Telegraph "Can we retire on £50,000 per year?" article

kidmugsy

stu12345 wrote: »

if you gave me even 500000 at aged 65, i could easily live of the capital only till i died, prob 83 max.

Why "83 max"?

kidmugsy

Dr._Shoe wrote: »

That's what I would do. Buy a house with a mortgage and use the interest to pay off the mortgage so you end up with the house and the capital. I'd buy loads of BTR properties too and live off the rental income without touching anything I'd kept of my winnings.

You seem to be keen to pay as much Inheritance Tax as possible. That's very noble of you.

kidmugsy

gadgetmind wrote: »

Telegraph Money today.

their advice to start taking an income from ISAs seems odd (surely you want to use unwrapped first?) but then continuing to put money into ISAs is mentioned. Um?

Yep, I thought just the same when I read it; utter tosh.

gadgetmind wrote: »

Anyway, if someone can find it online, then maybe they can make more sense of it than me!

The Telegraph was a very decent paper until the last few years. Now its standards are plummeting.

gadgetmind

atush wrote: »

I haven't won the lottery

Me neither, but I do suspect that me never having bought a ticket may be a contributory factor.

atush

I agree, have never bought a normal ticket. But I have bought 1-2 quid scratch cards to put in the crackers for christmas (along with a chocolate and a mini bottle of booze and have won on those) and have won 150 on just 100 of premium bonds lol?

Not sure if that counts.

gadgetmind

Dr._Shoe wrote: »

That's what I would do.

But is the whole plan predicated on a lottery win?

chucknorris

kidmugsy wrote: »

Why "83 max"?

I believe (from his posts on other threads) that he lives in Glasgow which has one of the lowest life expectancies, and at 65, 83 is the life expectancy for a male living in Glasgow:

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171778_360047.pdf

But of course he should plan for way beyond that, not 83 max, I am 57 and my retirement planning assumes I will live to my early 90's, but there are safety measures in place for living beyond that too. We will have index linked pensions of approx. £30k (may increase this with an annuity or retain one investment property if I feel the need) and I currently ignore the value of our home (to keep something up our sleeve). But the reality is that we are really going to struggle to spend what we currently have anyway, so I don't see any problems ahead for us. But I would be sleepwalking into problems if my retirement planning assumed that I was going to live to 83 max.

hugheskevi

I believe (from his posts on other threads) that he lives in Glasgow which has one of the lowest life expectancies, and at 65, 83 is the life expectancy for a male living in Glasgow:

The figures are on a period rather than cohort basis. In addition, someone with £500,000 at age 65 is almost certainly not representative of the average person either, so it is likely that they will have a higher life expectancy than average as wealthier people live longer on average.

Given UK assumptions used in pension funds of life expectancy at age 65 of a about 27 years, and looking at the difference between Glasgow life expectancy and elsewhere which seems to be about a 5 year difference, I think that if a cohort basis was used with longevity experience of wealthier individuals, the life expectancy of a 65 year old in Glasgow with £500,000 would be at least 87 if there are no health issues. I'd plan on the expectation of living to age 90 and know what I'd do between 90-95 too.

chucknorris

hugheskevi wrote: »

The figures are on a period rather than cohort basis. In addition, someone with £500,000 at age 65 is almost certainly not representative of the average person either, so it is likely that they will have a higher life expectancy than average as wealthier people live longer on average.

Given UK assumptions used in pension funds of life expectancy at age 65 of a about 27 years, and looking at the difference between Glasgow life expectancy and elsewhere which seems to be about a 5 year difference, I think that if a cohort basis was used with longevity experience of wealthier individuals, the life expectancy of a 65 year old in Glasgow with £500,000 would be at least 87 if there are no health issues. I'd plan on the expectation of living to age 90 and know what I'd do between 90-95 too.

I'm not saying he is right, in fact I am saying the opposite, I was merely explaining to atush how he probably arrived at his incorrect assumption that he should plan for 83 years old max.

hugheskevi

I'm not saying he is right, in fact I am saying the opposite

I was agreeing with you

I like any opportunity to discuss life expectancy at birth compared to life expectancy at age 65 (not relevant here), period and cohort differences, and the difference between average people and groups with particular characteristics. They are often ignored by less informed folk planning their retirements, but are very significant.