Cloud Cuckoo Land

zagfles

Sea_Shell said:

michaels said:

Minimum lifestyle is £630pa on clothes - no wonder the environment is screwed.

Plus meals out and takeaways, can people really not conceive of a life without such discretionary expenditure?

The key 'finding' seems to be not that things are much more expensive than last year, but that so much more consumption is now deemed necessary for essential, comfortable etc

Two sides of the same coin?!? 😉

If you don't eat out, you don't need going out clothes.   Simples. 😁

Who actually needs (or wants) wardrobes full of new clobber, in retirement?

Any retired fashionistas on here that would like to share their wardrobe habits?

We eat out a lot but not at places we have to dress up for. Wouldn't even think about buying new clothes just for going out for a meal. But some people do - was talking to woman we know the other day who was on about buying a new outfit just to go to a wedding evening do of someone she barely knows!

drummersdale

Does this mean I will have to spread margarine on my Blinis instead of Caviar?

Phossy

drummersdale said:

Does this mean I will have to spread margarine on my Blinis instead of Caviar?

I read that as Bikinis (previous two responses were on holidays and clothes - that's my defence).
Anyways, I was momentarily confused..

westv

I don't get all the slagging off of the research.
Just because the figures don't match what YOU spend there seems to be an opinion that they can't possibly be "right". It's an average. It's not meant to define what YOU spend but is a general guide to what is generally spent overall.
You might just as well say the RPI figures are rubbish because you don't buy items included in the basket of items used to calculate the figure or it can't be correct because YOUR inflation bears no relation to the figure.
And I'm sure those doing the study knew what they were doing when they chose 135 (I'm assuming a cross section of society). I'm no expert on statistics but I do know you don't need 1,000s to provide a guide.

michaels

westv said:

I don't get all the slagging off of the research.
Just because the figures don't match what YOU spend there seems to be an opinion that they can't possibly be "right". It's an average. It's not meant to define what YOU spend but is a general guide to what is generally spent overall.
You might just as well say the RPI figures are rubbish because you don't buy items included in the basket of items used to calculate the figure or it can't be correct because YOUR inflation bears no relation to the figure.
And I'm sure those doing the study knew what they were doing when they chose 135 (I'm assuming a cross section of society). I'm no expert on statistics but I do know you don't need 1,000s to provide a guide.

Surely the issue is that over a 12 month period a lot of stuff that 12 months ago was not part of basic, moderate and comfortable ahs suddenly become essential for each category. Afaik average incomes across the economy have not gone up by 20% in real terms so how come retirees suddenly need 20% more stuff than they did a year ago?

We are not talking inflation increases to what was on the list last year, there is a whole new swath of stuff that has become necessary over the year. Not sure what the justification for adding so much is and it this makes for misleading comparison.

zagfles

westv said:

I don't get all the slagging off of the research.
Just because the figures don't match what YOU spend there seems to be an opinion that they can't possibly be "right". It's an average. It's not meant to define what YOU spend but is a general guide to what is generally spent overall.
You might just as well say the RPI figures are rubbish because you don't buy items included in the basket of items used to calculate the figure or it can't be correct because YOUR inflation bears no relation to the figure.
And I'm sure those doing the study knew what they were doing when they chose 135 (I'm assuming a cross section of society). I'm no expert on statistics but I do know you don't need 1,000s to provide a guide.

If it was presented as a survey on what people spend, you might be right. But it isn't. It's presented as a survey on what people NEED to be COMFORTABLE etc. We do not need £59k to be "comfortable". We don't even need what we spend now (around £35k) to be comfortable. We would be "comfortable" on £25k as a couple.

They are telling people what they need. Anyone who thinks they need £59k to be comfortable, is, like the OP said, living in cloud cuckoo land. That's a different matter to what retirees actually spend. I spend way above my needs for comfort.But that extra spending is not "need".

Moonwolf

zagfles said:

If it was presented as a survey on what people spend, you might be right. But it isn't. It's presented as a survey on what people NEED to be COMFORTABLE etc. We do not need £59k to be "comfortable". We don't even need what we spend now (around £35k) to be comfortable. We would be "comfortable" on £25k as a couple.

They are telling people what they need. Anyone who thinks they need £59k to be comfortable, is, like the OP said, living in cloud cuckoo land. That's a different matter to what retirees actually spend. I spend way above my needs for comfort.But that extra spending is not "need".

To be fair, it was produced by the Pensions and LIfetimes Savings Association (PLSA) who say they are "We represent pension schemes that together provide a retirement income to more than 30 million savers in the UK and invest more than £1.3 trillion in the UK and abroad. Our members also include asset managers, consultants, law firms, fintechs, and others who play an influential role in people’s financial futures."

So probably have a vested interest in encouraging people to save more.

westv

Moonwolf said:

zagfles said:

If it was presented as a survey on what people spend, you might be right. But it isn't. It's presented as a survey on what people NEED to be COMFORTABLE etc. We do not need £59k to be "comfortable". We don't even need what we spend now (around £35k) to be comfortable. We would be "comfortable" on £25k as a couple.

They are telling people what they need. Anyone who thinks they need £59k to be comfortable, is, like the OP said, living in cloud cuckoo land. That's a different matter to what retirees actually spend. I spend way above my needs for comfort.But that extra spending is not "need".

To be fair, it was produced by the Pensions and LIfetimes Savings Association (PLSA) who say they are "We represent pension schemes that together provide a retirement income to more than 30 million savers in the UK and invest more than £1.3 trillion in the UK and abroad. Our members also include asset managers, consultants, law firms, fintechs, and others who play an influential role in people’s financial futures."

So probably have a vested interest in encouraging people to save more.

Nothing wrong with saving more.

Moonwolf

westv said:

Nothing wrong with saving more.

No, absolutely not, and the success stories pinned thread is all about saving.

However, probably no need to panic if you can't meet the PLSA targets. 

Worth noting that the BBC article seems to say income everywhere but I think the source is the one here says expenditure, so the figures are even higher.  https://www.retirementlivingstandards.org.uk/ 

hugheskevi

It is interesting to note from the pensioner income series that in 21/22 (latest data) the median net income before housing costs was £28,100 for pensioner couples and £14,700 for single pensioners.

As these are from a couple of years ago they will be a little higher now. The data comes from a very large and robust annual survey.

The £14,700 figure for singles is not far about the minimum PLSA standard of £14,400.

The £28,100 figure for couples is far short of the £43,100 moderate requirement for couples.