Will Releasing Pensions lead to a lot more BTL

CLAPTON

bigheadxx wrote: »

No idea what point you are making but my point is that twenty or thirty years ago the over sixty fives or retired had far simpler needs and less expectation. Many were also state pensioners with no other income. Today's retirees are harder to satisfy that a few hundred quid a year and free TV licence.

Yesterdays pensioners got a fairly raw deal despite the fact that they lived through the war. What have we got the bb to thank for?

I'm not sure why you need to ask such an bizarre question as what 'do we have to thank the bb for'

People get born into this world without being asked and without their consent.

They live a life as people have done for many 10 of thousands of years; making ends meet, having children and then dying.

The post war (baby boomer) generation did what people before and since did/do; just like you.

They are no better and no worse than other people in general.

In the UK people have been exceptional lucky.
Although there have been ups and downs we have been privileged to have experienced peace (on the whole), a reasonably law bidding society, improving standards of living and health and unprecedented opportunities for education, travel, self expression, business etc.


In virtually every way life in the UK is vastly better than the early post war years.

Thrugelmir

scaredofdebt wrote: »

The 3% is out of date info, just checked and it's more like 5% so I've edited my post. The BTL return is what my step father gets from his property portfolio, not sure if he factors in costs such as maintenance/upkeep etc though.

So it's not quite as attractive as I initially though to go down the BTL route but you can always get some money back by selling the property.

Regards dividend yields, not so great, a few over 6%

http://www.topyields.nl/Top-dividend-yields-of-FTSE100.php

Could be attractive if you can find highish yielding stocks with growth potential but that's not going to be easy and the risks are relatively high.

With yield comes risk. As yield is a reflection of the premium that investors demand to cover potential capital loss.

To compare any particular option. You need to fully evaluate each of them in detail. As plucking % 's out of the air. Will cost you dearly when you've hundreds of thousands in play.

First rule of investment is not to lose any money.

dunstonh

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

I had the same initial thought.

Why take an annuity gambol that loses it value for your next of kin should you die, wlse leave an estate which can be disseminated.

Not that buying an annuity has been required for a number of years. It hasnt made any noticeable difference.

The changes are actually more likely to see people use pensions rather than take their money out. The pension tax wrapper (which is how it should really be viewed. Not as a product as many view it) it suddenly a lot more attractive.

bigheadxx

CLAPTON wrote: »

I'm not sure why you need to ask such an bizarre question as what 'do we have to thank the bb for'

People get born into this world without being asked and without their consent.

They live a life as people have done for many 10 of thousands of years; making ends meet, having children and then dying.

The post war (baby boomer) generation did what people before and since did/do; just like you.

They are no better and no worse than other people in general.

In the UK people have been exceptional lucky.
Although there have been ups and downs we have been privileged to have experienced peace (on the whole), a reasonably law bidding society, improving standards of living and health and unprecedented opportunities for education, travel, self expression, business etc.


In virtually every way life in the UK is vastly better than the early post war years.

Of course it is better but had the current reforms (now dubbed austerity) been introduced fifteen years ago it would have negated the fact that we have an entirely unfunded pension and healthcare system. Today's costs could have been offset by higher taxes when the boomer generation was at peak income and that money set aside to fund peak retirement.

CLAPTON

bigheadxx wrote: »

Of course it is better but had the current reforms (now dubbed austerity) been introduced fifteen years ago it would have negated the fact that we have an entirely unfunded pension and healthcare system. Today's costs could have been offset by higher taxes when the boomer generation was at peak income and that money set aside to fund peak retirement.

it's not clear to me why children, young people, the middle aged and the old, by going without 15 years ago would have improved health care today or the care of the elderly in 20/30 years time

however would NOT spending money on infrastructure, housing, education etc 15 years ago have helped us now?

how would having fewer roads, fewer electricity pylons, fewer houses help us now?


we should have spent much more on housing, research and general infrastructure (sustainable energy, roads, airports, training more doctors etc)



our future income will depend upon our ability to produce the things were need and the ability to produce things that we can export

bigheadxx

CLAPTON wrote: »

it's not clear to me why children, young people, the middle aged and the old, by going without 15 years ago would have improved health care today or the care of the elderly in 20/30 years time

however would NOT spending money on infrastructure, housing, education etc 15 years ago have helped us now?

how would having fewer roads, fewer electricity pylons, fewer houses help us now?


we should have spent much more on housing, research and general infrastructure (sustainable energy, roads, airports, training more doctors etc)



our future income will depend upon our ability to produce the things were need and the ability to produce things that we can export

The boomers will take out 120% of what they put in. That extra will have to be funded by the next generation.

A lot of investment by Labour was under PFI! So again the cost is forced onto the future taxpayer. Maybe the lifestyles of the boomers could have been tempered, fewer luxury cars and holidays, rather than not investing in infrastructure?

The British economy depends on consumption, not exports. The reason we haven't seen a traditional recovery is because history's biggest consumers have stopped consuming. Immigration is intended to plug the consumption gap, which it will over the next decade or so as the population soars to 80 million. Whose income suffers because of immigrants? Generation X and their kids.

CLAPTON

bigheadxx wrote: »

The boomers will take out 120% of what they put in. That extra will have to be funded by the next generation.

A lot of investment by Labour was under PFI! So again the cost is forced onto the future taxpayer. Maybe the lifestyles of the boomers could have been tempered, fewer luxury cars and holidays, rather than not investing in infrastructure?

The British economy depends on consumption, not exports. The reason we haven't seen a traditional recovery is because history's biggest consumers have stopped consuming. Immigration is intended to plug the consumption gap, which it will over the next decade or so as the population soars to 80 million. Whose income suffers because of immigrants? Generation X and their kids.

you seem to under the bizarre idea that all taxes are paid by the 'next generation' : could be be more explicit because I always understood that most people from about 18 to 98 paid taxes


Could you tell us what ages are the 'next generation'? exactly


Most boomer money has been spent on their children and grandchildren just like you will do and previous generations have always done.

You seem against immigration : how did you vote in the last election?

Thrugelmir

CLAPTON wrote: »

our future income will depend upon our ability to produce the things were need and the ability to produce things that we can export

Or we spend more of what we do earn in the UK and on home produced goods. Also invest in wealth producing assets not borrow from foreign investors to every increase the price of a pile of bricks. Rather than spend our money on foreign cars, holidays, and tat from China.

Helping ourselves rather expecting to someone else to do the hard work will require a cultural shift. No sign yet of that light bulb moment.

ukcarper

bigheadxx wrote: »

The boomers will take out 120% of what they put in. That extra will have to be funded by the next generation.

A lot of investment by Labour was under PFI! So again the cost is forced onto the future taxpayer. Maybe the lifestyles of the boomers could have been tempered, fewer luxury cars and holidays, rather than not investing in infrastructure?

The British economy depends on consumption, not exports. The reason we haven't seen a traditional recovery is because history's biggest consumers have stopped consuming. Immigration is intended to plug the consumption gap, which it will over the next decade or so as the population soars to 80 million. Whose income suffers because of immigrants? Generation X and their kids.

have you got any figures links to prove this

CLAPTON

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Or we spend more of what we do earn in the UK and on home produced goods. Also invest in wealth producing assets not borrow from foreign investors to every increase the price of a pile of bricks. Rather than spend our money on foreign cars, holidays, and tat from China.

Helping ourselves rather expecting to someone else to do the hard work will require a cultural shift. No sign yet of that light bulb moment.

yes I agree freedom and democracy are appalling.

but people of all generations don't seem to do that

in fact must better to be poor, badly housed, cold, no foreign goods... just like the early years for most boomers