in the new year. I have the cash to pay for it. Every bone in my body says you are arguing that there is a problem with me consuming that particular item. If you like, I can hold fire. Leave the money under the mattress. Catch the bus (Bus Pass!). Wear a few jumpers and try to live on my (and Mrs LM's) state pension of around £14K between us?
Today's working man is not in the best of financial health, I agree. Rather more state pensions to pay. But if I, and quite a few others, have arrived on Planet Oldie with a nice big pile of cash [not supplied by today's working man] I can now throw that pile into consuming, so that at least today's working man has a job!
Why do you continue to have a problem with this?0 -
My retirement plan is simple.
The annual rental profit from 1 London property will provide the income I require for one month, therefore I'd like to end up with 12 properties, plus my residence.
Have always invested in stock n shares PEPS and ISA's but overall their performance for me wasn't very satisfying and there is no gearing effect.
Have 2 frozen personal pensions - I do not like the rigidity imposed by pensions and annuities plus I want to do with property entirely as I see fit without others imposing rules on me and my beneficiaries.0 -
Looking at the questionnaire I can see that there are some incredibly rich (or simply stupidly optimistic) people here. 10.9% of those who answered as of today said they will retire between 50 and 55 - that's even before the minimum retirement age - WOW! And only 7.05% will retire after age 70. This really shows how unbelievably unrealistic people are when considering their retirement planning.0
-
My retirement plan is simple.
The annual rental profit from 1 London property will provide the income I require for one month, therefore I'd like to end up with 12 properties, plus my residence.
Have always invested in stock n shares PEPS and ISA's but overall their performance for me wasn't very satisfying and there is no gearing effect.
Have 2 frozen personal pensions - I do not like the rigidity imposed by pensions and annuities plus I want to do with property entirely as I see fit without others imposing rules on me and my beneficiaries.
Ok, well if you are rich you can do what you like with your money. Most people cannot afford to be property speculators.0 -
Ok, well if you are rich you can do what you like with your money. Most people cannot afford to be property speculators.
I've always had an unhealthy obsession with retirement planning, I wouldn't say I've ever been rich and I've a long way to go.
I have very ordinary clients such as warehouse workers, police officers and a girl who earns well under £20k in a factory that have slowly built a property portfolio from scratch.
Quite a wealthy client of mine was a waiter all his life - I promise! He pretty much retired young thanks to property.
I deal with young people just starting out of their portfolio - one day you will class them as rich and lucky but they are just ordinary folk. First house will be with a small deposit which they go onto to let out after a while and move into a new one, and so on.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.1K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.3K Spending & Discounts
- 245.2K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.9K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.5K Life & Family
- 259K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards