So many people I know are taking early retirement

[Bruce Banner]

With hindsight, I wouldn't have bothered with the 25% tax free lump sum (which is still sitting in a deposit account 11 years later earning a couple of percent interest) and used the money to buy a bigger annuity at 7.5%. 

[scottbeard]

45 minutes ago, hotblack42 said:

I should be more precise - many DB schemes will be in trouble.

Apparently the transfer values are artificially high due to historically low bond yields - they have to give you a big enough wedge to buy a comparable income for life. 
...
I don't have the maths.  I do have a close friend who is a Pensions expert and a good IFA and a skilled Investment Manager who I pay to keep across these issues.

If prevailing TVs and resultant transfers out create a chronic problem for those still in the scheme anyone planning to stay in really should dig a bit deeper.  Especially those who can't or don't want to retire for a few years yet.

No that's not true - they have to give you an amount equal to what the scheme trustees assess to be the cost to THEM to pay your pension.  You are by no means certain to be able to generate an equivalent pension yourself with the money.  That's why, as someone said above, the reasons to transfer out are not to get more money but more to do with either flexibility (I want more money in my healthy 60s/70s and less in my frail 80s/90s) or unique circumstances (i'm in very poor health, or my parents and grandparents all died in their 60s/70s so I want that money NOW before I meet a similar fate).

As for transfer values being "artificially" high - they are certainly high by historical standards because bond yields are so low.  However, that means the value of all those billions of bonds held by the DB schemes is at an all time high as well.  So if the scheme is well-funded they are only paying out what they have, and if they're not well funded they're allowed to reduce the payouts.  Of course the scheme may not be being well managed, but transfer values do not necessarily create "a chronic problem".

36 minutes ago, Pop321 said:

The transfer values are probably fair but make an assumption that these gilt and interest rates are normal. Shake of a dice I guess but for me I know these rates are wrong....what I am less sure of is how long governments etc will continue to sustain them. 
...
Typical corporate. Some schemes will have had 80,000 active members. But after redundancies, stopping of the scheme 15 years ago, transfers they will possibly only have 10k members now paying in. (But understand many receiving benefits). So the cuts begin and there is an outcry....but the new 70k employees actually don’t care, they are in the new DC scheme. The DB scheme is losing its voice...few more years and the employer may pull support all together. 
...
Pension protection scheme...not sure it could cover everyone. Under worst case scenario it may need to. A massive bailout could be resisted by that large and growing proportion of the population on DC schemes. 

The transfer value may not be based entirely on current gilt yields - one scheme that I work on for example assumes current gilt yields persist for 12 years, and then return to "normal" higher ones.  Even if they are based on current low yields, as above the scheme should have the money to back them.

I totally agree employers care nothing for the pensions of their former employees.  But they are not allowed by legislation to cut past benefits.

The Pension Protection Fund is currently in surplus by around £6 billion.  However, if it ever did end up in a serious deficit that it couldn't recoup, the PPF (unlike employers) is allowed to cut back benefits so the PPF can't ever go "bust". The PPF of course already pays less than scheme benefits, so it's not a good place to end up in anyway, but it's better than the predecessor system where you could get nothing.

[Errol]

On 17/02/2019 at 09:15, dpg50000 said:

I did, but (and I think this is my real rancour with HR), they wanted to know exactly what I'd been doing. Literally, where I'd been, what I'd done in those 3 f'ing weeks. The whole process was via a very invasive and impersonal series of "security" background checks, carried out by a third party, for a very ordinary I.T. role in the private sector.

Why should they care? What if you'd spent those 3 weeks in Moscow and Tehran? What if you'd spent them on the beach? It's totally irrelevant.

Edited February 18, 2019 by Errol

[Riedquat]

47 minutes ago, Errol said:

Why should they care? What if you'd spent those 3 weeks in Moscow and Tehran? What if you'd spent them on the beach? It's totally irrelevant.

There are jobs where that would be relevant, but by and large the correct, entirely acceptable answer is rarely accepted these days. That answer is, of course, "Mind your own business."

[scottbeard]

15 minutes ago, Riedquat said:

There are jobs where that would be relevant, but by and large the correct, entirely acceptable answer is rarely accepted these days. That answer is, of course, "Mind your own business."

I actually am finding this in a lot of contexts - companies won't serve you until you give them an item of data that they blatantly don't need.  The most stupid example I got recently was: our cricket club needs a TV licence to show TV in the pavilion.  TV licensing wouldn't give me a TV licence unless i provided a postcode. However, the cricket pavilion is just a wooden building in a field.  It doesn't have a postcode.  I approached Royal Mail to see if it could GET a postcode, but you can only get a postcode if you have mail delivered to somewhere, and again it is just a wooden building in a field so it doesn't get any mail.

So basically we're not going to buy a TV licence, because we can't.  £140 lost to the BBC basically because of stupid bureaucracy and questions being asked that don't matter.

[Riedquat]

45 minutes ago, scottbeard said:

I actually am finding this in a lot of contexts - companies won't serve you until you give them an item of data that they blatantly don't need.

Too right. I do my best to refuse to give out any data (sometimes to the point of making it up) that they don't unquestionably need to provide the service they're providing. So obviously if I'm mail ordering something I'll have to give my address but I won't, not even a postcode, to much else.

It's even more of a problem where things just take anyway and there's little you can do about it, like many things connected to the internet (no software should even be allowed to gather data from you without permission - saying "well don't use it if you don't like it" doesn't cut it, so up yours Microsoft  et al) and all the monitoring and recording of everything that goes on these days. Wish I could ban the lot of it.

[Pop321]

Something occurred to me yesterday. A light bulb moment if you like. 

This relates to a sub group of friend I have. Not my ‘main friends’  ...they are all boomers and on occasion oddly b1tchy with each other...something I had never come across before. Still generally good occasional company.  

One of these friends is frowned upon because the guys think he’s tight. Despite inheriting a house and £400k on top of that (he really should never have told the guys all this) he is very frugal and perhaps even a bit mean with money when it comes to his kids etc. 

So yesterday...it’s come up briefly and as a connected comment someone says ‘pops when you getting rid of that car...you tight git?’....I drive a battered Jazz, a mates old car £200 it cost...nasty colour, 16 years old. 

Now I am tight...but definitely not ungenerous. Two very different things. 

I am far from defensive.....but I stopped and thought about that (perhaps a little miffed these 2 guys had been having a go at the 3rd behind his back) and asked why would I need one? It’s the most reliable car I have ever owned (X3 BMW was constantly in the garage), we play our old tapes in it...groovy baby, I did 4K miles last year with only a handful of longer journeys (80 mph is comfortable...90 mph it’s like a shuttle launch?)  

I said my dogs operation had cost £3k, my trip to Aus will be er...a lot, my Swiss diving watch and it’s seversl straps costs...er a lot more.  Why do I need something OTHER people think I should have. I asked he guy why he had a crap quartz watch...he said he didn’t care about watches....long pause....and I care less how my car looks. 

Fair enough, theymove on quickly ....but it really got me thinking (because I was actually starting to look at cars recently)....why do people do this. Spend money on what they ‘think’ they should....reflect, decide where you want your hard earned money to go.

No more zombie spending...our French Louis sofa was £300, I know so many people who spend a fortune every few years on sofas (roughly takes the 6 months to save for it...what a waste of 6 months of their life)  

My cr4p car is carefree driving, can park it unlocked in Asda. And not worry about scratches....and it’s brilliant for blocking in inconsiderate drivings who park badly. I love watching people clambering through their passenger side door to get in their cars. 

PS don’t get me wrong. When this car needs an exhaust etc then I will just leave it on the side of the road...it’s looks really awful, I just wish it would break down and stop being so reliable ???

Drive an old Jazz and retire 5 years earlier ??

[NoGo]

On 15/02/2019 at 08:05, Pop321 said:

.I shrugged my shoulders and left. Happy with what I put in and what I took out. 

I have really enjoyed reading your story, and other peoples. 

Retirement is on my mind a lot now, I am in my mid 40's. I have no where near the amount I would need to retire early, may be at all and live the 3 holidays a year life.  But since I am not living that life now, I guess I wont miss what I dont know.

My in in laws sold up and retired early, they live on a narrow boat. Their parents had 10 years abroad on a holiday camp (1980's / 90s). Both of these lifestyles on the face of it, seem absolutely amazing and have demonstrated to me that retirement is more about freedom, rather than wealth. Yes wealth gives you freedom, but freedom can be obtained without wealth. 

I am squirreling away at the moment, but feel very skeptical about pensions. As a self employed, yes I can put 40k tax free in a pension, but im more inclined to pay off my mortgage, once again for the freedom it will offer me.

[PeanutButter]

30 minutes ago, Pop321 said:

Drive an old Jazz and retire 5 years earlier ??

My old Jazz was the best car I've ever had. Fold flat seats baby - tonnes of room for loading. 

[bear.getting.old]

22 hours ago, scottbeard said:

I actually am finding this in a lot of contexts - companies won't serve you until you give them an item of data that they blatantly don't need.  The most stupid example I got recently was: our cricket club needs a TV licence to show TV in the pavilion.  TV licensing wouldn't give me a TV licence unless i provided a postcode. However, the cricket pavilion is just a wooden building in a field.  It doesn't have a postcode.  I approached Royal Mail to see if it could GET a postcode, but you can only get a postcode if you have mail delivered to somewhere, and again it is just a wooden building in a field so it doesn't get any mail.

So basically we're not going to buy a TV licence, because we can't.  £140 lost to the BBC basically because of stupid bureaucracy and questions being asked that don't matter.

I wouldn't complain about that! And i wouldn't give the corrupt BBC any money anyway. Not had a licence for 11 years

Edited February 19, 2019 by bear.getting.old

[bear.getting.old]

1 hour ago, Pop321 said:

....car is carefree driving, can park it unlocked in Asda. And not worry about scratches....and it’s brilliant for blocking in inconsiderate drivings who park badly. I love watching people clambering through their passenger side door to get in their cars. 

PS don’t get me wrong. When this car needs an exhaust etc then I will just leave it on the side of the road...it’s looks really awful, I just wish it would break down and stop being so reliable ???

Drive an old Jazz and retire 5 years earlier ??

Like your 'tight' mate I'm in a good financial position. Plenty squirreled away -about the same as he is sitting on but no UK property now and I drive an old banger that just won't die, like you. And no job so I suppose I'm semi retired but I'm only mid 40s. Some would say take it easy and don't worry - you have much more than what we've got etc but I have always worked and its strange not doing so. I feel like the savings won't last me long. Since seeing this thread its made me think about, dare I say it, buying some UK property to rent out and go and live somewhere cheap overseas to live eg Asia. Some parts of Eastern Europe are also cheap. I suppose I could always come back to UK and live in it and find a job again. Though its all against the grain as we are still in a property bubble in UK. I just hate the money draining away and being eroded by inflation...

And yes it's nice not having to worry about your car being scratched or hit etc like you do with a newer car and the depreciation has been zero for many years on it, just oil changes etc the bit of maintenance that you would do to any car £70 on average a year. Older cars have less to go wrong and are easier to service. I have a friend with a hybrid, only a year old, he took it for a service and found loads of things wrong with it - 2k bill!

Edited February 19, 2019 by bear.getting.old

[longgone]

16 minutes ago, bear.getting.old said:

Like your 'tight' mate I'm in a good financial position. Plenty squirreled away -about the same as he is sitting on but no UK property now and I drive an old banger that just won't die, like you. And no job so I suppose I'm semi retired but I'm only mid 40s. Some would say take it easy and don't worry - you have much more than what we've got etc but I have always worked and its strange not doing so. I feel like the savings won't last me long. Since seeing this thread its made me think about, dare I say it, buying some UK property to rent out and go and live somewhere cheap overseas to live eg Asia. Some parts of Eastern Europe are also cheap. I suppose I could always come back to UK and live in it and find a job again. Though its all against the grain as we are still in a property bubble in UK. I just hate the money draining away and being eroded by inflation...

And yes it's nice not having to worry about your car being scratched or hit etc like you do with a newer car and the depreciation has been zero for many years on it, just oil changes etc the bit of maintenance that you would do to any car £70 on average a year. Older cars have less to go wrong and are easier to service. I have a friend with a hybrid, only a year old, he took it for a service and found loads of things wrong with it - 2k bill!

similar position myself. early 40`s no property no pension at all and only  a couple of hundred K in savings currently being eroded by inflation. 

no idea what to do with it really. does not help i have not worked for best part of 8 years either. 

 

[bear.getting.old]

On 16/02/2019 at 18:55, Will! said:

I wonder if there's any link between the rise of Human Resources and the decline of the UK economy?

In the day of when I entered work, it was called Personnel.

It's certainly a better title, as HR sounds more like they manage robot like numbers rather than staff. I'd imagine they managed the workforce better under Personnel. HR seems to be just for the employer and never for the staff.

[bear.getting.old]

1 hour ago, longgone said:

similar position myself. early 40`s no property no pension at all and only  a couple of hundred K in savings currently being eroded by inflation. 

no idea what to do with it really. does not help i have not worked for best part of 8 years either. 

 

Can you not do some part time or something? You can build up more NI stamps too if you need them. I do have some private pension, it is not a big pot only about 120k, I don't think that is enough.  They always assume your in your pension that you are paying in until the end, of course I am not.

On 17/02/2019 at 08:08, spyguy said:

NO they are not.

Ive seen too many times when HR have ffedup the sacking process.

Most laying off Ive been involved tend to follow the pay people to go i.e. pay much more the stat redundo - typically 1mon/year worked + 1 month paid notice/year worked.

For a 15 year service that costs about 2.5 years pay. Normally tax free.

Companies have also done this as they have no faith in the HR dept to not f it up.

 

 

2.5 years pay for 15 years service! 

Sounds like I got stung. I was 15 years service and only got my 12 weeks contractual notice period, plus a months ex gratia payment. I should have hung on and taken them to a tribunal but there comes a point where you just want the thing over.

On 17/02/2019 at 11:48, Bruce Banner said:

The MD of a company I worked for, many years ago, used to say that if you need something done quickly and done right, you should look for the busiest person in the relevant department and give them the job. I could see his logic, but I've always found that if I need something done quickly and done right, the easiest way is to do it myself.

That MD sounds stupid. If someone is flat out busy how can they have time to do another job? And people are usually good at the things they are good at. The mistake my last place made was trying to get everyone trained up to do everyones jobs so they could never specialise and get good in the few things they were best at.

Edited February 19, 2019 by bear.getting.old

[Steppenpig]

On 17/02/2019 at 19:01, Riedquat said:

 

A population that declines too rapidly would be a problem though ...

 

Although extreme rapidity would actually ease the transition. Everything carries on as before, just population is a bit thinned out. We need a nice plague or natural catastrophe.

[longgone]

20 minutes ago, bear.getting.old said:

Can you not do some part time or something? You can build up more NI stamps too if you need them. I do have some private pension, it is not a big pot only about 120k, I don't think that is enough.  They always assume your in your pension that you are paying in until the end, of course I am not.

2.5 years pay for 15 years service! 

Sounds like I got stung. I was 15 years service and only got my 12 weeks contractual notice period, plus a months ex gratia payment. I should have hung on and taken them to a tribunal but there comes a point where you just want the thing over.

 

i will just have to go back to work full time. i have no idea what i would do outside work anyway. buy a place and try and pay it off. 

i did 5.5 years service and only got 1 week for every year in redundancy 

[happyguy]

40 minutes ago, bear.getting.old said:

HR seems to be just for the employer and never for the staff.

No way.  I was doing some consultancy for a large company who wanted to get rid of a girl who was utterly useless.  They had tyo go through hoops to get rid and it took 7 months.  They were also bogged down with  issues such as maternity pay, and were paranoid about worker';s right not wast was good for the company.  

In my business I have had someone work for me who was useless, always off on a Monday but seen in the clubs on a Sunday night.   Off on other days, bad back, ill auntie in Grimsby, fell over hurt back, car broken down, yadda yadda yadda.  We had an informal meet to see if there is anything we could resolve together but nothing changed so I told him to go.   It may end up at a tribunal but I would rather pay the month or so salary that the tribunal may award than waste months dealing with an employee who is not interested and sucks the energy out of hard working colleagues.   Before I am berated for being a bad egg I have to say that the other people in the company who were doing his job when he was off were sick and tired of it.  

18 minutes ago, bear.getting.old said:

similar position myself. early 40`s no property no pension at all and only  a couple of hundred K in savings currently being eroded by inflation. 

no idea what to do with it really. does not help i have not worked for best part of 8 years either. 

I assume you have heath issues which prevent you from working? Sorry for that.  Can you do any work> Part time for instance to get more stamps accrued? Have you considered buying somewhere for cash@? That would at least ensure that you have somewhere to live? 

[wish I could afford one]

1 hour ago, bear.getting.old said:

In the day of when I entered work, it was called Personnel.

It's certainly a better title, as HR sounds more like they manage robot like numbers rather than staff. I'd imagine they managed the workforce better under Personnel. HR seems to be just for the employer and never for the staff.

Of course they are.  The employees don't pay their salaries.

[spyguy]

1 hour ago, bear.getting.old said:

Can you not do some part time or something? You can build up more NI stamps too if you need them. I do have some private pension, it is not a big pot only about 120k, I don't think that is enough.  They always assume your in your pension that you are paying in until the end, of course I am not.

2.5 years pay for 15 years service! 

Sounds like I got stung. I was 15 years service and only got my 12 weeks contractual notice period, plus a months ex gratia payment. I should have hung on and taken them to a tribunal but there comes a point where you just want the thing over.

That MD sounds stupid. If someone is flat out busy how can they have time to do another job? And people are usually good at the things they are good at. The mistake my last place made was trying to get everyone trained up to do everyones jobs so they could never specialise and get good in the few things they were best at.

Depends on the company an situation.

If its gone over, your f-ed.

If company is going concern but scaling back but might be growing later then you need to be doing a deal. 1y pay is much cheaper than an employment tribuneal

 

 

[bear.getting.old]

1 hour ago, happyguy said:

No way.  I was doing some consultancy for a large company who wanted to get rid of a girl who was utterly useless.  They had tyo go through hoops to get rid and it took 7 months.  They were also bogged down with  issues such as maternity pay, and were paranoid about worker';s right not wast was good for the company.  

In my business I have had someone work for me who was useless, always off on a Monday but seen in the clubs on a Sunday night.   Off on other days, bad back, ill auntie in Grimsby, fell over hurt back, car broken down, yadda yadda yadda.  We had an informal meet to see if there is anything we could resolve together but nothing changed so I told him to go.   It may end up at a tribunal but I would rather pay the month or so salary that the tribunal may award than waste months dealing with an employee who is not interested and sucks the energy out of hard working colleagues.   Before I am berated for being a bad egg I have to say that the other people in the company who were doing his job when he was off were sick and tired of it.  

I assume you have heath issues which prevent you from working? Sorry for that.  Can you do any work> Part time for instance to get more stamps accrued? Have you considered buying somewhere for cash@? That would at least ensure that you have somewhere to live? 

Hi Happyguy. I can understand it from your, or a companies point of view that it can be a nightmare to get rid of an employee who is useless or taking the pee with sickness etc, if they are a reasonable employer and they follow employment law and are ethical. However there are employers who do not. In those cases the management/HR are corrupt and biased and use completely fabricated disciplinary actions in order to set the employee up to fail, especially on paper anyway. In my case I was very good at my job and a hard worker who hardly ever took a day off sick in the 15 years I was there. It was one particular manager who had a hit list of people that he wanted removed from the company, most of them were got rid of by redundancy as work dried up, I was one of the old school people left that they never axed by redundancy, I'm sure down to my flexible attitude and usefulness that could be seen by the other managers. The problem was, this particular manager then got promoted and got the power to influence the CEO and HR against me, backed up by bogus disciplinary actions and meetings in which I could not defend myself and in doing so fell on deaf ears anyway because all the staff who worked under him were his friends whom he had promoted up to do his dirty work, they were instructed that I was crap and to observe and to set impossible targets. Same with HR.  I did have a few managers who were on my side but they didn't want to get involved. I think the manager thought it would be cheaper to fire me than make me redundant so they made my life very difficult at work like this hoping I would leave, but I dug in deeper refusing to let them win, hence the fraudulent disciplinaries. All very sad really they lost a good honest reliable employee and it cost them lots of money when the manager concerned should have been taken down for workplace corruption and bullying instead. You can guarantee he is doing it to someone else now.

You do realise that with your bad employee if you haven't followed the usual way of working, ie meetings, verbal warnings, performance management, improvement plan, written warnings etc etc, before letting him go, the tribunal will go to town on you? You will spend a great deal of time on the case and in the hearing alongside expensive legal costs of your side and his if you loose, together with his award.

I can work no health issues I am not claiming any benefits. I could buy a house cash but worried about buying into a bubble market, things maybe clearer post brexit. I'm not settled at all.

[bear.getting.old]

2 hours ago, wish I could afford one said:

Of course they are.  The employees don't pay their salaries.

They do, HR sit in an office producing nothing, costing money. The employees generate revenue who pay HRs wages! The employees need to be looked after and treated with respect,  especially at the moment as we near full employment

Edited February 19, 2019 by bear.getting.old

[happyguy]

58 minutes ago, bear.getting.old said:

Hi Happyguy. I can understand it from your, or a companies point of view that it can be a nightmare to get rid of an employee who is useless or taking the pee with sickness etc, if they are a reasonable employer and they follow employment law and are ethical. However there are employers who do not.

I agree with that

59 minutes ago, bear.getting.old said:

In those cases the management/HR are corrupt and biased and use completely fabricated disciplinary actions in order to set the employee up to fail, especially on paper anyway.

Again I am sure that happens which is whichever way I look at it I have no respect for the politically correct HR phonies. 

59 minutes ago, bear.getting.old said:

he problem was, this particular manager then got promoted and got the power to influence the CEO and HR against me, backed up by bogus disciplinary actions and meetings in which I could not defend myself and in doing so fell on deaf ears anyway because all the staff who worked under him were his friends whom he had promoted up to do his dirty work, they were instructed that I was crap and to observe and to set impossible targets. Same with HR.  I did have a few managers who were on my side but they didn't want to get involved. I think the manager thought it would be cheaper to fire me than make me redundant so they made my life very difficult at work like this hoping I would leave, but I dug in deeper refusing to let them win, hence the fraudulent disciplinaries. All very sad really they lost a good honest reliable employee and it cost them lots of money when the manager concerned should have been taken down for workplace corruption and bullying instead. You can guarantee he is doing it to someone else now.

My friend I am genuinely sorry to hear this.  It happened to me when I had my first ever job and that is what prompted me to work for myself.  In my case just a personality clash - which sometimes happens we cannot all like everyone.  

1 hour ago, bear.getting.old said:

You do realise that with your bad employee if you haven't followed the usual way of working, ie meetings, verbal warnings, performance management, improvement plan, written warnings etc etc, before letting him go, the tribunal will go to town on you? You will spend a great deal of time on the case and in the hearing alongside expensive legal costs of your side and his if you loose, together with his award.

I know he can go to a tribunal.  Tribunal awards are usually very little.  A mate of mine was fired from a job he was in for 8 years when his boss told him he did not employ "gay boys"!  He got 3 months salary.

 It will cost me at the very most 2 months salary. I have spoken to a very good employment solicitor who I have used in the past and assures me that is the max he will get.    I would far rather loose that than waste my time with verbal warnings one of which he had, performance management, improvement plan etc all of which is HR gobblydegook.

I will not spend a lot of time on it and tribunal costs are small in comparison to having a workshy numpty in the company.  If I kept him on and pra++ed around with performance plans etc it impacts on my good staff who I respect and want to keep motivated which will not happen if they are working alongside this Mr Muppet who they all wanted to see the back of as he just did not buy into what we are trying to do and was often not at work meaning someone else had to cover.  

I have been down this route before and it is far less costly to the business financially and less irritating to me and the great people I have working with me than taking months and months to get rid of someone who is not good enough and needs to be replaced with someone who is better for the company and deserves a chance.  

I took on a lady the week after this guy left who is fantastic and respected by me and everyone else in the company.  

On a personal note I trust that all is good with you and wish you all the very best.  I am sure we will have other discussions.  :) 

 

 

 

[happyguy]

On 12/02/2019 at 10:07, PeanutButter said:

Wow it's almost as if boomers have gamed every aspect of the system to benefit themselves and no one else, not even their progeny. 

They were lucky. In life some are lucky some are not.  

I think I am lucky in god healthy, finances ok, nice family and mates. I count  my blessings

[winkie]

On 19/02/2019 at 10:10, Pop321 said:

Something occurred to me yesterday. A light bulb moment if you like. 

 

One of these friends is frowned upon because the guys think he’s tight. Despite inheriting a house and £400k on top of that (he really should never have told the guys all this) he is very frugal and perhaps even a bit mean with money when it comes to his kids etc. 

So yesterday...it’s come up briefly and as a connected comment someone says ‘pops when you getting rid of that car...you tight git?’....I drive a battered Jazz, a mates old car £200 it cost...nasty colour, 16 years old. 

Now I am tight...but definitely not ungenerous. Two very different things. 

 

My cr4p car is carefree driving, can park it unlocked in Asda. And not worry about scratches....and it’s brilliant for blocking in inconsiderate drivings who park badly. I love watching people clambering through their passenger side door to get in their cars. 

PS don’t get me wrong. When this car needs an exhaust etc then I will just leave it on the side of the road...it’s looks really awful, I just wish it would break down and stop being so reliable ???

Drive an old Jazz and retire 5 years earlier ??

The older Japanese cars born circa 2000 built to last......what has being tight got anything to do with driving an old car???

Time is money, therefore giving your time is the same as giving money......working for longer means less of your time to give......someone else owns your time, not yourself, therefore you can't give it to anyone else.

 

Edited February 20, 2019 by winkie

[nothernsoul]

The boomers were not just "lucky". Luck is flipping a coin or getting struck by lightning or not. Their current position is predicated on their power in society, both as a voting block, being in positions of influence. Human beings have made decisions that favour one group over another. That is not luck.