Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Si1

Telegraph Wailing That Boomers Pensions Aren't Going To Be Enough

Recommended Posts

No Boomers in my family, my parents were born in 1938 and 1942 and had sweet fa during their childhood. I appeared in 1965, witnessed the 3-day week, miners strike, common market referendum, 100% HPI during 1988/89, had a 'Low-Cost Endowment', black monday, dot.com bubble etc etc and now have a mortgage till I'm 65. I'm now classed as a HRT payer yet still drive around in a 10 year old car and don't routinely go on holidays so I can put just over 25% of my pay into a pension fund so I don't have to work doing the same old thing till I'm 67.

I also think BTL is morally repugnant and our modern economy is built enitrely on ever cheaper sources of debt and financing.

Going out now to beat up 50 miles of road on my bicycle, remember the best things in life if not free are relatively cheap and never under estimate the beauty on your doorstep.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well it is dawning on them that the big state they have voted for all their lives have been lying little shits, and they have allowed their friends in the city to run off with all the pension savings.

No such thing as a free lunch; a lesson about to be learnt by many people around pensionable age.

Edited by doomed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well it is dawning on them that the big state they have voted for all their lives have been lying little shits, and they have allowed their friends in the city to run off with all the pension savings.

No such thing as a free lunch; a lesson about to be learnt by many people around pensionable age.

I think that's it's more to do with increasing life expectancy.

Our current systems devised immediately after the war was designed to that your worked until 65 and then passed away in your late 60's or early 70's. So 5 to 7 years of retirement to fund.

Given that life expectancy has increased significantly with only a 2 year extension of the retirement age its unsurprising that the system is coming under huge stress.

I blame the NHS and medical science!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that's it's more to do with increasing life expectancy.

Our current systems devised immediately after the war was designed to that your worked until 65 and then passed away in your late 60's or early 70's. So 5 to 7 years of retirement to fund.

Given that life expectancy has increased significantly with only a 2 year extension of the retirement age its unsurprising that the system is coming under huge stress.

I blame the NHS and medical science!!

If only the poor would die off quickly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

eerm - you do realise that this is talking about people who are NOT YET pensioners (as the name implies)

using the term 'boomers' is lazy shorthand when you want to make a point that anyone born before 1955 is an evil b******

these are the post-(immediate-post war) cohort.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its hard to put your finger on the time when the Telegraph stopped by a right-leaning broadsheet and became the Dialy Mail ithout any Hollyoaks girls.

But its there now.

When in fcksake has BTL been regards as a pension? Its ony been going - at great cost to UK taxpayer (B++B) since ~2002ish.

IO BTL is a low return, high risk investment FFS.

The article on LI is nuts.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/insurance/life/my-life-insurance-cover-was-cut-by-75pc-but-i-have-to-keep-payin/

'Nearly 15 million consumers protect their families and their mortgages with a form of insurance called whole-of-life. Thousands are being hit by eye-watering reductions in their level of cover after paying their premiums for 15 or 20 years. '

'Andrew Holland, 50, of Basingstoke, Hampshire, said: “I was completely shocked. I still have a mortgage and need it protected for the sake of my family. It is not quite so large now, but it is bigger than £36,000.” '

Oh wow! Shocking!!!!! LI costs more as yout get older and theodds on you dying shorten.

If only the person knew!!!

'Mr Holland said: “I did know the terms could change. But it never occurred to me that cover could be reduced so dramatically. It is the scale and suddenness that came as a shock.” '

Oh, he did.

HOw in earth did they get into this state???

'Whole-of-life policies notionally combine an investment and insurance contract. Salesmen promised that the investment fund would hatch a nest-egg, which could be partly used to subsidise the rising cost of life cover as people got older, and would also provide a welcome lump sum, which could be withdrawn later in life, or passed to family at death. But to make sure the policy was on target, reviews would be held at five-year intervals.'

Ahhh, greedy commision salesmen and greedy dumb policy buyer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

eerm - you do realise that this is talking about people who are NOT YET pensioners (as the name implies)

using the term 'boomers' is lazy shorthand when you want to make a point that anyone born before 1955 is an evil b******

these are the post-(immediate-post war) cohort.

The bulk of boomers, by number, were born 1945-1955. They stretch the category out till 1965 (20 years) but the birth rate had fallen off by then.

A Y! boomer will be 71 now.

The midyear boomer (1955) is 61.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

eerm - you do realise that this is talking about people who are NOT YET pensioners (as the name implies)

using the term 'boomers' is lazy shorthand when you want to make a point that anyone born before 1955 is an evil b******

these are the post-(immediate-post war) cohort.

So to condense opinions it pretty much all boils down to everyone born before 1955 as well as most everyone born after 1955 ;)

Edited by billybong

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Referring to the OP's telegraph link for sure most people will realise that this general issue (inadequate pension provision etc) has been the subject of newspaper headlines and articles at least for the past 50 years and maybe even since records began - and it seems that the UK is still no further forward and in fact in every year that passes it seems to take several steps back. It's an issue piggy backing on the "boomer" word fashion

Edited by billybong

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Until Gordon Brown started taxing pensions the UK had a very well funded pension pot.

It was also one argument used at the time to not join the single currency, the euro would steal our pension funds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No Boomers in my family, my parents were born in 1938 and 1942 and had sweet fa during their childhood. I appeared in 1965, witnessed the 3-day week, miners strike, common market referendum, 100% HPI during 1988/89, had a 'Low-Cost Endowment', black monday, dot.com bubble etc etc and now have a mortgage till I'm 65. I'm now classed as a HRT payer yet still drive around in a 10 year old car and don't routinely go on holidays so I can put just over 25% of my pay into a pension fund so I don't have to work doing the same old thing till I'm 67.

I also think BTL is morally repugnant and our modern economy is built enitrely on ever cheaper sources of debt and financing.

Going out now to beat up 50 miles of road on my bicycle, remember the best things in life if not free are relatively cheap and never under estimate the beauty on your doorstep.

Okay but if it's so tough why not sell up into a HPI bubble - instead of telling those of us massively priced out by BTL speculators from homeownership, and in turn so many other boomers seeing asset prices .

I'm just fed up of those tipping up here with the revelation the best things in life are free.

Like we underestimate glories / life / nature / friendship around us, or don't have lives of our own which encompass all of that. It's all fine but I want more than a priced-out spiritual destiny for family, friends and younger people, in a house price bubble and kicking up rent to a BTLer.

That RLA fella, for all his 'you know who to blame' / 'give us back our tax relief (BTLers)' against the Government videos on YouTube, sure has got some print for his latest squeal claim. They are squealing already - and it's completely irritating entitlement squealing.

But the market can also be vexed by government policy. For many people, buy-to-let is a form of old-age investment, so they are greatly disappointed that the Government has decided to impose a 3 per cent stamp duty surcharge on additional properties and curb tax relief on mortgage interest. The Residential Landlords Association says it was told by a Treasury minister that “if landlords are squealing then... the medicine is working” – an extraordinary and depressing admission.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The bulk of boomers, by number, were born 1945-1955. They stretch the category out till 1965 (20 years) but the birth rate had fallen off by then.

A Y! boomer will be 71 now.

The midyear boomer (1955) is 61.

Correct for the US but not the Uk

Britain had two post war baby booms.

One short one of about 2 years after the end of the second world war and another that began in the late 1950s and peaked in the mid 1960s but ran onto at least 1974.

Birth-rates-USA-and-UK-650b.png

Barry Pearson has pulled the common misconceptions about the UK baby boom apart on his blog many times.

http://blog.barrypearson.co.uk/?p=8

http://blog.barrypearson.co.uk/?p=3784

http://blog.barrypearson.co.uk/?p=3634

The birth rate figures also take no account on other factors in the population makeup including immigration and mortality which reflect current events not what happened 60 or more years ago.

In fact most of the post war baby boom generation wont be retiring until the late 2020s or later

The key figure impacting pension affordability is rising life expectancy post retirement which means more people are being supported longer by the working age population, The answer to that is simply to up the retirement age, increase contribution requirements and flatten out the state pension which is what the government have already done.

Edited by stormymonday_2011

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not going to be enough to buy what?.....more people with less can only pull prices down to match available funds.... Proving that much of the economy has been driven not on what people have to spend but what top-ups that have been borrowed to spend and free equity top-ups that have never been worked for.....unsustainable.;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Until Gordon Brown started taxing pensions the UK had a very well funded pension pot.

It was also one argument used at the time to not join the single currency, the euro would steal our pension funds.

I read something quite interesting the other day that for the average pension scheme member the tax raid amounts to no more than about £100 a year. Now if that is true then something else has been going on (for example did the tax raid manage to totally deplete the BHS pension fund), as much as I detest Brown I wouldn't be surprised if shenanigans (or incompetence) really are to blame for the pension fund problems.

If I could remember where I'd post a link.

Edited by olde guto

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I read something quite interesting the other day that for the average pension scheme member the tax raid amounts to no more than about £100 a year. Now if that is true then something else has been going on (for example did the tax raid manage to totally deplete the BHS pension fund), as much as I detest Brown I wouldn't be surprised if shenanigans (or incompetence) really are to blame for the pension fund problems.

If I could remember where I'd post a link.

No he taxed the dividend income. That's was a big sum.

It was all down to Brown wanting everyone to be in the states pocket, voting for him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I read something quite interesting the other day that for the average pension scheme member the tax raid amounts to no more than about £100 a year. Now if that is true then something else has been going on (for example did the tax raid manage to totally deplete the BHS pension fund), as much as I detest Brown I wouldn't be surprised if shenanigans (or incompetence) really are to blame for the pension fund problems.

If I could remember where I'd post a link.

It brings in about £10b a year - if there are 30 million workers in the UK and they all have a pension that is £300 a year each.

That is, on average across the working population over £10k is 'lost' from each pension pot by retirement (presuming that this situation carries on).

But, lots of workers have poor or non-existent pensions, so the average lost for each person with a 'reasonable' pension is likely to be more than this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/2016/05/15/britains-pensions-market-must-be-made-secure/

Moaning about life insurance policies being too little, BTL tax changes, basically free rides for boomers weren't free after all and it's wrong goddamit

It'll all be fine once they crank up the interest rates.,

fifteen years of bond-bubble madness at 0.5% per year yield is a bit of a problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I read something quite interesting the other day that for the average pension scheme member the tax raid amounts to no more than about £100 a year. Now if that is true then something else has been going on (for example did the tax raid manage to totally deplete the BHS pension fund), as much as I detest Brown I wouldn't be surprised if shenanigans (or incompetence) really are to blame for the pension fund problems.

If I could remember where I'd post a link.

The pension raid was tiny & made very little difference in the grand scheme of things, especially so as UK dividends no longer have any tax at source deducted. Possibly 1k over 10 years of a 100k fund. As pension payouts are taxable the net cost is even less

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No Boomers in my family, my parents were born in 1938 and 1942 and had sweet fa during their childhood. I appeared in 1965, witnessed the 3-day week, miners strike, common market referendum, 100% HPI during 1988/89, had a 'Low-Cost Endowment', black monday, dot.com bubble etc etc and now have a mortgage till I'm 65. I'm now classed as a HRT payer yet still drive around in a 10 year old car and don't routinely go on holidays so I can put just over 25% of my pay into a pension fund so I don't have to work doing the same old thing till I'm 67.

I also think BTL is morally repugnant and our modern economy is built enitrely on ever cheaper sources of debt and financing.

Going out now to beat up 50 miles of road on my bicycle, remember the best things in life if not free are relatively cheap and never under estimate the beauty on your doorstep.

Your pretty F**** close yourself if the accepted UK cut off is 1964 as birth year !!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think 'Boomer' is often used to reflect a mindset rather than a specific age group.

Exactly, and Chewing Grass the good news is your a boomer by birth...

"a person born during a baby boom, especially the one in the US or UK between approximately 1945 and 1965: Ageing baby boomers are creating a greater need for healthcare. baby-boomer. adjective [before noun] › The baby-boomer generation is now hitting retirement age"

From the Cambridge Dictionary. The Y's, X's and Millennials will put you up against the wall with the rest of us so forget the bicycle start browsing Autotrader for a tidy 2010/11 Jag XKR for 25% of it's original value that only boomers can afford to insure......... :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It'll all be fine once they crank up the interest rates.,

fifteen years of bond-bubble madness at 0.5% per year yield is a bit of a problem.

Exactly, life expency well overplayed compared to yields being shredded and the fact that most market based pensions rely on those yields to buy an annuity from the saved pension pot. Halve those yields and the required pot doubles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   62 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.