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.
📨 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!
The Forum now has a brand new text editor, adding a bunch of handy features to use when creating posts. Read more in our how-to guide
Going to be claiming Housing Benefit when I retire- worth having employers pension?
Comments
-
That's a gamble I'm willing to take. It would take much more than 30 years for everyone to have a fund big enough to live on...saving at 8% per year of everything earned in excess of £5,824 would hardly add up to anything meaningful.
What would they do...let me live on the streets until I die?
I'm confused - haven't I read you boasting on several threads that you're financially independent? Not quite as good a story if the 'independence' is having enough money to spend until you get state pension and benefits...0 -
That's a gamble I'm willing to take. It would take much more than 30 years for everyone to have a fund big enough to live on...saving at 8% per year of everything earned in excess of £5,824 would hardly add up to anything meaningful.
What would they do...let me live on the streets until I die?
I wouldn't gamble on having to spend the last 20 years of my life living on £75 pw and renting a room in a shared house and I certainly wouldn't advise somebody else to do so, particularly from the secure position you're in as the owner of a BTL property.
That's not only irresponsible but morally bankrupt, IMO.0 -
But I'm far from convinced that A is correct. No one amid the five pages (five!) of this thread has really addressed this point. They've all been far too busy labelling me a benefits scrounger.
The realities have been discussed extensively, a quarter of a century in the future means everyone is speculating, whether that be for good or bad.
You've probably misjudged the sentiment in this particular board though, posting your question on the benefits board would get a different response in all probability.
The general principle though is your general financial situation, and this shouldn't vary much for most people.
Pensions aren't the be all and end all of finances, for most people it would make sense to contribute to a pension to get the maximum that your employer would contribute. That, in addition to tax relief, would mean that it should be profitable.
The social security systems are being cut back, and look as though they might get worse. As a single male then you are fairly low down on the priority list, focus in recent times has been on children and the more constrained the giver emits finances are the shorter the list of those who will qualify for any state help.0 -
edinburgher wrote: »I'm confused - haven't I read you boasting on several threads that you're financially independent? Not quite as good a story if the 'independence' is having enough money to spend until you get state pension and benefits...
Yes I own a house which is let out and I rent a flat that I live in.:footie:
Regular savers earn 6% interest (HSBC, First Direct, M&S) Loans cost 2.9% per year (Nationwide) = FREE money. 0 -
-
missbiggles1 wrote: »So hardly the vulnerable position that the OP is in, even more so if he follows your advice!
The crap advice is the thing that concerns me. Tired of this particular poster making dreadful suggestions to people (live on benefits/cash out your final salary pension to invest in the stockmarket etc.) There are more than enough people out there who will take these ridiculous ideas at face value.0 -
How about 55 years of age. Butler Court £414.21 per month.
http://www.anchor.org.uk/our-properties/butler-court-burton-trent
HB would cover £353.51 of that so you would pay £60.70 per month from your benefits/pension.
That's my plan....retire at 55 with my private pension and savings spend the lot before I get to state pension age at 67 and live off that.That's a gamble I'm willing to take. It would take much more than 30 years for everyone to have a fund big enough to live on...saving at 8% per year of everything earned in excess of £5,824 would hardly add up to anything meaningful.
What would they do...let me live on the streets until I die?
So you own a house, and your plan is to sell it(I assume), and spend enough of the money to enable you to claim any benefits going when you reach 67 ? Why are you waiting, you could do it now.Yes I own a house which is let out and I rent a flat that I live in.
As for living at the back of Grange Street, good luck with that, two hundred yards from drugs wars, attempted murders(hes not dead - yet), child grooming gangs and jihadis. And that "community" is growing all the time.Hi, we’ve decided to remove your signature.0 -
Where do you get 85% from? Current HB taper is 65%, current UC taper is also 65%.There'll be some sort of benefits system. Most people are saying it'll be less generous which means the deduction rate will most probably increase from 85% to 100%.
Rather than messing with tapers and reducing incentives even more, I think it's far more likely that they'll reduce the applicable amount for pensioners to the same as younger people (like they've already done with tax thresholds, the AA is a "benefits threshold" - the amount you can earn before HB etc are tapered). The AA for pensioners is over double that of the under 60's, and nearly treble that of the under 25's! That sort of discrepancy is hard to justify.
This would save the govt a shedload, and increase incentives to save at the same time. It wouldn't cause anyone to starve since a pensioner wouldn't be any worse off than an unemployed younger person. It would mean pensioners claiming housing benefit would need to spend a good chunk of their state pension on rent before getting housing benefit.
They probably couldn't do it for existing pensioners, but they could for future ones.0 -
Where do you get 85% from? Current HB taper is 65%, current UC taper is also 65%.
Rather than messing with tapers and reducing incentives even more, I think it's far more likely that they'll reduce the applicable amount for pensioners to the same as younger people (like they've already done with tax thresholds, the AA is a "benefits threshold" - the amount you can earn before HB etc are tapered). The AA for pensioners is over double that of the under 60's, and nearly treble that of the under 25's! That sort of discrepancy is hard to justify.
This would save the govt a shedload, and increase incentives to save at the same time. It wouldn't cause anyone to starve since a pensioner wouldn't be any worse off than an unemployed younger person. It would mean pensioners claiming housing benefit would need to spend a good chunk of their state pension on rent before getting housing benefit.
They probably couldn't do it for existing pensioners, but they could for future ones.
Not meaning to nit pick but AA usually means Attendance Allowance which isn't, I think, what you mean here.:)0 -
Yes I mean Applicable Amount, the "benefits allowance".missbiggles1 wrote: »Not meaning to nit pick but AA usually means Attendance Allowance which isn't, I think, what you mean here.:)0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 354.6K Banking & Borrowing
- 254.5K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 455.5K Spending & Discounts
- 247.5K Work, Benefits & Business
- 604.4K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 178.6K Life & Family
- 261.9K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards