Will Releasing Pensions lead to a lot more BTL

daveyjp

Unless you are within 5 years of retirement I wouldn't get too excited about these changes. It will take 10-20 years for the effects to be felt and if a Chancellor sees them as being unsuitable for the present the rules will be changed again.

Annuities were fine when returns were 5% plus, the change is because 0.5% base rate is screwing up the finances of those who need returns on money to live. What is actually needed is some normality in the base rate, but that won't happen anytime soon.

Thrugelmir

CLAPTON wrote: »

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

No foreign goods? You must very young if that's your belief.

bigheadxx

CLAPTON wrote: »

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?

I am NOT against immigration, I have many colleagues from Eastern Europe. Don't try to divert from the topic! It is in fact the only policy in place that will enable us to pay for the explosion in older people over the next twenty years.

Of course the boomers have spent money on their kids, that is normal. But they had access to easy money like no other generation. However their kids haven't had the same access to free education and face the prospect of falling real incomes for ten more years.

The flat rate pension rips off today's twenty and thirty something's whilst ensuring that those retiring now will get more.

I didn't say that retires wouldn't be paying tax at all. However the funding gap between what the bb generation put in and what they get out will be plugged by the next generation.

Thrugelmir

bigheadxx wrote: »

I didn't say that retires wouldn't be paying tax at all. However the funding gap between what the bb generation put in and what they get out will be plugged by the next generation.

That's post war politics and management of the UK economy. A policy which may well have run it's course. Though will some years yet before the course is changed.

ukcarper

bigheadxx wrote: »

I am NOT against immigration, I have many colleagues from Eastern Europe. Don't try to divert from the topic! It is in fact the only policy in place that will enable us to pay for the explosion in older people over the next twenty years.

Of course the boomers have spent money on their kids, that is normal. But they had access to easy money like no other generation. However their kids haven't had the same access to free education and face the prospect of falling real incomes for ten more years.

The flat rate pension rips off today's twenty and thirty something's whilst ensuring that those retiring now will get more.

I didn't say that retires wouldn't be paying tax at all. However the funding gap between what the bb generation put in and what they get out will be plugged by the next generation.

can you explain that

CLAPTON

bigheadxx wrote: »

I am NOT against immigration, I have many colleagues from Eastern Europe. Don't try to divert from the topic! It is in fact the only policy in place that will enable us to pay for the explosion in older people over the next twenty years.

Of course the boomers have spent money on their kids, that is normal. But they had access to easy money like no other generation. However their kids haven't had the same access to free education and face the prospect of falling real incomes for ten more years.

The flat rate pension rips off today's twenty and thirty something's whilst ensuring that those retiring now will get more.

I didn't say that retires wouldn't be paying tax at all. However the funding gap between what the bb generation put in and what they get out will be plugged by the next generation.

the younger UK generation is/will be the richest and most privileged generation that has ever lived anywhere in the world (assuming no WW3)

sadly you are unable to distinguish between the price of things and their value.


the rest of your post shows your breathtaking ignorance of the post WW2 period.

you're not against immigration? what does this mean

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.

bigheadxx

CLAPTON wrote: »

the younger UK generation is/will be the richest and most privileged generation that has ever lived anywhere in the world (assuming no WW3)

sadly you are unable to distinguish between the price of things and their value.


the rest of your post shows your breathtaking ignorance of the post WW2 period.

you're not against immigration? what does this mean

Most wealth is in the hands of the over fifties, that's a fact. The reignition of a 'class war' is a side show, both Westminster party's have the same agenda.

The post WW2 period was when the boomers were born so the hardship was borne by their parents.

Immigration serves two purposes for the British establishment. Firstly as people settle here, they consume. My Bulgarian friend has just bought a house, spent thousands on it. All things that fuel consumption and economic growth. I known dozens like him and there are thousands across the country. If immigrants were not here this consumption would not exist and growth would be through the floor. Just check out German prospects after 2015. This consumption replaces in part the consumption of the boomers, plugging the gap in growth and tax revenue.

The other purpose that immigration serves is the bolstering of our position on the world scene. A population of 80 million is not going to be ignored by the EU especially when it will be the biggest market in Europe and the biggest economy by 2050.

Certainly young people are put at a disadvantage job wise as they are competing against highly educated immigrants who will work for less and be more keen to 'get on'.

See another stealth tax con just for the young: https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4928852

I_have_spoken

Releasing pensions as cash will be needed to pay-off the capital on interest only mortgages or endowments which haven't generated enough capital growth.

Far from funding BTL, this is mostly to address the timebonb of mortgages/remortgages taken out since the first price boom under Lawson in 1988 which are now coming up for settlement.

Gideon must have seen the retail mortgage debt on the RBS books and realised the banks would collapse again unless he found a way of moving cash out of pensions. 25 years of holidays, 4x4s, makeovers etc by releasing equity have to be paid for!

ukcarper

bigheadxx wrote: »

Most wealth is in the hands of the over fifties, that's a fact. The reignition of a 'class war' is a side show, both Westminster party's have the same agenda.

The post WW2 period was when the boomers were born so the hardship was borne by their parents.

Immigration serves two purposes for the British establishment. Firstly as people settle here, they consume. My Bulgarian friend has just bought a house, spent thousands on it. All things that fuel consumption and economic growth. I known dozens like him and there are thousands across the country. If immigrants were not here this consumption would not exist and growth would be through the floor. Just check out German prospects after 2015. This consumption replaces in part the consumption of the boomers, plugging the gap in growth and tax revenue.

The other purpose that immigration serves is the bolstering of our position on the world scene. A population of 80 million is not going to be ignored by the EU especially when it will be the biggest market in Europe and the biggest economy by 2050.

Certainly young people are put at a disadvantage job wise as they are competing against highly educated immigrants who will work for less and be more keen to 'get on'.

See another stealth tax con just for the young: https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4928852

Do you find it surprising that people who have had 35 years to acquire wealth and pay down their mortgages have more wealth that those younger.

chucknorris

ukcarper wrote: »

Do you find it surprising that people who have had 35 years to acquire wealth and pay down their mortgages have more wealth that those younger.

But why should younger people have to put up with less wealth just because they haven't earned it? I think they should immediately whinge on the internet, that'll sort things out for them.