Can you live solely off state pension?

Flugelhorn

seems to me that some of the problem is that you just don't have the money at the right time in life - I could have done with more when the mortgage rate was la la or the kids were small or we were looking at school fees etc - but it just wasn't there.
Now both retired and the household income is more than it was when I was working and the expenses are a fraction 

Andy_L

coastline said:

borderline said:

not a chance, I don't own a house and never will. The rent alone would take the state pension. If I can, I will have to work beyond pension age 

If I had to live off state pension I could but fortunately I won't as I'll have a private pension plus savings to cover me. Your point is worth highlighting as the number of homes rented either public or private is nearly 40% of the housing stock . 

More people in England now own homes outright than have a mortgage or rent them, figures reveal | This is Money
 

To make that claim work they've had to divide up private rental and  social housing which seems a bit disingenuous 

"And 20 per cent are privately rented, up 3.7 per cent, the Office for National Statistics said.
In addition, 17 per cent are classed as social housing."

Andy_L

zagfles said:

coastline said:

borderline said:

not a chance, I don't own a house and never will. The rent alone would take the state pension. If I can, I will have to work beyond pension age 

If I had to live off state pension I could but fortunately I won't as I'll have a private pension plus savings to cover me. Your point is worth highlighting as the number of homes rented either public or private is nearly 40% of the housing stock . 

More people in England now own homes outright than have a mortgage or rent them, figures reveal | This is Money

When you consider DB pensions are rapidly being replaced with DC pension pots then those in the rented sector will need substantial savings pots just to cover the rent. Basically leaving them with little or no more than the state pension. Imagine being in the fortunate position of having a pot of 300K ( many are nowhere near today ) then a 10K safe withdrawal rate ( 3.5% ) might not even cover the rent. What will 300K be in the future ? If inflation averages just 3% a year in 20 years you'll need 600K. Could be talking a million pounds one day.  

But if someone was renting and state pension was their only income they'd usually be able to claim housing benefit to cover the rent.

But then they aren't living "solely off state pension". 

Pollycat

[Deleted User] said:

I will longer contribute or follow this thread as it has taken a rather ugly turn. 

That's your prerogative so you probably won't respond to this.

[Deleted User] said:

It is so easy post stories to condemn a minority of people who claim they do not have enough who  just need to manage their money with more care. It allows those with enough to continue to live their cosy lives  blissfully ignoring the fact that many more are genuinely finding things difficult. 

It's the people who claim they are skint because they can't afford to have an expensive holiday who spoil it for the real people living in poverty.

Just as it's the people who scam the benefits system by claiming they can't walk but put videos of them dancing in Benidorm who spoil it for the real people who need benefits.

It's those people who harm the general viewpoint of people who you say "live their cosy lives  blissfully ignoring the fact that many more are genuinely finding things difficult" about people genuinely in need.

dealyboy

[Deleted User] said:

I will longer contribute or follow this thread as it has taken a rather ugly turn. It is so easy post stories to condemn a minority of people who claim they do not have enough who  just need to manage their money with more care. It allows those with enough to continue to live their cosy lives  blissfully ignoring the fact that many more are genuinely finding things difficult. 

Fair comment @[Deleted User]. Just to mention that I have really appreciated the advice and kindness you have shown to those less fortunate than ourselves, over on the 'Over 50s' board.

There are indeed many who do struggle to get by for various reasons, they and their dependants are often overlooked by wider society that believes one size fits all.

zagfles

[Deleted User] said:

I will longer contribute or follow this thread as it has taken a rather ugly turn. It is so easy post stories to condemn a minority of people who claim they do not have enough who  just need to manage their money with more care. It allows those with enough to continue to live their cosy lives  blissfully ignoring the fact that many more are genuinely finding things difficult. 

The point isn't to "condemn" people who struggle because they can't budget. The point is to understand the problem so appropriate help can be given. If you attempt to censor the sort of experiences people have posted above, by trying to shame them, calling them (or their posts) ugly, implying they live "cosy lives" in ignorance, then you ignore the causes of their problems and so don't fix them.

I live in quite a poor working class area, and know loads of people on benefits and low incomes. The difference between those who struggle and those who don't isn't predominantly external (eg wages/benefit levels), it's mainly internal (eg ability to budget, habits etc). The point of saying that isn't to apportion blame, or to judge, it's to understand the problem so you can fix it. And I have personally helped in quite a few cases.

There are certainly external issues, try being a young single person on benefits trying to find somewhere to live. So issues like housing and benefit levels for some people do need looking at. But to assume everyone who struggles does so because of external issues eg not enough income does nothing to help those who have other issues.

In the same way that charities advise people not to give money to beggars, and policies like minimum alcohol prices - giving some people more money or making what they buy cheap is actually harmful. In the same way, if someone has a gambling habit, their level of income is almost irrelavent, they'll have the same problems whatever their level on income. It doesn't take long to gamble away a few thousand. 

So creating a misleading impression that everyone who struggles does so because of insufficient income, which is probably the impression you get from BBC or Guardian reports on the issue, is as or more harmful than suggesting it's all down to inability to manage money.

I heard a phrase "thoughtless compassion" which I think is quite appropriate. If you give a few pounds to a beggar and they immediately go and buy a bottle of wine, have you done good or harm? If you give money to a blind child beggar in India have you done good or harm? Watch Slumdog Millionaire for the answer. And think about it.

zagfles

dealyboy said:

[Deleted User] said:

I will longer contribute or follow this thread as it has taken a rather ugly turn. It is so easy post stories to condemn a minority of people who claim they do not have enough who  just need to manage their money with more care. It allows those with enough to continue to live their cosy lives  blissfully ignoring the fact that many more are genuinely finding things difficult. 

Fair comment @[Deleted User]. Just to mention that I have really appreciated the advice and kindness you have shown to those less fortunate than ourselves, over on the 'Over 50s' board.

There are indeed many who do struggle to get by for various reasons, they and their dependants are often overlooked by wider society that believes one size fits all.

I don't think anyone has said "one size fits all". Some people have posted their experience, without stating it applies to everyone. "Various reasons" is the key point. Seems some people object to some of those reasons being discussed.

coastline

Andy_L said:

coastline said:

borderline said:

not a chance, I don't own a house and never will. The rent alone would take the state pension. If I can, I will have to work beyond pension age 

If I had to live off state pension I could but fortunately I won't as I'll have a private pension plus savings to cover me. Your point is worth highlighting as the number of homes rented either public or private is nearly 40% of the housing stock . 

More people in England now own homes outright than have a mortgage or rent them, figures reveal | This is Money
 

To make that claim work they've had to divide up private rental and  social housing which seems a bit disingenuous 

"And 20 per cent are privately rented, up 3.7 per cent, the Office for National Statistics said.
In addition, 17 per cent are classed as social housing."

25 million homes , 32% owned outright , 28% on a mortgage, the rest are rented.
From the link below it shows 25 million homes and 15 million owner occupied. The rest , 10 million , are social , 2m , and private rented, 8 million.

housing-supply-england.jpg.webp (1200×1080) (economicshelp.org)

There's huge waiting lists for both private and social renting. Private rental have the largest waiting lists in decades. I'm sure the majority would like to buy a home. In my previous example of 300K pension pot you could of course take more money out early but run the risk of running out in retirement. Millions of people in the future won't be that well off in retirement and similar to the OP's post. Government have encouraged pensions in recent years and have their own scheme . It's a good idea no doubt but won't be a great benefit to many in the rental sector. I really don't know the answer and I doubt the government do either.

dealyboy

@zagfles said:

dealyboy said:

[Deleted User] said:

I will longer contribute or follow this thread as it has taken a rather ugly turn. It is so easy post stories to condemn a minority of people who claim they do not have enough who  just need to manage their money with more care. It allows those with enough to continue to live their cosy lives  blissfully ignoring the fact that many more are genuinely finding things difficult. 

Fair comment @[Deleted User]. Just to mention that I have really appreciated the advice and kindness you have shown to those less fortunate than ourselves, over on the 'Over 50s' board.

There are indeed many who do struggle to get by for various reasons, they and their dependants are often overlooked by wider society that believes one size fits all.

I don't think anyone has said "one size fits all". Some people have posted their experience, without stating it applies to everyone. "Various reasons" is the key point. Seems some people object to some of those reasons being discussed.

" [strugglers] ... overlooked by wider society that believes one size fits all."

First the glib point, we in this thread, indeed on this board and the MSE forum as a whole, I would say is a narrower society.

When I refer to 'wider society' I am thinking of the organisational organism of the state to which we as people defer and understand as civilized, this defines what is and what is not standard or normal. Wider society believes the state looks after those in need through the welfare system and health service, such that nobody need suffer. It also believes the state will have such checks and sanctions to detect and deter abuse of the system,.

I think we know different.

michaels

coastline said:

Andy_L said:

coastline said:

borderline said:

not a chance, I don't own a house and never will. The rent alone would take the state pension. If I can, I will have to work beyond pension age 

If I had to live off state pension I could but fortunately I won't as I'll have a private pension plus savings to cover me. Your point is worth highlighting as the number of homes rented either public or private is nearly 40% of the housing stock . 

More people in England now own homes outright than have a mortgage or rent them, figures reveal | This is Money
 

To make that claim work they've had to divide up private rental and  social housing which seems a bit disingenuous 

"And 20 per cent are privately rented, up 3.7 per cent, the Office for National Statistics said.
In addition, 17 per cent are classed as social housing."

25 million homes , 32% owned outright , 28% on a mortgage, the rest are rented.
From the link below it shows 25 million homes and 15 million owner occupied. The rest , 10 million , are social and private rented. 8 million and 2 million.

housing-supply-england.jpg.webp (1200×1080) (economicshelp.org)

There's huge waiting lists for both private and social renting. Private rental is showing the biggest waiting lists in decades. I'm sure the majority would like to buy a home. In my previous example of 300K pension pot you could of course take more money out early but it could run out in retirement. Millions of people in the future won't be that well off in retirement. Government have encouraged pensions in recent years and even have their own scheme . It's a good idea no doubt but won't be a great benefit to many in the rental sector. I really don't know the answer and I doubt the government do either.

Since age 18 I have rented for 13 years and owned for 22.  Whilst I was renting I did so because it made most financial sense, I was a student then doing some temp jobs and finally in a graduate job but changing relationships and potentially looking to change jobs.  Buying during that period despite the potential capital gains (and losses) would have been a mistake.  So whilst there are no doubt some renters for whom owning would make more economic and social sense than renting I suspect the majority in private rental are doing so from choice. [Subsidised public sector rental is a different story]