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

mlv-1967

gadgetmind wrote: »

There's a rather puzzling article in Telegraph Money today.

A couple in their late 50s have mortgage free house, about £200k in cash and NS&I linkers, and roughly £2m in pensions, ISAs, etc.

The various experts do say there isn't much to worry about, but 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?

And later there is "Let's assume the Masons' take £35kpa from their investments, and increase this by 2pc pa. Let's assume they achieve investment growth of 3pc pa. By the time they are 100, their portfolio will still be worth around £540k".

So, they will take 1.75% of their portfolio pa and still manage to reduce its value. Really?

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

These people are rich. They have a wide range of options available to them - not sure what you are asking here.

gadgetmind

mlv-1967 wrote: »

These people are rich. They have a wide range of options available to them - not sure what you are asking here.

I just can't make the woffle from their various experts match the usual rules of thumb for drawdown nor can I understand why they might want to take income from an ISA at the same time as making additional ISA subscriptions.

mlv-1967

stu12345 wrote: »

im originally from glasgow but live west country, does where you currently live determine life span or where you were brought up as a child. i read the glasgow effect is to do with negativity and cortisol levels, edinburgh uni study.
as liverpool has same poverty but longer lifespan, but less cortisol levels.
so living in cornwall, happy life, does this increase my lifespan, ex glaswegian.

I doubt this. I think the truth is that Glaswegians probably smoke and drink more than the average British person and also eat too much fried food. There is no reason why the stress level should be higher in Glasgow than say, a council estate in Liverpool, Birmingham or London.

rpc

mlv-1967 wrote: »

I doubt this. I think the truth is that Glaswegians probably smoke and drink more than the average British person and also eat too much fried food. There is no reason why the stress level should be higher in Glasgow than say, a council estate in Liverpool, Birmingham or London.

It's both. Glasgow is the worst in Scotland and Scotland is worse than the UK. It's not just down to fags, booze and deep fried mars bars but that is a problem in some areas such as Glasgow.

Scotland v UK average life expectancy is lower both at birth and at age 65. Even more affluent areas (with fewer health issues) such as Edinburgh and Aberdeen have lower than UK average life expectancy.

On 2010-2012 data, only 5 of 32 council areas in Scotland had better than UK life expectancy at birth (for males, it's only 3 for females). In England it's 25 out of 33 counties above UK average.

mlv-1967

rpc wrote: »

It's both. Glasgow is the worst in Scotland and Scotland is worse than the UK. It's not just down to fags, booze and deep fried mars bars but that is a problem in some areas such as Glasgow.

Scotland v UK average life expectancy is lower both at birth and at age 65. Even more affluent areas (with fewer health issues) such as Edinburgh and Aberdeen have lower than UK average life expectancy.

On 2010-2012 data, only 5 of 32 council areas in Scotland had better than UK life expectancy at birth (for males, it's only 3 for females). In England it's 25 out of 33 counties above UK average.

A lot could be due to SAD (seasonal affective disorder) which often affects people who live in northerly latitudes. It's also possible that there could be a racial genetic factor that affects the lifespan of Scottish people only.
My recknoning is also that Scottish people are hardier than the English and prefer to ignore symptoms rather than go to doctor - it's a cultural thing. Many elderly English, especially the better off, are always fussing about their health and going to the doctor for the slightest things.

stu12345_2

a study thought it was lack of vit d, but that maybe wrong as hence iceland norway etc would die even younger.
poverty , health is worse in jaywick, east ham , etc.
but well to do healthy folk die younger in glasgow.
the best reason has to do with the negativity on working class born in the 1940s who died recently, its the feeling they cant better there lives which causes stress, depression, increases cortisol levels and effects systems in the human body.

in many years, the glasgow effect may go, as poor working class ship builders etc dont exist anymore, its poor call centre operators.

its not the health prob, as other cities where diet is worse die older
, but outlook on life maybe better, less stress hormones, thats the new link behind the theory.

atush

Iceland has a diet high in animal fat, which has Vit d? So could counteract the lack of sunlight?

stu12345_2

the arguement which puzzle scientists is why relatively wealthy folk with good lifestyles from glasgow still die younger than folk with bad lifestyles from say liverpool.
hence money, diet didnt come into it,
its to do with stress hormones they believe is the reason.
such as why folk in shetland isles , western isles, live longer and may have bad diet, still live longer than wealthy and healthy glaswegians

rpc

stu12345 wrote: »

the arguement which puzzle scientists is why relatively wealthy folk with good lifestyles from glasgow still die younger than folk with bad lifestyles from say liverpool.

Do you have stats to break that down? The ONS ones only have them by region and you are implying a further breakdown by socio-economic grouping.

It would be interesting reading.
[/QUOTE]hence money, diet didnt come into it,
its to do with stress hormones they believe is the reason.
such as why folk in shetland isles , western isles, live longer and may have bad diet, still live longer than wealthy and healthy glaswegians[/QUOTE]

And yet those islanders and highlanders (taken at the Highland Council area) on average live shorter lives than England.

Glasgow will (assuming there aren't stats that I refer to above) have a bias due to the socio-economic factors that clouds other reasons. Last time I check, the working populations of Edinburgh and Glasgow were about the same despite Glasgow having an extra 100k people.

There are multiple effects at work and, particularly with an area like Glasgow, you can't single out one factor as being responsible.

atush

stu12345 wrote: »

the arguement which puzzle scientists is why relatively wealthy folk with good lifestyles from glasgow still die younger than folk with bad lifestyles from say liverpool.
hence money, diet didnt come into it,
its to do with stress hormones they believe is the reason.
such as why folk in shetland isles , western isles, live longer and may have bad diet, still live longer than wealthy and healthy glaswegians

Good one Stu. I am thinking mlv thinks class war is the cause of everything lol.