The Knimbies who say No Posted June 24, 2014 Share Posted June 24, 2014 ThePiltdownMan, they need a car to be able to get across to their children's homes early enough to assume childcare duties for their grandchildren whilst their debtslave offspring spend all day with their nose to the grindstone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
winkie Posted June 24, 2014 Share Posted June 24, 2014 Two routes to financial independence .......one involves working hard, the other watching outgoing and not feeding the beast. No prizes for guessing the ''dandier'' route. ...l think working hard does have a part to play, spend less than you earn whilst working, spending what you have always done when not....instead of borrowing the future you work to invest for the future....anything you do is a gamble, nothing is guaranteed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
weaker Posted June 24, 2014 Share Posted June 24, 2014 weaker, on 23 Jun 2014 - 10:39 AM, said: Totally agree with 'not feed the beast'. How does this living fit in with your social circle and other half. I assume a few beers out with your mates can easily become a cost/benefit decision when you have long term financials to consider. I've traveled a lot over the last 2 decades and you see the same thing with backpackers. Some people will hole up in say Indonesia say for months living on water and hostel films for 30 quid a week which obviously can be extended for many years for very little cost but isn't something that appeals to me. Essentially my hobbies and passtimes, going out etc. take about 1/3 of my income.. £250/month ish. 150 on food and the rest on bills. I do go out fairly frequently, but it's quite cheap to do that where I live (e.g. train ticket to destinations within 5 miles about £3, beach £7, drinks £2.50/pint bitter). My income can expand a bit if needed too. My best coup was to get FreesatFromSky(FSFS) and stop paying Rupert! (yay!)... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
winkie Posted June 24, 2014 Share Posted June 24, 2014 I just about to join a golf club, there are no joining fees and the yearly subs were 50% of what I was paying in the early nineties (and joining fee was £4500 back then). There are too many golf courses chasing not enough golfers (maybe different in London/SE) Funny you should mention that....saw one the other day, sign outside, new members welcome.....maybe they would do better putting some houses up, nice ones the local workers could afford to buy or rent without having to have to top up with benefits to live....credits this or that, housing benefits and extras......why, they could even try building them themselves, all that is required is some land and services....better use of money than a lifetime of state dependant benefits. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest The Relaxation Suite Posted June 24, 2014 Share Posted June 24, 2014 Again this is a problem caused by unaffordable house prices. When mortgages were easily serviced by one wage and house prices were affordable, a mortgage could be cleared relatively easily and that of course left plenty of income for spending on the high street, and also for saving for a pension. Today people have to give everything they bring home to international investment banks via their mortgage and there is nothing left for spending or pensions. The spending problem has been solved just by easy credit and borrowing more, but the pensions are not being saved. Government is irresponsible and has caused this crisis. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Si1 Posted June 24, 2014 Share Posted June 24, 2014 This couldn't have anything to do with mortgages, could it? This And only this Barclay's have analysed their mortgage book and seen that a lot of them won't be paid off given the mortgagees' circumstances Since barclay's are a comparatively conservative lender, this suggests that the problem runs deeper Of course the other way boomers could pay off debts would be to sell assets... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
campervanman Posted June 25, 2014 Share Posted June 25, 2014 When 8 families own more wealth than 50% of the UK population then of course pensions of £17500 are affordable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crashmonitor Posted June 25, 2014 Share Posted June 25, 2014 (edited) When 8 families own more wealth than 50% of the UK population then of course pensions of £17500 are affordable. Wealth can be a bit misleading, I'm sure the said 8 families would be bankrupt within days if not hours if they had to support the incomes and welfare of the bottom 50%. I guess most of us can cover the wealth of a few million at the bottom (assuming liabilities are taken into account) because they have got nothing or negative wealth. Edited June 25, 2014 by crashmonitor Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Si1 Posted June 25, 2014 Share Posted June 25, 2014 (edited) Wealth can be a bit misleading, I'm sure the said 8 families would be bankrupt within days if not hours if they had to support the incomes and welfare of the bottom 50%.It's not just thatThere's no means to get the money out of them Socialists love going on and on about wealth inequality but have no answer as to how to achieve it without killing the golden goose They do love telling everyone to give them more money and then conveniently ignore the fact that their unworkable schemes just make everyone generally poorer, except them of course quaffing their champagne and talking sh1te Eg bailing out the bankers Edited June 25, 2014 by Si1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fluffy666 Posted June 25, 2014 Share Posted June 25, 2014 It's not just that There's no means to get the money out of them Socialists love going on and on about wealth inequality but have no answer as to how to achieve it without killing the golden goose They do love telling everyone to give them more money and then conveniently ignore the fact that their unworkable schemes just make everyone generally poorer, except them of course quaffing their champagne and talking sh1te Eg bailing out the bankers Bailing out the bankers was about as un-socialist as you can get.. Corporatism - running the country for the benefit of large corporations and the very wealthy - is neither socialist or capitalist. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
porca misèria Posted June 25, 2014 Share Posted June 25, 2014 Bailing out the bankers was about as un-socialist as you can get.. Debatable. It wasn't banks back then, but bailouts and zombies were a core part of 1960s/70s 'real' socialism that led to the '70s bust. It seems to me that it is indeed in the socialist mindset to see all the horrors of a big company going bust, but be blind to the damage the deadweight of a zombie does to new/innovative companies and prospects for growth. Hence the socialist instinctively needs to bail out certain types of zombie. NuLab (and the coalition) were a halfway house, but when faced with a big bust they turned in panic to their natural instincts and intervened. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexw Posted June 25, 2014 Share Posted June 25, 2014 i suspect by the time us GenXers retire interest rates may be somewhat higher than they are now. Rubbish annuities are a direct product of rubbish low interest rates - I seriously think we have these low rates due to the current population profile. Those retiring and living off interest or buying annuities exceed those joining the system, this excess of savings coupled with low investment borrowing demand keeps interest rates low. I am sure once the boomers have either been forced to buy an annuity or have spent all their capital through draw down that things will change. +1 Here's someone who appears to get it. There is a vast global surplus of capital vs the need for capital. As with all things if supply outstrips demand the price goes down.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexw Posted June 25, 2014 Share Posted June 25, 2014 Again this is a problem caused by unaffordable house prices. When mortgages were easily serviced by one wage and house prices were affordable, a mortgage could be cleared relatively easily and that of course left plenty of income for spending on the high street, and also for saving for a pension. Today people have to give everything they bring home to international investment banks via their mortgage and there is nothing left for spending or pensions. The spending problem has been solved just by easy credit and borrowing more, but the pensions are not being saved. Government is irresponsible and has caused this crisis. Partly right. The other bit is that wages for the average citizen have become completely disconnected from productivity. If you are producing more goods and services as long as wages rise in line with productivity then consumers can afford to consume based on their wages. But since that has not been happening for decades, some other method has had to be found to fill the gap, that is why our betters have been loading us down with debt. The problem is though, they didn't ask what happens when debt saturation is reached.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexw Posted June 25, 2014 Share Posted June 25, 2014 I would nuance that statement with "on existing ideas and markets". The ability of capital to be deployed profitably depends on new markets being developed rather than price competition and compression in existing markets. There are times when there are floods of new ideas and innovations. When they stall trouble can start. The thing is, there seems to be an innate limit to the rate at which modern socities can do that innovation, or at least implement the results. We just don't see super-innovative socities that move ahead in leaps and bounds (outside of catch up societies copying already implemented ideas and innovations). That being the case then there must also be a limit to the rate at which capital can be effectively employed and my previous statement holds true. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Si1 Posted June 25, 2014 Share Posted June 25, 2014 Bailing out the bankers was about as un-socialist as you can get.. Corporatism - running the country for the benefit of large corporations and the very wealthy - is neither socialist or capitalist. I think PM said it rather well. I agree that bailing out the banks is not per se a socialist action However it's a result of the internal contradiction socialism plays out between its ideals (honourable if naive) and cynical hard reality, that is it happened on their watch even though in hindsight they never meant it that way Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crashmonitor Posted June 27, 2014 Share Posted June 27, 2014 (edited) Overheard a coupe of guys talking this morning, one aged 60 and the other 63. The one who was 63, after several years in the benefit system, was now getting default state pension early....ie. because women of that age get the state pension, a man can also rather than be unemployed. His assessment of the situation, it feels like I have won the National Lottery. The other aged 60, in the benefits system, was bemoaning the fact that he would be under the unemployed cosh for years ahead because he was born too late. I guess as far as the precariat are concerned the moving of the state retirement age from a default age of 60 for men and women has been cataclysmic...former ''lottery winners'' at 60 and now suicidal unemployed claimants in the mental health system. The elite will never understand that as it was always pin money for them. Lottery winner not such a stupid comparison, any idea what a superannuated pay out of £7,000 a year would cost you as an open market option. Edited June 27, 2014 by crashmonitor Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
South Lorne Posted June 27, 2014 Share Posted June 27, 2014 ......Lottery winner not such a stupid comparison, any idea what a superannuated pay out of £7,000 a year would cost you as an open market option. ..even better if they can top it up with a part time job....keep the fading faculties alive...and blooming.. . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
winkie Posted June 27, 2014 Share Posted June 27, 2014 Overheard a coupe of guys talking this morning, one aged 60 and the other 63. The one who was 63, after several years in the benefit system, was now getting default state pension early....ie. because women of that age get the state pension, a man can also rather than be unemployed. His assessment of the situation, it feels like I have won the National Lottery. The other aged 60, in the benefits system, was bemoaning the fact that he would be under the unemployed cosh for years ahead because he was born too late. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crashmonitor Posted June 28, 2014 Share Posted June 28, 2014 And to think that the cohort 1938-1948 have often been described as the luckiest generation in terms of access to wealth and property....inspite of a tough upbringing. What were the Pony Tails thinking of. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olliegog Posted June 28, 2014 Share Posted June 28, 2014 ..even better if they can top it up with a part time job....keep the fading faculties alive...and blooming.. . but if they did that - he would 'lose' his pension credit (which is not a default state pension0 but a form of minimum income guarantee ) and of course all the add-on freebies that come with it. I see the concept of 'pension credit' is laudable in preventing the pavement being littered with pecunious OAPs but feel it is sending the wrong message that if you save/work the man has to wait until 65 for his pension but the more feckless get to pocket £225 a week as a couple even if only one of them is over 63 (used to be over 60) and the other could go out and earn a crust. - and that is in addition to full HB, full council tax, cold weather payments, free boilers, discounted utility bills etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crashmonitor Posted June 28, 2014 Share Posted June 28, 2014 (edited) The end result is a default state pension at 63.......no more job centre interviews or signing on, just the minimum income guarantee going into the bank like anybody else over 65 that hasn't a full national insurance record or private means. But sex discrimination, with women still going at 63, being the principal reason. I am in favour of the new universal pension, because we have a situation now where those that haven't worked might get a higher state pension than those that have but have other private means; particularly the self employed who don't have SERP additions. Edited June 28, 2014 by crashmonitor Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
durhamborn Posted June 28, 2014 Share Posted June 28, 2014 Dont forget anyone born from 1960 onwards cant get the state pension until 66-67. The reason they are pushing out the numbers and bringing in the new pension are to do away with pension credit.Nobody knows yet how the means tested benefits will work (HB/Council tax etc) under the new flat pension.There is a chance they might use the means test that they use now for everybody of working age.If they do someone on the new flat rate pension might see £45 of it going to pay the rent. They are also doing away with savings credit,another part of pension credit.They might means test directly from the flat rate pension level. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crashmonitor Posted June 28, 2014 Share Posted June 28, 2014 (edited) Indeed, it's giving with one hand and taking with the other, the rise in pension age will make the changes neutral on Government expenditure. I'm pencilled in for 67 in 2031, subject to the moving goalposts. Less for longer would have suited me better from 65....however, at least I should receive at least the same as those on minimum income guarantee which feels more just ....I am on my 35th year of NIC currently. Moreover the new legislation has freed up private pension pots which is great for me, spending the pot in order to get the minimum income guarantee has been virtually taken out of the equation now. Edited June 28, 2014 by crashmonitor Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neverwhere Posted June 28, 2014 Share Posted June 28, 2014 Dont forget anyone born from 1960 onwards cant get the state pension until 66-67. Already up to 68 for anyone born from 6th April 1978 onwards and they have been discussing 70 recently. Given the moving goal posts I'd personally be a bit surprised to get a state pension before I'm 6ft underground. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
South Lorne Posted June 28, 2014 Share Posted June 28, 2014 but if they did that - he would 'lose' his pension credit (which is not a default state pension0 but a form of minimum income guarantee ) and of course all the add-on freebies that come with it. I see the concept of 'pension credit' is laudable in preventing the pavement being littered with pecunious OAPs but feel it is sending the wrong message that if you save/work the man has to wait until 65 for his pension but the more feckless get to pocket £225 a week as a couple even if only one of them is over 63 (used to be over 60) and the other could go out and earn a crust. - and that is in addition to full HB, full council tax, cold weather payments, free boilers, discounted utility bills etc. ...no wonder the feckless wish to emigrate to this la la land....which in the medium term is not viable ...and will crash......legacy of the clown now long gone....... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.