Wednesday, Dec 26, 2012

Research by ING Direct

Mail: One in ten elderly forced to sell or downsize their home to make ends meet

"One in ten pensioners in Britain has sold or downsized their home to help make ends meet, according to research. Cash-strapped Britons are reassessing their retirement plans because of the state of the economy, according to a survey of 1,000 adults in 12 European countries, which found that more people in this country are planning to use their property to fund their pension than in most other European nations"

Posted by alan @ 10:17 AM (4083 views) Add Comment


1. mark wadsworth said...

Yup, Home-Owner-Ism is finally starting to bite itself in the tail.

Wednesday, December 26, 2012 10:35AM Report Comment

2. Jrhartley said...

All in all, probably a good thing. Who wants to be rattling around with the costs associated with heating, maintaining and cleaning a large house when ultimately you're only living in two or three rooms of it? People are starting to realise that property isn't exclusively a cash cow - it has some very meaningful ongoing expensese which can be very burdensome, which is tough, particularly if you are seeing your capital value eroded at the same time. I feel for my landlord at the moment - gross yield of 3%, value fallen by £20K in two years and needs to underpin and re-roof the property.... Sure, its fun when the good times are rolling....

Wednesday, December 26, 2012 11:00AM Report Comment

3. righttoleech said...

On the other hand had they not an oversized house to sell they would truly shafted.

Wednesday, December 26, 2012 11:09AM Report Comment

4. dill said...

They built it for themselves, and only for themselves. So, it's time to cash in...

...oh dear! Problem.

We're already paying you pensions to which you never contributed enough, nominally, to justify the take. But, you also want us to pay you huge amounts for your crappy houses! Do me a favour.

You will give back - one way or another.

Wednesday, December 26, 2012 02:12PM Report Comment

5. dill said...

And, in conclusion...

Assets or income? Make your choice.

Wednesday, December 26, 2012 02:51PM Report Comment

6. peter_2008 said...

Err... sorry... isn't that "Property is my pension"? So, how do you expect to tap your pension fund without withdrawing money from it? By having the cake and eat it?

This is like saying “I want to take out a 50% one off tax free bonus from my entire pension, but I expect the annuity intact.”

Greedy people are often blind.

Wednesday, December 26, 2012 04:31PM Report Comment

7. paul said...

Poor widows in mansions story. They even have a stock image of an unnamed frail old widow:

I imagine they only use it because she's now dead so they don't have to pay royalties. That's nice for them.

Thursday, December 27, 2012 08:52AM Report Comment

8. mark wadsworth said...

They want to have their cake, eat it, and get somebody else to pay for it :-)

Thursday, December 27, 2012 10:10AM Report Comment

9. libertas said...

Marx Wadsworth, you are totally despicable. Elderly people (you may be elderly one day) who paid for their homes, have pensions and savings and are being ripped off by a central bank which double crossed them with .05% interest rates.

Don't you have Parent's? Will you not miss out on inheritance?

Won't you see the trauma of your Parent's having to sell all they earned to fund a housing bubble?

A tax on land will do sweet F.A. for this, since the principle cause of the malaise is not too little taxation, but too low interest rates. Indeed, if you consider inflation a tax (inflation is caused by artificially low interest rates), then you will understand that there is too much, not too little forced wealth transfers, i.e. taxation.

Thursday, December 27, 2012 10:18AM Report Comment

10. shipbuilder said...


A few questions -

- Who do you think should pay for someone's care - themselves and their family, or wider society?
- How much do you think an average pensioner's home is worth in comparison to what they actually payed for it out of their earnings?
- Where did the rest of this worth come from?
- Haven't people been claiming for a while that 'my house is my pension'?
- How important is your inheritance - more than your parent's care, more than the right of others to keep what they've earned?

I'll be interested to see if you answer these honestly.

Thursday, December 27, 2012 10:43AM Report Comment

11. p. doff said...

Ah! Isn't Christmas wonderful...a time for compassion and goodwill to all...unless you happen to be old and own a house that is!!!

Thursday, December 27, 2012 12:57PM Report Comment

12. libertas said...

Shipbuilder, you TOTALLY miss the point.

Said elderly people saved up to cover the costs of their care BUT, low interest rates meant that their "nest egg" was destroyed by inflation and low yield. Essentially they were robbed to buy votes. In addition, the resultant inflation and, higher costs from regulation meant it is exorbitant to simply look after an elderly person.

So, telling them to sell their homes to cover their expenses when they already saved up for them and were robbed is missing the whole point.

It is like a farmer chopping the legs off a cow and screaming at it for not walking.

Thursday, December 27, 2012 01:02PM Report Comment

13. libertas said...

You Marxists are all the same, class warfare all the way. At the end of it is complete lack of empathy and charity, which is why Socialists killed more people than any other group during the 20th Century. Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Hitler (he was a National Socialist), to name a few.

Their Marxist re-distribution always destroys society and then the victims are treated like filth.

Thursday, December 27, 2012 01:04PM Report Comment

14. shipbuilder said...


I didn't expect you to answer the questions and you didn't disappoint.

Thursday, December 27, 2012 01:16PM Report Comment

15. libertas said...

I did answer, only you are either too stupid or bloody minded to understand my answer. People only use homes as pension because interest rates have been manipulated low, which causes inflation in house prices, which displaces savings into a speculative housing bubble, which makes it nigh on impossible to save for old age.

But you are so wedded to Marxist class and age warfare that you refuse to acknowledge that the elderly here are victims of Marxist policies to re-distribute the wealth of pensioners to young voters in a way that is wholly destructive of everybody's way of life.

Thursday, December 27, 2012 01:30PM Report Comment

16. mark wadsworth said...

Shipbuilder, nice one!

I note that the Blue Socialists who want 'everybody else' to pay for their old age care scream "Socialists!" at all the nasty free market radicals who think that people should pay for their own care (or take out insurance etc) :-)

And of course people manipulate interest rates downwards to land themselves with nice tax free windfall gains at the next generation's expense. As per usual, the Home-Owner-Ists are putting the cart before the horse and want to have their cake, eat it and get somebody else to pay.

Thursday, December 27, 2012 01:40PM Report Comment

17. This comment has been removed as it was found to be in breach of our Blog Policies.


18. peter_2008 said...

Let's leave ideologies for a sec. And let talk about logic.

Yes, low interest rate is a rip off on savings and yes, tax is a bxtch.

But the logic is that, if people decide to put their all extra cash into an oversized house, then surely the only way to make any use of that extra cash is downsizing, renting it out or MEW. Whichever way, you basically have to free up the extra cash by releasing the asset.

Otherwise, it is just as absurd as the government's Mortgage Rescue Scheme, which subsides mortgage up to Half Million £ for "hard working" families have a household income of £60,000.

Thursday, December 27, 2012 03:25PM Report Comment

19. libertas said...

Marx, house price rises are not paper gains. No, they reflect devaluation of Sterling. And, their savings are being depleted to keep prices high.

You simply believe so much in your ideology of Marxism and class warfare that you are happy to demonize everybody over the age of 60. Well sir, you have your way, the NHS is committing defacto Euthanasia putting many elderly folk on the "care pathway". So, as said, you Marx, due to perpetuating this farce of having a go at our elders, blaming them for the miscreance of a minority of fascist bankers, will yourself most likely fall prey to that system and be killed and dehydrated on the NHS when you have the misfortune of being ill and old.

Thursday, December 27, 2012 06:17PM Report Comment

20. libertas said...

Peter_2008, my point is that there are some who worked hard to have savings and a large house. They planned properly and had the savings ripped off so have to sell a house that they worked hard for and, due to said mortgage rate manipulation, when they sell, their children cannot afford the house.

Living in a ponzi scheme is a pile of crap, and we really must blame those who caused it, i.e. government and banks in collusion, carrying out the central planning of a once free, market economy.

Class warfare and purile agism is not only pathetic and self defeating (we all get old, hopefully), but it is also stupid because it does not solve the problem BUT, uneducated, unthinking nincompoops can feel good about themselves bitching about others and throwing handbags into the wind. And that is all you all are, a bunch of handbag waving bitchez.

Thursday, December 27, 2012 06:21PM Report Comment

21. This comment has been removed as it was found to be in breach of our Blog Policies.


22. quiet guy said...

"house price rises are not paper gains. No, they reflect devaluation of Sterling."

Oh dear. That's a major fail. House prices took off between the late nineties until the credit crunch in 2008. ZIRP and competitive devaluation of Sterling was a response to the credit crunch after the housing boom.

You're trying to fit the house price boom into your favourite topic - inflation - instead of thinking about what actually happened.

"you all are, a bunch of handbag waving bitchez."

And you just can't stay away.

Thursday, December 27, 2012 07:36PM Report Comment

23. enuii said...

Personally I live in a house, it has a roof supported by four walls and is designed to keep me warm and dry in this inclement land. This has been a houses purpose for millenia, and before people invented stuff contained within its walls very little (if you were peasantry/working class) other than the family unit it was designed to shelter.

And tho came the monetisation (americans use the old english vesion with a z) of housing and gradually with the advent of mortgages it came to pass that people would unwittingly pay ever more greater sums for the aforementioned piles of bricks 'n' mortar. Houses became a way for what were previously called spivs to make a quick profit and hence a house became a 'property' in reference to their monetary value. Spivs became 'property developers' and then began referring to the houses they accumulated as 'portfolios' and 'assettzzz' as they sought to collateralise them in order to extend their quick financial gains colloquially referred to as 'flipping' a more polite term than 'pulling a fast one' or 'making a quick buck'.

This process slowly evolved through the 20th century and gradually the countries economy was hollowed out, noble sweat of the brow labour became a dirty word as the masses aspired to become owners of property rather than dwellers in housing. Property dreams got ever grander as the populace gradually forgot the real function and purpose of housing with many even dreaming of owning second homes to escape their first one at weekends or times of self inflicted depression caused by working too hard in un-noble occupations such as property developers, bankers, financiers & members of parliament to name but a few.

TV programmes and clever financial arrangements came to a head in the 21st century and just as the illusion was about to get shattered the government afraid of mass unrest at the point of potential collapse cut interest rates to the point where the money used to purchase housing was in reality worthless unless it was invested in 'property' in the SE of the country.

Hence we are now in the present and although many of the more traditional people in the country just simply live in houses a substantial number of them perceive housing as an 'investment' or 'pension', we shall call them 'rentiers' an old french term from before the revolution.

Government policies have manipulated the housing market for financial gain and resulted too many rentiers and we all know where that story ends.

Thursday, December 27, 2012 08:26PM Report Comment

24. libertas said...

Quiet Guy, no, YOU FAIL!!

Unless you are completely forgetful, the first quantitative easing efforts (done stealthily) were firstly, after the Millennium bug nonsense and then, during the crash. We should have had a short, sharp recession right back then with higher interest rates to reflect the risk conditions, but they held rates at a level and pumped money into the economy.

Infact, the money supply has continually grown, both prior to 1971 but, accellerating after due to the Dollar leaving the gold window. Really began accelerating 1983 and began today's parabolic rise around the year 2000, with the excuse of the Millennium Bug.

Thursday, December 27, 2012 08:41PM Report Comment

25. libertas said...

That above, is why pensioners, despite squirreling cash into savings, property and pensions, cannot afford to support themselves. Unless you challenge the root cause of this, which is primarily inflation, then you yourself will suffer the same fate, presuming you live that long.

Shame on you bastards for barracking your parents and the elderly, who are helpless victims.

For those Christian amongst you, I shall remind you of the Ten Commandments:
“‘Honor your father and your mother, as the LORD your God commanded you, that your days may be long, and that it may go well with you in the land that the LORD your God is giving you."

Thursday, December 27, 2012 08:45PM Report Comment

26. quiet guy said...

"the first quantitative easing efforts (done stealthily) were firstly, after the Millennium bug nonsense and then, during the crash."

What a pile of steaming dung. When faced with a simpe observation that contradicts your religious belief in inflation as the explanation for everything, you rewrite history with some 'stealthy' nonsense. I also note that I was talking about the UK whereas you have switched the focus to the US.

Facts. Awkward things aren't they, Libertas?

Thursday, December 27, 2012 09:58PM Report Comment

27. nod2glod said...

libertas, you are correct, the credit boom started way before the 2007. And that is why it was called the credit crunch, because the previous levels of leverage and credit creation had final imploded, only to be re inflated by tarp, QE, LTRO, etc.

however the system which caused all of this evolved while the boomer generation were voting themselves expanding entitlements at their childrens expense. This is continuing now with the current generation, but i think that we all understand we are rapidly reaching a point of inflection. well atleast us - the readers of this and other sites - understand this, most are still unaware of the problems. There is plenty pain coming to go around, it will fall on the elderly, and it will fall on the young. But most of all it will fall on the unprepared.

although there is antagonism on this site, and some differences in opinion, i think we should all try to realise that actually there is more in common between our various view points.

i hope in the new year we can continue to share view points, and all learn from each other.

peace to all and a happy new year. (may we have many more...hopefully)

Thursday, December 27, 2012 10:26PM Report Comment

28. nod2glod said...

@24. libertas obviously didn't mean they were actually QE operations before 2007. Credit has been expanding rapidly for the last 30 years. This is why the western governments are doing so much QE, as they are attempting to fill in for the deflation caused by the poping of the of the previous credit expansion. This can easily be seen from the bush/green span years where the FED rate was pulled down after each boom which reinflated a nw bubble. This is how we went from the stock bubble to the dot com to the housing bubble to now the soverign debt bubble. QE is just the final deseperate gasp of a dying fiat money system. But don't be mistaken, governments have been juicing the economy since before 1971.

Thursday, December 27, 2012 10:34PM Report Comment

29. quiet guy said...


"libertas obviously didn't mean they were actually QE operations before 2007."

Uhm, that's what he said:

"the first quantitative easing efforts (done stealthily) were firstly, after the Millennium bug nonsense"

Now you're tellng me that stealthy QE in 2000 is actually another way of describing rising consumer credit or something else? (not inflation? Libertas might be upset with you.) The term "quantitative easing" was virtually unknown in Western banking until the credit crunch and has a specific meaning: central banks buying government securities or other securities.

Obviously, if anybody questions this post, I reserve the right to modify the meaning of anything in it later as I see fit since that's the standard we set now.

Thursday, December 27, 2012 11:23PM Report Comment

30. libertas said...

Quiet Guy. Reagan doubled the size of government, so did Bush. Obama also did.

The problem you have is that you are thinking in a linear pattern so focus on present calamity. However, a non-linear exponential curve is slow to get started and whilst the early phases look insignificant later on, they were infact a necessary precursor for the later parabolic rise.

Indeed, those of your friends and family who presently do not see a crisis would state that, lets say if we get hyperinflation in 2015, that this was when the crisis began and you would tell them no, the seeds were planted in 2007 to which they would say how silly you were since we were then battling deflation. So its all a matter of perspective and levels of sophistication. The problem is, that to see the beginning of the exponential curve you need a microscope, but its still there.

Friday, December 28, 2012 10:38AM Report Comment

31. libertas said...

I was looking recently at a school project I did about my house, when I were a child.

My Parent's house, which I lived in, was on the market for £30,000 when they purchased it in 1979. It then went on the market for £110,000 in 1984. This is why I am aghast to hear from Quiet Guy that credit booms are a recent invention. Infact, if you were born after America and Britain left the gold standard, way back in the 1930's, then you have, your entire life, lived through a credit boom.

If you fail to recognise the social fallout from said global policy of inflation, then all efforts, such as a new tax here, a little tinker there, a new subsidy or social security payment there or a regulation here, all those things will simply amplify problems by creating new ones. Infact, most of said solutions require further money printing or Marxist re-distribution of wealth, which means that for almost 100 years now, we have amplified the problem to solve the problem.

But as I've said, Marxism and Socialism are a religion, infact the Communist Manifesto states that religion will be abolished simply because the State becomes God. Hence, true believers, even those who just believe in a small aspect of it like Mark Wadsworth, they will swear blind, reject facts, and push on like they are on a Jihad with their claims that if only we had the right tax or, if only we printed the right amount of money and spent it in the right way, that we would solve the problem.

But no, the solution is to end all that and to stop printing money and re-instate sound money and personal responsibility.

In addition, we know that private donations tend to outstrip government donations in the face of callamity so, it goes to reason that charities would be bulging at the seams if we cut tax back to where it should be, round about 10%, as it was during the Victorian era.

Friday, December 28, 2012 10:47AM Report Comment

32. letthemfall said...

Anything worthwhile you may have to contribute to any discussion is always completely undermined by your habit of abusing those much wiser than yourself who disagree with your arguments (such as they are), which ironically (given your accusations of religiosity) have the flavour of a zealot's.

Friday, December 28, 2012 03:06PM Report Comment

33. mark wadsworth said...

Piddly abandons facts as per usual

"Marx, house price rises are not paper gains. No, they reflect devaluation of Sterling."

Nope. There is a direct POSITIVE correlation between UK house prices and strength of sterling.

Here are the facts.

"Quiet Guy. Reagan doubled the size of government, so did Bush. Obama also did."

Er, so government spending accounted for (say) 20% of GDP under Jimmy Carter, 40% under Reagan, 80% under Bush and 160% under Obama? Something not quite right with your maths there, Piddly!

"This is why I am aghast to hear from Quiet Guy that credit booms are a recent invention. Infact, if you were born after America and Britain left the gold standard, way back in the 1930's, then you have, your entire life, lived through a credit boom."

"Quiet Guy. Reagan doubled the size of government, so did Bush. Obama also did."

Er, so government spending accounted for (say) 20% of GDP under Jimmy Carter, 40% under Reagan, 80% under Bush and 160% under Obama? Something not quite right with your maths there, Piddly!

These 18-year credit booms-busts have been going on since long before then. And even though the UK had the 'gold standard' for a long time, it was still running deficits and govt debt was only supported by future tax receipts, not gold in vaults (if you have gold in vaults, you don't need to borrow, do you?)

Here are the facts, in an article from over a century ago.

"if we cut tax back to where it should be, round about 10%, as it was during the Victorian era."

Taxes as a share of GDP were much the same under the Victorians as they are today. Admittedly, income tax was low to non-existent, but privately collected taxes (the ground rents which landowners collected from the ninety per cent of people who were tenants in Victorian times) made up the difference. That is the irreducible share of taxes in the economy, the ground rents. If the government doesn't collect them then the bankers and landowners will. And however inefficient the government is, they are far more likely to spend it on stuff which benefits everybody than the landowners and bankers.

Friday, December 28, 2012 04:34PM Report Comment

34. quiet guy said...

"I am aghast to hear from Quiet Guy that credit booms are a recent invention."

I said no such thing. I merely pointed out that you claimed QE goes back to the millennium bug. You are trying to change/avoid the subject - much like your reponse to Shipbuilder's questions.

Friday, December 28, 2012 05:43PM Report Comment

35. peter_2008 said...

@Libertas, I am not saying that a rip off on people’s property asset is good. My point is that it is unfair that property investment gets preferential treatment in comparison with others.

Yes, a rip off on property asset is bad. But is it a rip off worse than a rip off on, say savings, pensions and other investments? It isn’t.

It feels worse, ONLY because the presumption/ideology that property asset is more important to human beings, which is not true. And that is my main complain.

Many people don’t consider property as a good investment. 60% homeownership doesn’t mean that 60% of the UK population thinks property is a good investment. Many are only buying a “home”.

They may rather invest in something else. For example, people may find that investment in companies is much easier, logical and predictable that property market. But these people are being punished for not investing in property.

You talked about savings/pensions. The government takes away 20%-40% of the profit I earn on my saving or stock investment. This simply does not happen, if it is property. This is not fair.

Friday, December 28, 2012 11:27PM Report Comment

36. nod2glod said...

"Quiet Guy. Reagan doubled the size of government, so did Bush. Obama also did."

"Er, so government spending accounted for (say) 20% of GDP under Jimmy Carter, 40% under Reagan, 80% under Bush and 160% under Obama? Something not quite right with your maths there, Piddly!"

Doubling the size of government doesn't mean a doubling of % of GDP. Shame on you for sure a cheap shot. The facts:
'81: US spending: 1073.12B
'89: US spending: 1915.12B
increase: 78%

Bush I
'89: US spending: 1915.12B
'93: US spending: 2420.82B
increase: 26% (single term office)

Bush II
'91: US spending: 2230.30B
'01: US spending: 3428.55B
increase: 53%

'01: US spending: 3428.55B
'09: target 100%: 6856B

Saturday, December 29, 2012 12:03AM Report Comment

37. mark wadsworth said...

Nod, of course Obama is spending a lot more than Carter was in nominal terms, but it's more important to measure it as a share of GDP. I'm happy to believe that it has increased as a share of GDP over the last thirty or forty years, but it has not gone up eightfold.

Saturday, December 29, 2012 10:27AM Report Comment

38. This comment has been removed as it was found to be in breach of our Blog Policies.


Add comment

Username   Admin Password (optional)
Email Address
  • If you do not have an admin password leave the password field blank.
  • If you would like to request a password allowing you to add comments and blog news articles without needing each one approved manually, send an e-mail to the webmaster.
  • Your email address is required so we can verify that the comment is genuine. It will not be posted anywhere on the site, will be stored confidentially by us and never given out to any third party.
  • Please note that any viewpoints published here as comments are user's views and not the views of
  • Please adhere to the Guidelines

Main Blog | Archive | Add Article | Blog Policies