Can you live solely off state pension?

TadleyBaggie

No way. Both my wife and I are receiving full state pensions (and a bit more), so close to £1700 every 4 weeks. On top of that I get (after tax) around £2500 pm from other pensions. We haven't been able to save at all in the last few years, (but have around 100K in savings if need be)  but we do have a very good lifestyle and have several holidays a year. As we get older I suspect we will slow down on the lifestyle and will require less income.

RG2015

eskbanker said:

Threads like this will always attract plenty of subjective comment, especially when defining woolly terms like 'comfortable', but for a more objective view it's probably best to look at some of the published research on the subject, such as:
https://www.retirementlivingstandards.org.uk/
https://www.which.co.uk/money/pensions-and-retirement/planning-your-retirement/how-much-will-you-need-to-retire-aNmlv7V7sVe9

Thanks for the excellent links.

The first thing I notice is the significant differences between the two analyses.

Using the the level 3 figures (in each case the highest) for a couple as an example:

1) PLSA*, Comfortable £54,500
2) Which, Luxury £44,000

It just goes to show that even more objective views are still subjective.

* Pension and Lifetime Savings Association

zagfles

Richard1212 said:

I just had to come back about what seems like a hornet's nest that one or more of my earlier posts caused with a number of forumites. I have heard a lot of stuff that I am supposed to have said and which I did NOT say. 

For example, I specifically stated in one of my posts that money can never buy the main things in life : eg health and happiness ( and I actually made it clear that health and happiness could never be bought ). So, it is totally disingenuous to associate me with any of those aspects that some posters seem furious about. It is IMPORTANT for hot-heads to acknowledge that fact.

I did go on to answer the original post which asked if I could live solely on the State Pension ( if  I owned my own house---so didn't HAVE to live on that amount because of poverty). All I did was give my opinion on what my own view was---as asked by the O/P.  A good many other posters agreed that they could not manage financially on the O/P's monthly allowance. In fact some posters itemised their own expenditure list in order to illustrate why they couldn't manage financially. They seemed wholly sensible and believable to me. 

So why all the sudden fuss at some stage of this thread ?  I said in one early post ( probably my first one)  that the most important things in life can't be bought. And I gave my opinion that amounted to something like ......it's not pleasant for people in poverty or scraping by in a world of food banks, no new clothes, no car, no cinema /theatre, no meal out ( or takeaway if you prefer), no spending on their hobby ( even gardening requires money if you wish to buy new plants, shrubs, trees, fertilisers, new lawn mower and other tools from time to time, fence posts, etc etc etc---and I speak as an avid gardener who views that hobby as part of my "quality of life" which I could not enjoy without at least some extra expenditure). I also give regular large monthly contributions to the charities of my choice ( and I suppose some sorts of folk who think charity should be a secret will take exception at my nerve in mentioning that aspect !).

  I think I said that some poor people would "give their left arm" to have paid off a mortgage, own a house, and that they would not, in old age, wish to scrimp and save after a lifetime of working hard and being in debt to a mortgage lender and perhaps other lenders for donkey's years.

 I believe that to be the truth. And I believe that many of them would like to spend a bit more on things they have never had before or do things they always wanted to do but never had the money. We'd have to be blind not to notice how many folk of 60-65 do those things, or help out people who are not so fortunate, including relatives.

I did not mention some of the silly sorts of words and phrases attributed to me ---- luxury hotels; fancy clothes or cars; vastly expensive foreign holidays in Monte Carlo, luxury cruises, £3 cups of coffee (!!!)  or any such extravagances ( that have been mentioned on this thread as if it was ME who suggested them to be quality of life ! ). I do not believe those things to be true.

Perhaps the problem lies with the comments of one particular poster who has caused much of the trouble with outrageous remarks ; he says he went to Uni and is a graduate but  "always avoided responsible employment". That is, of course, his choice to make. But there are many of us who would say that it is a terrible waste of OUR ( taxpayers' ) money in order to give such advantages to someone who doesn't want to do more to give back a bit to society by following "responsible employment" but actually wants to avoid it ! How many forumites would actually say that , if they had a great education, they would turn their backs on doing something useful and "responsible" such as teaching, being a doctor,etc. But, hey, each to their own...…......... he has every right to shirk or ( to use his own words) "avoid responsible employment".

As for me, I just stick by every word I have said in earlier posts-----I have given the personal opinion that the O/P asked for ( and with which so many agreed with me about ). And I made sure to emphasise that money could not buy the most important things in life or that it has to be used for luxury cruises, etc  ; although I have to say it can buy a lot of interest, fun and a better life than queuing at a food bank.  

Talk about pots and kettles Foodbanks, really? Who said they need foodbanks?

You seem to be taking this discussion very personally. Fact is, many people do lead happy fulfilled lives on just a state pension or similar income. That is the truth. Read the thread. They're not suffering, or missing out, or having to "queue at a foodbank". I know it's hard for some people to believe, or have the capacity to imagine. But people are different. 

Not all, obviously. Some will be unable to budget on that level of income. Some will feel they're missing out on stuff they want to do. But some will have a £50k a year pension and think they don't have enough.

zagfles

RG2015 said:

eskbanker said:

Threads like this will always attract plenty of subjective comment, especially when defining woolly terms like 'comfortable', but for a more objective view it's probably best to look at some of the published research on the subject, such as:
https://www.retirementlivingstandards.org.uk/
https://www.which.co.uk/money/pensions-and-retirement/planning-your-retirement/how-much-will-you-need-to-retire-aNmlv7V7sVe9

Thanks for the excellent links.

The first thing I notice is the significant differences between the two analyses.

Using the the level 3 figures (in each case the highest) for a couple as an example:

1) PLSA*, Comfortable £54,500
2) Which, Luxury £44,000

It just goes to show that even more objective views are still subjective.

* Pension and Lifetime Savings Association

Indeed. The PLSA figures are a joke IMO. Been discussed here in depth.https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/79774315#Comment_79774315

hugheskevi

Some interesting stats from the Pensioner Income Series 2021/22 (table 4.1):

Weekly net income of pensioner couples before housing costs, by quintile:

Lowest 20% - £299
2 - £428
3 - £544
4 - £715
Highest 20% - £1,082

Weekly net income of single pensioners before housing costs, by quintile:

Lowest 20% - £159
2 - £233
3 - £288
4 - £372
Highest 20% - £530

So based on the full rate of new State Pension, it is less than 20% of pensioners living on that amount or lower.

RG2015

zagfles said:

RG2015 said:

eskbanker said:

Threads like this will always attract plenty of subjective comment, especially when defining woolly terms like 'comfortable', but for a more objective view it's probably best to look at some of the published research on the subject, such as:
https://www.retirementlivingstandards.org.uk/
https://www.which.co.uk/money/pensions-and-retirement/planning-your-retirement/how-much-will-you-need-to-retire-aNmlv7V7sVe9

Thanks for the excellent links.

The first thing I notice is the significant differences between the two analyses.

Using the the level 3 figures (in each case the highest) for a couple as an example:

1) PLSA*, Comfortable £54,500
2) Which, Luxury £44,000

It just goes to show that even more objective views are still subjective.

* Pension and Lifetime Savings Association

Indeed. The PLSA figures are a joke IMO. Been discussed here in depth.https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/79774315#Comment_79774315

Yes, I did think the PLSA would have a vested interest.

QrizB

hugheskevi said:

Some interesting stats from the Pensioner Income Series 2021/22 (table 4.1):
Weekly net income of pensioner couples before housing costs, by quintile:
Lowest 20% - £299
2 - £428
3 - £544
4 - £715
Highest 20% - £1,082

I've said on another thread or two that my parents, both late 70s, live a "frugally comfortable" retirement on £17k pa (£326 pw) from their combined pensions. That's less than two full NSPs and puts them just into the 2nd quintile. They have some capital (I don't know exactly how much, but it's closer to £10k than £100k) put aside for replacement cars and the like.

They seem quite happy, own their house, run two old cars (soon to be one) and a 20-year-old camper van, and take 2-3 'vanning holidays a year.

Richard1212

eskbanker said:

Threads like this will always attract plenty of subjective comment, especially when defining woolly terms like 'comfortable', but for a more objective view it's probably best to look at some of the published research on the subject, such as:
https://www.retirementlivingstandards.org.uk/
https://www.which.co.uk/money/pensions-and-retirement/planning-your-retirement/how-much-will-you-need-to-retire-aNmlv7V7sVe9

What interesting links. Yes, they show wide discrepancies as between the two surveys but, nevertheless, they are something I have never seen before. As you say :  what do words like "comfortable" or "luxury" really mean, especially when they are in the grey area between them and "essential"---but at least they attempt to give some good ideas even if their actual figures are a bit arbitrary. A pretty worrying statistic, assuming it's true, that nearly 80% of pre-retirement folk have any idea how much they will need in retirement. Perhaps it's a bit like insurance where so many short-sighted people only think of it when they are getting old instead of much earlier in life. 

eskbanker

zagfles said:

RG2015 said:

eskbanker said:

Threads like this will always attract plenty of subjective comment, especially when defining woolly terms like 'comfortable', but for a more objective view it's probably best to look at some of the published research on the subject, such as:
https://www.retirementlivingstandards.org.uk/
https://www.which.co.uk/money/pensions-and-retirement/planning-your-retirement/how-much-will-you-need-to-retire-aNmlv7V7sVe9

Thanks for the excellent links.

The first thing I notice is the significant differences between the two analyses.

Using the the level 3 figures (in each case the highest) for a couple as an example:

1) PLSA*, Comfortable £54,500
2) Which, Luxury £44,000

It just goes to show that even more objective views are still subjective.

* Pension and Lifetime Savings Association

Indeed. The PLSA figures are a joke IMO. Been discussed here in depth.https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/79774315#Comment_79774315

Yes, fair enough, they were just a couple of links I found from a cursory search, but the point really was that most posters on here will generally opine from their own (singular) experience and outlook, albeit some like to claim they represent a wider constituency, whereas 'academic' studies, however flawed, should at least entail some sort of attempt to structure the findings across a reasonably broad spectrum.  And yes, high level terms like 'comfortable' and 'luxury' don't really help, but when supported by explanatory narrative should at least give an indication of how such labels translate into expenditure by category.

zagfles

eskbanker said:

zagfles said:

RG2015 said:

eskbanker said:

Threads like this will always attract plenty of subjective comment, especially when defining woolly terms like 'comfortable', but for a more objective view it's probably best to look at some of the published research on the subject, such as:
https://www.retirementlivingstandards.org.uk/
https://www.which.co.uk/money/pensions-and-retirement/planning-your-retirement/how-much-will-you-need-to-retire-aNmlv7V7sVe9

Thanks for the excellent links.

The first thing I notice is the significant differences between the two analyses.

Using the the level 3 figures (in each case the highest) for a couple as an example:

1) PLSA*, Comfortable £54,500
2) Which, Luxury £44,000

It just goes to show that even more objective views are still subjective.

* Pension and Lifetime Savings Association

Indeed. The PLSA figures are a joke IMO. Been discussed here in depth.https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/79774315#Comment_79774315

Yes, fair enough, they were just a couple of links I found from a cursory search, but the point really was that most posters on here will generally opine from their own (singular) experience and outlook, albeit some like to claim they represent a wider constituency, whereas 'academic' studies, however flawed, should at least entail some sort of attempt to structure the findings across a reasonably broad spectrum.  And yes, high level terms like 'comfortable' and 'luxury' don't really help, but when supported by explanatory narrative should at least give an indication of how such labels translate into expenditure by category.

Indeed which is what we discussed in depth on the linked thread and others. Academic research commissioned by organisations with a vested interest always has to be taken with a pinch of salt. Even if the research is done by a respected independant organisation, the TOR will be set by those who commission it and the researchers will know what they're looking for, and may have an eye on repeat business. Every business or organisation wants to keep their customers happy, right?

Having said that I'm sure MSE posters are not representative of wider society. The name of the site says it all. Posters on MSE generally understand financial issues, something which most people don't. People who don't understand loans, credit cards etc and buy stuff based on what it costs a month rather than the total cost, and so spend loads on interest, people who pay £60 a month for a mobile contract and think they get a "free" phone, people who say things like "you get what you pay for" and "you'll be disappointed if you spend less than £xxx on yyy". People daft enough to think there's always a correlation between price and quality. People who never switched their gas/electric supplier, even when it could have saved them a lot of money. People who go abroad and change cash in the UK before going, or use cards which markup the exchange rate, and get hammered by mobile roaming costs, or pay a fortune for an "exotic" package holiday to a country where everything is dirt cheap. 

The trouble always is there are those who think just because they'd be incapable of living a happy fulfilled life on a low income like the state pension, then nobody is. They think those that do manage it must be struggling, they must be missing out on stuff, maybe even using foodbanks!! I'm not capable of running a marathon in under 3 hours, nor would I enjoy it, but I fully accept that other people are capable, and do enjoy it. Just because you can't do something doesn't mean nobody else can. 

This sort of attitude lead to the sad demise of Sea Shell's excellent diary thread, where she and OH live on (IIRC) approx 1.5 the state pension, even though they could afford to spend more. She was sick of the stick she was getting with people telling her to spend more, having digs about the heating etc, even setting her spending targets!