Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, kzb said:

Just to point out once again:

The proportion of people over 65 is about the same now as it was in 1981.

The proportion of people aged over 65 was actually greater in 1973 than it is now.

It's true it is forecast to increase going forward, but not by enough to cause the economic implosion you all seem to expect.

Anyhow, the forecasts will be incorrect.  Life expectancy is passing its peak and starting to reverse.  Reading the other day that the healthy life expectancy in Blackpool is now 47.

That is so true - my Mum was born in 1930 considered one of the healthiest generations because of balanced diet through rationing and not too much of it

Boomers probably benefited from fresh food and vitamin supplements from a young age and seem to be very fitness aware

Compare that to muffin topped, waddle chops playing games on the phone  sub 30 today (and don't even get onto binge drinking) - quite scary the impact this will have on health and life expectancy (or not depending how you look at it..)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Option5 said:

The second world war took out a lot of people who would have been under 65 in 1973

The cause of it is not the point though.

Actually I was incorrect about 1973.  I was recalling the working-age proportion, which was 62.45% in 1973, lower than in 2014 (64.92%).

However it turns out that the 65+ proportion was indeed a bit lower in 1973, working from memory I got my graphs a bit confused.  Due to age.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, crashmonitor said:

I think that was the route we were trying with immigration, not enough working age people to support the retired. Was never going to work on access level jobs. A small current revenue gain and massive liabilities once the migrant population  hits 68-70. Accruing liabilities are something never considered when Governments do sums as they live for today.

Basic Maths. New State pension £159.55pw/£8296pa accrued from 35 years = £237 pension for each year you pay NI.

To buy you an Annuity with RPI at age 67, that's probably a rate around 4.2% ish. So your £237pa benefit accrued in one year is akin to a £5642 lump sum being put aside for you.

How many of these recent migrants (let alone the locals topped up by Tax Credits) that we are told are working and contributing 'so much', actually pay £5642 in Tax + NI per year? It's going to have to go pop at some point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, kzb said:

Just to point out once again:

The proportion of people over 65 is about the same now as it was in 1981.

The proportion of people aged over 65 was actually greater in 1973 than it is now.

It's true it is forecast to increase going forward, but not by enough to cause the economic implosion you all seem to expect.

Anyhow, the forecasts will be incorrect.  Life expectancy is passing its peak and starting to reverse.  Reading the other day that the healthy life expectancy in Blackpool is now 47.

You are right, I exaggerated it:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Unbowed said:

Basic Maths. New State pension £159.55pw/£8296pa accrued from 35 years = £237 pension for each year you pay NI.

To buy you an Annuity with RPI at age 67, that's probably a rate around 4.2% ish. So your £237pa benefit accrued in one year is akin to a £5642 lump sum being put aside for you.

How many of these recent migrants (let alone the locals topped up by Tax Credits) that we are told are working and contributing 'so much', actually pay £5642 in Tax + NI per year? It's going to have to go pop at some point.

You've got to be earning over £30k throughout your working life to be a net contributor.

Only about 1 in 10 is a net contributor currently, and is even worse for the migrant population.  Uncontrolled immigration is not helping the problem in the long term, it's making it worse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Freki said:

You are right, I exaggerated it:

Playing that video, there could be an issue from about 2030-2035.  There is a bulge in the population that will reach pension age around this time.

Interestingly, after they've died off there is much less of a problem.  And that is even if the forecast increase in life expectancy  is correct, which it probably isn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, kzb said:

You've got to be earning over £30k throughout your working life to be a net contributor.

Only about 1 in 10 is a net contributor currently, and is even worse for the migrant population.  Uncontrolled low skilled immigration is not helping the problem in the long term, it's making it worse.

Even cuddly wuddly Canada is not as stupid to not set a skills, age and earning thresh-hold for any potential migrant. And they test you for TB.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Freki said:

I just think the burden is not shared in an equal measure. Levy some more taxes on the retired people.

And on the younger to build up a fund for the generation behind them!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Riedquat said:

Older is when you're more likely to have ill health, that's always been the case (assuming you survive childhood if you go back far enough), so it's no surprise. What's caused the problem is that there are treatments for some of that ill health, which cost, and with people living longer past retirement they cost for longer and there are proportionally more old people.

This aging population is something we need to live with, putting aside the question of younger generations killing themselves off earlier with unhealthy lifestyles. There's no way around it. Certainly anyone calling for more younger people to support it has completely failed to grasp the problems with pyramid schemes. Thankfully no-one in this thread seems to have fallen in to that trap.

Indeed.  There are real issues to address like the poor current preventative health care regime (food producers producing cr*p, lack of preventative medicine and public awareness, the power of big pharma).  Ideally we should also have an element of health insurance, if possible, that rewards a healthier lifestyle.  There is also a discussion about quality over quantity of life - just because we can, should we always and do we have a choice?  A hard discussion in which I'm sure perceptions change when it impacts you or your loved ones.  Not that I'm suggesting any enforcement.  Sounds like it's done a bit under the covers ATM (e.g. Liverpool Pathway?).  Health is almost unlimited in demand but has to be limited in supply.  There needs to be an open debate about that and some form of prioritisation.  But first is to reduce the demand by better living habits (and an element of living standards for some).  But yet again, we're not grown up enough and better we can be bribed instead.  Best to leave it to the elite civil servants and politicians to deal with.  After all, they've been doing such a grand job these last few decades!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, kzb said:

Playing that video, there could be an issue from about 2030-2035.  There is a bulge in the population that will reach pension age around this time.

Interestingly, after they've died off there is much less of a problem.  And that is even if the forecast increase in life expectancy  is correct, which it probably isn't.

It's only not a problem if some idiots don't try to support that bulge by piling up the numbers behind it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, crashmonitor said:

I think that was the route we were trying with immigration, not enough working age people to support the retired. Was never going to work on access level jobs. A small current revenue gain and massive liabilities once the migrant population  hits 68-70. Accruing liabilities are something never considered when Governments do sums as they live for today.

Yes, absolutely, yet another temporary politician's con.  Not if those extra people add little to GDP per head (only a false increase in total GDP at best).  Fools economics.  I don't see all these extra people taking highly skilled, GDP enriching, well paying jobs.  Plus, they cost (health, housing etc), which is hidden from the stats (or rather not joined up when disingenuous people talk about the "tax take"), and as you say cost in the longer term given benefit, including pension, entitlements (which again are ignored by the tricksters).  

Edited by Fence

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Riedquat said:

Oh definitely. It makes my blood boil though when I hear people claim that we absolutely, unquestionably need immigration for this reason. And the same would be true if the answer was "have loads of children" instead. It's such self-destructive short-termism that it's unbelievable.

Even with people living longer there is a bit of a bulge in the demographics that'll work its way through (and will probably require a bit of tightening the purse strings to manage). The worst thing to do will be to support that bulge from underneath instead of letting it run its course.

Some people appear to just be "loves" or "luvvies" who live in a dream world devoid of responsible economics and, even ultimately, social responsibility (ironically the very thing they're yapping on about).  I've seen some truly awful things happen because of the ignorant and simplistic actions of such people who profess they care but ultimately just seem to be full of themselves.  Changing the world is a bl**dy hard job most people aren't up to doing and should stay well away and make a better (real) contribution some other way.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Cosmic Apple said:

TWO fifths is 40%... just saying :)

Thanks, been said and addressed already!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, kzb said:

..... Reading the other day that the healthy life expectancy in Blackpool is now 47.

Thank heavens I never liked candy floss!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, spyguy said:

Even cuddly wuddly Canada is not as stupid to not set a skills, age and earning thresh-hold for any potential migrant. And they test you for TB.

I've lived a large chunk of my life overseas (including adorable Canada) and the UK is a joke compared to most, if not all.  I've had medicals, police checks, financial checks, interviews, references, employment checks, etc, etc, even in the most "basic" of countries.  I've even been subject to a serious and detailed interview by Canadian immigration (but I still luv 'em!).  And I never had a problem with it all - they all seemed very sensible to me and made the country even more attractive.  And I made a net contribution everywhere, although I counselled they should replace me on one job with a local.

Edited by Fence

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've posted this several times before on here, but here goes again:

Persons over state pension age as a percentage of working age  population:

2015:  30%

2016:  31%

2020:  28%  (NOTE this is a decrease !)

2030:  32%

These numbers factor in the planned changes to state pension age.

http://www.pensionspolicyinstitute.org.uk/pension-facts/pension-facts-tables/table-1-demographics

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, crashmonitor said:

Good advice. Meanwhile here's a link to the access rules for a 55 year old. (paragraph...how can I access)

https://www.portafina.co.uk/pensions/can-I-access-money-from-an-opted-out-SERPS-scheme

 

Thanks for the link..

Me and my mate, same age, same situation really, not a pot to p*ss in..

I opted out of SERPS in 1989, now have a pot in total for £24k.

He never opted out of SERPS.

At ages between 55 and 66 I can withdraw £6k a year for four years. Then not have a pot to piss in.

He still has nothing, but we both receive the same state pension at 66.

Seems to good to be true. I guess if I leave it until I am 66, withdraw £6k a year until I am 69, the pot will have grown somewhat, and it will not effect my state pension?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Panda said:

Thanks for the link..

Me and my mate, same age, same situation really, not a pot to p*ss in..

I opted out of SERPS in 1989, now have a pot in total for £24k.

He never opted out of SERPS.

At ages between 55 and 66 I can withdraw £6k a year for four years. Then not have a pot to piss in.

He still has nothing, but we both receive the same state pension at 66.

Seems to good to be true. I guess if I leave it until I am 66, withdraw £6k a year until I am 69, the pot will have grown somewhat, and it will not effect my state pension?

I would check the statement I have highlighted.  I think if you were in SERPS you still get some benefit from it. 

I think he might get more state pension than you, but I am no expert.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, kzb said:

I would check the statement I have highlighted.  I think if you were in SERPS you still get some benefit from it. 

I think he might get more state pension than you, but I am no expert.

My forecast was getting close to the max even with some missing years due to, I think,  something about opting back into SERPS.  I also bought some missing years which were cheap at the time and wanted to know if I should buy more but not really worth it.  Different than last time as you can now only go back so far.  Also missed years cost more the longer you leave them.  BTW, spoke to a nice lady on the phone about it.  Sounded like she was working from home which sounded a great way to work. 

Edited by Fence

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Fence said:

My forecast was getting close to the max even with some missing years due to, I think,  something about opting back into SERPS.  I also bought some missing years which were cheap at the time and wanted to know if I should buy more but not really worth it.  Different than last time as you can now only go back so far.  Also missed years cost more the longer you leave them.  BTW, spoke to a nice lady on the phone about it.

The whole contracted out/SERPS thing seems a bit vague to be honest. I got an online forecast a few days ago, it credited me with 33 years worth of contributions. It then says to reach the full pension, I need another 5 years. So, 38 years in total not 35;  I guess that's my punishment for contracting out. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Panda said:

Thanks for the link..

Me and my mate, same age, same situation really, not a pot to p*ss in..

I opted out of SERPS in 1989, now have a pot in total for £24k.

He never opted out of SERPS.

At ages between 55 and 66 I can withdraw £6k a year for four years. Then not have a pot to piss in.

He still has nothing, but we both receive the same state pension at 66.

Seems to good to be true. I guess if I leave it until I am 66, withdraw £6k a year until I am 69, the pot will have grown somewhat, and it will not effect my state pension?

Yes no effect to State entitlement. But take the SERPs when they wont be taxed by other income taking it over the threshold.

Yep cake and eating it comes to mind. I have 20k also contracted out...left me three years short of full State pension but that will only cost 2.4k to make up if I don't add to my NIC record by working to get the same as I would have anyway.

Edited by crashmonitor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, crashmonitor said:

Yes no effect to State entitlement. But take the SERPs when they wont be taxed by other income taking it over the threshold.

Yep cake and eating it comes to mind. I have 20k also contracted out...left me three years short of full State pension but that will only cost 2.4k to make up if I don't add to my NIC record by working to get the same as I would have anyway.

An old guy a couple of doors down, was chatting to him.

He contracted out of SERPS in 1989.

Retired now, only made 19 years contributions of NI.

House paid for, 8k in savings.

He gets full state pension of £159.40 a week, and hardly pays any council tax.

No other income apart from his state pension.

Only 19 years NI, yet still £159 a week??? How does that work? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Panda said:

Only 19 years NI, yet still £159 a week??? How does that work? 

https://www.gov.uk/pension-credit

"Guarantee Credit tops up your weekly income if it’s below £159.35 (for single people) or £243.25 (for couples).
You don’t pay tax on Pension Credit."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Panda said:

An old guy a couple of doors down, was chatting to him.

He contracted out of SERPS in 1989.

Retired now, only made 19 years contributions of NI.

House paid for, 8k in savings.

He gets full state pension of £159.40 a week, and hardly pays any council tax.

No other income apart from his state pension.

Only 19 years NI, yet still £159 a week??? How does that work? 

Minimum income guarantee..no pensioner is allowed to fall below the threshold which is similar to the new state pension. But if you have substantial savings or a full State pension entitlement then the SERPs is a bonus. SERPs addition would be useless with 19 years because either way you'd get minimum income guarantee and no more assuming no other income/ low savings.

Case study ..... a person who spends contracted out Serps in 50s, is he still entitled to MIG if he is short of years or MIG minus an adjustment for contracted out SERPs. I don't know. 

There is a school of thought on here that thinks MIG will no longer exist.  Well short of bringing back the workhouse I doubt it. Hundreds of thousands of pensioners with no full pension entitlement or none at all.

Edited by crashmonitor

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Bank of England Base Rate   290 members have voted

    1. 1. What do you predict the Bank of England base rate to be at the end of 2018?


      • .25% or lower
      • .5%
      • .75%
      • 1% or higher

    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.