Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • JoeEngland
    • By JoeEngland 11th Jul 18, 8:05 PM
    • 72Posts
    • 77Thanks
    JoeEngland
    What age to plan living to
    • #1
    • 11th Jul 18, 8:05 PM
    What age to plan living to 11th Jul 18 at 8:05 PM
    My spreadsheet goes up to when I'm 90, not because I expect to live that long but because DW is 4 years younger. This seems to fit in with advice on here to plan finances until age 85-90. Since none of us know how long we'll live, this study may help think about what age to plan to:

    https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.elsa-project.ac.uk/uploads/elsa/report08/ch8.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwinr5jC3JfcAhUrCMAKHbx2Bf0QFjAHe gQIBRAB&usg=AOvVaw1mvnxMseJ5XrLpyMzv_Ykv
Page 2
    • Spreadsheetman
    • By Spreadsheetman 12th Jul 18, 6:06 PM
    • 92 Posts
    • 70 Thanks
    Spreadsheetman
    Annuity rates are terrible. Unless you have very big pension pots, are into your 60s, or have such bad health that they expect you to die early, I would avoid them. If the govt hadn't changed the rules so we don't need to take annuities then I'd be condemned to trying to work far longer than I want to even if I physically could.
    Originally posted by JoeEngland
    I think the point is when the retiree is 75+ and not as sharp with investments as they were then partial annuitisation becomes a good insurance against longevity risk.
    • ffacoffipawb
    • By ffacoffipawb 12th Jul 18, 6:09 PM
    • 2,480 Posts
    • 1,633 Thanks
    ffacoffipawb
    I don't think that site is right (or at least hope not). At the age of 53 & in decent health, it has me shuffling off at 74, whereas other sites assume mid 80s. Maybe it thinks we live in Somalia....
    Originally posted by bolwin1
    Maybe factoring the impact of a Corbyn government.
    • Clifford_Pope
    • By Clifford_Pope 12th Jul 18, 6:14 PM
    • 3,648 Posts
    • 3,828 Thanks
    Clifford_Pope
    I think it might be a self-fulfilling prediction.

    As you near the final countdown you would start getting careless about crossing the road, decide that having a few more drinks or starting smoking wouldn't matter any more.
    So you'd probably hasten your death by about 5 years just by thinking about it.
    • Terron
    • By Terron 12th Jul 18, 9:02 PM
    • 262 Posts
    • 222 Thanks
    Terron
    Annuity rates are terrible. Unless you have very big pension pots, are into your 60s, or have such bad health that they expect you to die early, I would avoid them.
    Originally posted by JoeEngland

    I plan to take 2 annuities next year from smallish pots (total ~30k) but they do have GARs of 10.6


    I am not planning to die at any date, Besides the annuites which will not be indexed I have other income sources with no time limit. I have a couple of DB pensions which should pay about 14k pa, mostly indexed up to 5%. I also get about 25k pa from property, which is providing my current income. I need one more years contributions to get the maximum state pension though that is a few years off yet.
    • kidmugsy
    • By kidmugsy 12th Jul 18, 9:25 PM
    • 11,064 Posts
    • 7,623 Thanks
    kidmugsy
    ... care homes, is there no insurance available to cover this (for younger retirees, who don't yet need a care home)?
    Originally posted by grey gym sock
    I understand that firms have offered it but can't make a living from it. My guess is that their problem is that many of our fellow citizens have decided not to buy insurance and instead plan to freeload on the taxpayer. "Socialism", as you call it.
    Free the dunston one next time too.
    • grey gym sock
    • By grey gym sock 13th Jul 18, 12:55 AM
    • 4,444 Posts
    • 3,992 Thanks
    grey gym sock
    I understand that firms have offered it but can't make a living from it. My guess is that their problem is that many of our fellow citizens have decided not to buy insurance and instead plan to freeload on the taxpayer. "Socialism", as you call it.
    Originally posted by kidmugsy
    it would be a lot fairer (and IMHO, more socialist, but that's a not the main point), if we had a national care service which was both high enough quality that everybody (who wasn't eccentric) would be happy to use it, and had no means testing or charging at the point of use. sensible people would be happier to pay in to support the system if they knew that they would also get something out if and when they need it.

    this idea is directly modelled on how the NHS is supposed to work - and, to a large extent, does. (even people with private health insurance usually use the NHS for some purposes - e.g. they might use an NHS GP, but go private to jump a waiting list for an operation.)

    i have to admit that some people are not sensible about who should pay for care. we see some posters on MSE who simultaneously think that they (or their parents) should be fully entitled to have the State pay for their care (even when they can afford to pay for it themselves) but that other people should have no such right (even when they can't afford to pay for it). some people feel a lot of hatred; benefit claimants are one group towards whom this hatred has been channelled for (at least) decades. it will take more than a fairer way of paying for care to end the politics of hate.
    Last edited by grey gym sock; 13-07-2018 at 12:57 AM.
    • grey gym sock
    • By grey gym sock 13th Jul 18, 1:00 AM
    • 4,444 Posts
    • 3,992 Thanks
    grey gym sock
    Annuity rates are terrible. Unless you have very big pension pots, are into your 60s, or have such bad health that they expect you to die early, I would avoid them. If the govt hadn't changed the rules so we don't need to take annuities then I'd be condemned to trying to work far longer than I want to even if I physically could.
    Originally posted by JoeEngland
    did you actually read my post?

    how do you propose to avoid working longer than necessary and avoid the risk of becoming poor if you live longer than expected without buying an annuity at any age?
  • jamesd
    how do you propose to avoid working longer than necessary and avoid the risk of becoming poor if you live longer than expected without buying an annuity at any age?
    Originally posted by grey gym sock
    Safe drawdown rates can achieve it with minimal risk, dropping to about the same as guaranteed income if you adjust based on how things go.

    About the same because of risks like legal judgements or care needs, where a drawdown pot may provide better than spending all capital on guaranteed income that's too low to cover the bills.

    But it's not particularly efficient to do drawdown alone. That's why I'll normally suggest state pension deferral and later, some annuity buying when life expectancy causes those rates to be good. One useful thing to consider is that more guaranteed income can enable drawdown with lower success rates by removing the worst case outcomes or making them far less likely. 25% success rate when guaranteed income covers your needs can be fine...

    Life expectancy permitting I expect to do both state pension deferring and annuity buying myself. Annuities are still a useful tool. Not particularly competitive at younger ages in good health but those change.
    Last edited by jamesd; 13-07-2018 at 3:14 AM.
    • JoeEngland
    • By JoeEngland 13th Jul 18, 8:25 AM
    • 72 Posts
    • 77 Thanks
    JoeEngland
    did you actually read my post?

    how do you propose to avoid working longer than necessary and avoid the risk of becoming poor if you live longer than expected without buying an annuity at any age?
    Originally posted by grey gym sock
    It might be worth considering in the future depending on circumstances (ie. when I'm into my 60s and if it made sense to go for a guaranteed income) but I wouldn't consider one now. I want the flexibility of drawdown. So rather than love annuities I see them as pointless in my circumstance for now. Anyway, in the future there would also be other options such as equity release to consider.
    • michaels
    • By michaels 13th Jul 18, 12:10 PM
    • 20,955 Posts
    • 96,963 Thanks
    michaels
    it would be a lot fairer (and IMHO, more socialist, but that's a not the main point), if we had a national care service which was both high enough quality that everybody (who wasn't eccentric) would be happy to use it, and had no means testing or charging at the point of use. sensible people would be happier to pay in to support the system if they knew that they would also get something out if and when they need it.

    this idea is directly modelled on how the NHS is supposed to work - and, to a large extent, does. (even people with private health insurance usually use the NHS for some purposes - e.g. they might use an NHS GP, but go private to jump a waiting list for an operation.)

    i have to admit that some people are not sensible about who should pay for care. we see some posters on MSE who simultaneously think that they (or their parents) should be fully entitled to have the State pay for their care (even when they can afford to pay for it themselves) but that other people should have no such right (even when they can't afford to pay for it). some people feel a lot of hatred; benefit claimants are one group towards whom this hatred has been channelled for (at least) decades. it will take more than a fairer way of paying for care to end the politics of hate.
    Originally posted by grey gym sock
    I disagree, I think the state should cover minimum acceptable and then let people who have saved more pay for extra on top rather than having to opt out entirely and pay for everything. I think this model woudl also work for the NHS - want more convenient appointments with a shorter wait - no need to go 100% private just pay an additional services charge to the NHS - NHS wins by getting more income and an insurance industry grows up so support people effectively pool-saving to pay for NHS plus services.
    Cool heads and compromise
    • lisyloo
    • By lisyloo 13th Jul 18, 12:36 PM
    • 22,019 Posts
    • 10,700 Thanks
    lisyloo
    I think the state should cover minimum acceptable
    Have you actually seen what is considered acceptable?
    We went to about 20 care homes last year.
    A significant minority were dreadful and I'm not talking about being fussy here. I mean dressings hanging off, stench of urine, filthy toilets.

    My SIL said "over my dead-body" and really meant it.
    This is where people who have no advocates or poor ones end up.



    We had the experience last year when the LA wanted to split up MIL & FIL after 60 years of marriage. One was bed bound, the other would require lifting into a car or wheelchair taxi, so would not have seen each other very much if in different homes.


    In principle I love your idea, but many (not just me) would say the minimum currently provided is not acceptable.
    • michaels
    • By michaels 13th Jul 18, 2:05 PM
    • 20,955 Posts
    • 96,963 Thanks
    michaels
    Have you actually seen what is considered acceptable?
    We went to about 20 care homes last year.
    A significant minority were dreadful and I'm not talking about being fussy here. I mean dressings hanging off, stench of urine, filthy toilets.

    My SIL said "over my dead-body" and really meant it.
    This is where people who have no advocates or poor ones end up.



    We had the experience last year when the LA wanted to split up MIL & FIL after 60 years of marriage. One was bed bound, the other would require lifting into a car or wheelchair taxi, so would not have seen each other very much if in different homes.


    In principle I love your idea, but many (not just me) would say the minimum currently provided is not acceptable.
    Originally posted by lisyloo
    I agree the minimum acceptable does need to be just that, but against that there is no magic money tree so there are always going to be tradeoffs, just continually raising tax rates is not the solution as this both discourages work and means that those more heavily taxed have less available to provide for themselves.
    Cool heads and compromise
    • lisyloo
    • By lisyloo 13th Jul 18, 2:23 PM
    • 22,019 Posts
    • 10,700 Thanks
    lisyloo
    I agree the minimum acceptable does need to be just that, but against that there is no magic money tree so there are always going to be tradeoffs, just continually raising tax rates is not the solution as this both discourages work and means that those more heavily taxed have less available to provide for themselves.
    Originally posted by michaels

    What about people paying more for themselves i.e. scrap the property disregard?
    • Malthusian
    • By Malthusian 13th Jul 18, 2:27 PM
    • 4,332 Posts
    • 6,828 Thanks
    Malthusian
    it would be a lot fairer (and IMHO, more socialist, but that's a not the main point), if we had a national care service which was both high enough quality that everybody (who wasn't eccentric) would be happy to use it, and had no means testing or charging at the point of use. sensible people would be happier to pay in to support the system if they knew that they would also get something out if and when they need it.

    this idea is directly modelled on how the NHS is supposed to work
    Originally posted by grey gym sock
    Most people will get injured or ill or have a baby at some point in their lives, so the NHS is an easy sell because nearly all taxpayers will get some benefit out of it.

    Most people would rather have a pillow put over their face than go into a state-run care home, so a National Care Service is an impossible sell because most taxpayers will never use it. Or like to think they won't, which for the purposes of this discussion (whether it's politically viable) is the same thing.
    • michaels
    • By michaels 13th Jul 18, 3:46 PM
    • 20,955 Posts
    • 96,963 Thanks
    michaels
    What about people paying more for themselves i.e. scrap the property disregard?
    Originally posted by lisyloo
    Gets my vote (even though no doubt I and then my kids would be badly hit)...but judging by the last election not the votes of many others....
    Cool heads and compromise
    • crv1963
    • By crv1963 13th Jul 18, 7:09 PM
    • 321 Posts
    • 748 Thanks
    crv1963
    Most people will get injured or ill or have a baby at some point in their lives, so the NHS is an easy sell because nearly all taxpayers will get some benefit out of it.

    Most people would rather have a pillow put over their face than go into a state-run care home, so a National Care Service is an impossible sell because most taxpayers will never use it. Or like to think they won't, which for the purposes of this discussion (whether it's politically viable) is the same thing.
    Originally posted by Malthusian

    I don't think that this will get off the ground either for several reasons, there used to be a similar system- council run Care Homes for those not too badly dementing; Mental Health Hospitals (Asylums) with large numbers of Elderly Mentally Ill beds/ wards for those with dementia; Private Sector Nursing Homes for those that wanted more than the Council run homes or felt the stigma of having a relative in a NHS Mental Hospital was too much to bare.


    A joint approach politically by the Tories and Labour, following lots of enquiries into abuses in hospitals and a realisation that the cost of each county having a 800+ bedded hospital and a realisation that there was money to be made for the private sector in privatising/ selling off Council homes and closing the old Mental Health Hospitals led to the closure of both (on the whole) and the political compromises to achieve this has led to the current set up.


    The drive to save money still goes on but it seems IMHO that we just continually rob Peter to pay Paul endlessly and the answer has evaded people. What we need is an honest debate about what sort of system we want/ need and crucially how to pay for it!


    A Society really can be judged on how it treats its' most vulnerable people.
    CRV1963- Light bulb moment Sept 15- Planning the great escape- aka retirement!
    • kidmugsy
    • By kidmugsy 13th Jul 18, 9:36 PM
    • 11,064 Posts
    • 7,623 Thanks
    kidmugsy
    Eventually we'll be allowed to kill ourselves without too much trouble if we've simply had enough of life. That still doesn't solve the problem of the demented who are in no position to make a judgement. Maybe we should all write a suitable letter before we get in that state. This would undoubtedly mean that some poor souls will be coerced into bumping themselves off by their children who want to get their hands on the money. Even then it would presumably lead to a large reduction in the sum of human suffering. We really can't leave it to the occasional Shipman to winnow the geriatric population.
    Free the dunston one next time too.
    • nrsql
    • By nrsql 15th Jul 18, 12:14 PM
    • 1,768 Posts
    • 605 Thanks
    nrsql
    I estimate max annual expenditure until I!!!8217;m 90 and how long I can live based on various annual expenditures.
    They both go up while I spend less than that and while I still have earned income.

    The problem is inflation. Apart from the old ns&i certificates it!!!8217;s difficult to know how to hedge against it. Even after retirement care fees could be 20 years away - who knows what the cost will be.
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

550Posts Today

5,295Users online

Martin's Twitter