Pensions and Pensioners

[Heartofoakes64]

Nope, all he did was extend what Norman Lamont started in 1994.

It’s widely acknowledged that Brown fucked up the DB schemes. You are blinded by your political allegiance. I don’t have that problem. They are all a shower of lying narcissistic cunts. Have a nice day & let’s hope for a win tonight.

 

[Vic]

Correct. And any personal pension was granted tax relief at source so liable for tax on it's way out.

Apart from the first 25% of taking the income.

 

[Vic]

It’s widely acknowledged that Brown fucked up the DB schemes. You are blinded by your political allegiance. I don’t have that problem. They are all a shower of lying narcissistic cunts. Have a nice day & let’s hope for a win tonight.

Widely alleged by you (often), not widely acknowledged.

 

[Kompany Car]

And yes house ownership is THE key benchmark to measure wellbeing because a house is not an asset to be bought and sold, it is a home, a basic need for life. 99% of the time people rent because they cannot afford the deposit needed to buy and the deposit needed is directly related to the price of the house... which are priced too high.

If that truly is the case, people who live in Sweden, Denmark, Germany, Austria and Switzerland must have really low scores on wellbeing when surveyed.

What you actually need is effective rent controls and high quality rental properties for wellbeing.

 

[Heartofoakes64]

Widely alleged by you (often), not widely acknowledged.

Nonsense -:

Gordon Brown's 1997 decision to abolish dividend tax credits for pension funds in his first budget is widely blamed for exacerbating the decline of final salary (Defined Benefit) pensions in the UK. The move removed billions of pounds in tax relief from pension investments, causing funding deficits that forced private companies to close these expensive schemes to new members. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
The primary factors that contributed to the decline of these schemes include:

• The 1997 Dividend Tax Raid: Then-Chancellor Gordon Brown removed the ability of pension funds to reclaim tax credits on UK share dividends. This cost schemes billions of pounds annually, heavily impacting the compound growth needed to secure guaranteed retirement payouts.
• Deficits and Closure: As the tax changes drained scheme surpluses, funds plunged into heavy deficits. Rather than continuously pouring money into the schemes to make up the shortfalls, private employers overwhelmingly shut them down in favor of cheaper Defined Contribution (DC) pots.
• Widespread Shift to DC: In 1997, over 11 million people were members of final salary schemes. Today, they are virtually extinct in the private sector and have been replaced by DC pensions, which shift the investment risk from the employer onto the individual. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7]

 

[I'm With Stupid]

You're choosing home ownership as THE key benchmark to measure prosperity/financial wellbeing. Although bad for many, the Thatcher years were good for me - so Im glad you've so firmly bought into her vision of aspiration to home ownership/personal assets - rather than the socialist vision of state housing for all. House ownership is not a "right" nor is it actually a necessity (lots of Countries have large populations of renters) and it is cyclical - I have lost money on houses - that was common in the early 90's.
You could run a similar bar charts on
- Exotic or long haul or frequent travel & "gap years"
- Expensive personal gadgets, phones
- Costly Gym memberships
- Designer clothes & luxury goods
- Leisure time & activities/hobbies
- Personal grooming, Hairdressing and Nails
- Plastic surgery tweaks and expensive diets
- Expensive foodstuffs/takeaways - not cooked from scratch
- Ridiculously priced dogs
In every one of these of these aspects (some not entirely serious) your generational bar charts would run in the opposite direction !!!

I think you could make this point better without resorting to highlighting that sort of frivolous spending, tbh. If we're going to do that, I could equally point out that my dad's generation were able to go to the pub for a couple of pints after work literally every day.

There are legitimate areas where older generations had it worse. One good area to look is the percentage of their salary spent on certain items. So if we compare what percentage of people's salaries was typically spent on various items in around 1970 compared to today...

This is from ChatGPT, but it kinda reflects what I've seen on more legitimate sources, I just couldn't be arsed ploughing through them all.

Housing and utilities: 12-16% vs 18-25% (way higher now)
Food: 25% vs 11% (way lower now)
Clothing: 10-12% vs 3% (way lower now)
Transport: 8-10% vs 14% (higher now)
recreation/culture: 6-8% vs 11-12% (higher now)
restaurants/hotels/holidays: 3-5% vs 7-9% (way higher now)
communications: 0% vs 3-4% (way higher now)
Alcohol and tobacco: 7-9% vs 2% (way lower now)
Household goods: 6% for both

It's worth mentioning that both groups have frivolous spending on there, and this narrative of 'never went on any holidays' or 'stop spending your money on Starbucks and avocado toast' falls a little flat from a generation that was spending a huge percentage of their income on fags and booze.

People these days have benefited from a huge drop in the cost of things like food, clothing, electronics, travel, etc. But they've subsequently the victim of huge increases in other areas like housing, utilities and transport (transport is mostly a result of car ownership, which is obviously a quality of life improvement, but also in many cases a necessity to access decent job opportunities). It's worth mentioning of course that this is a percentage of household income, and these days, a household income is often two people, so in real terms, that probably hides the amount that things have swung against the younger generation.

For young people, there are also new categories of outgoings. The rise of dual income households mean that a young family living in London, for example, could be paying 20% of their income in childcare. And particularly relevant to this thread, the complete removal of things like final salary pensions mean that young people today are having to invest more of their money in their own future.

I think the main difference, however, is that the areas where older generations had it easier were things that were wealth builders. Sure, food is cheaper now, clothes are cheaper now, technology is cheaper now, but those things are disposable. Older people were starting work at a time where wealth-building assets like houses and pensions were easier to come by. Sure, it might be a struggle to buy a house while also paying way more for other costs of living, but there's an end in sight. For young people these days renting, they don't see that end in sight. They just see a future where the cost of rent goes up and up and up, and there's no stage where it's been paid off.

 

[RobH]

It isn't the fault of pensioners no but their opinions are completely skewed by their experience of what is tough when actually they had it far easier than they think. Pensioners always quote the interest rates in the 1980's but they forget what they were earning in relation to the price of housing.

They'll say interest rates in their day were 15% but you just cannot translate that into today. Even a 1% rise in interest rates today would result in an apocalypse. This is why the BoE struggles to tackle the cost of living, interest rates are no longer a mechanism to control anything because the housing market would collapse.

At my last remortgage my mortage went up from £830pm to £1100pm and that was with what a 0.5% rate rise? This is after 8 years of paying off the capital of the mortgage, you'd expect a mortgage to get cheaper over time and not more expensive! Even a 2% rate rise would put me and my family on the streets.

Did pensioners ever have to worry about any of this? Did they balls, they just worked and rode the housing wave and now some are sat on capital assets worth 1500% of what they originally paid. Around 1/4 to 1/3 of pensioners are now asset millionaires and many of these are the ones telling young people to simply give up their Starbucks and work harder....

By the pensioner logic if salaries had tracked housing costs then the average salary today should be at least £85,000 a year but guess what it's not even half that. Young people today can therefore skip eating, skip living and work every single hour under the sun for a decade and they'll still not be able to afford a house.

You’ll never be able to convince them because all they hear is you think they had it easy while they remember the sacrifices that they made. So there excuse is that you think it should be easy and that you are unwilling to make sacrifices. The very basic fact that virtually everything is far more expensive in relation to median income is lost on them.

 

[mosssideblue]

You’ll never be able to convince them because all they hear is you think they had it easy while they remember the sacrifices that they made. So there excuse is that you think it should be easy and that you are unwilling to make sacrifices. The very basic fact that virtually everything is far more expensive in relation to median income is lost on them.

So you agree that pensioners did have to face difficulties and make sacrifices. thank you

 

[r.soleofsalford]

Pensioners pay a lot of income tax.
Most other benefits are seemingly not taxable.

I think I’ll be paying tax till the day I die and then I’ll pay death duties. Bastards

 

[manclad]

I think I’ll be paying tax till the day I die and then I’ll pay death duties. Bastards

The only things that are guaranteed in life are -
"Taxes and death."

 

[SilverFox2]

Got to admit that all those years ago any bonus I received went into topping up pension or life funds that each year or 6 months bought extra shares in themselves.
This of course saved tax at the time but the tax element grew as well as my share of it.
The investments I made were stock exchange based so longer term (5 plus years minimum) so inflation has made them look better than they were.
Effectively like all workers I was means tested on my tax and NI ie more pay more tax but when retirement came I got the same as someone who paid zero tax throughout their working life.
My pension investments bring in annuities which effectively gives a capital investment return based as a percentage of my total (usually about 5 percent per annum). This is then fully taxed without any allowances because SP ha used up all my tax code allowance which is approx the same as the others.

So I don't mind paying tax on my pension which incidentally means I am means tested both on my original working earnings as well as further pension annuities also means tested.

Us pensioners pay our way today as well as yesterday let's see now what life long benefit receivers bring to the table.

 

[hilts]

No pall my wife and I worked fukin hard and long hours and put our children first if that's a crime fuck you.
I was a hgv driver my wife who held down two jobs was a nursery teacher.
If you stopped fukin moaning on here about what other people get or not get you may get some graft done yourself. Ha Ha

I actually have said and defended not means testing the state pensions so better off pensioners keep it you half wit.

Maybe the sun has got to your head. Worked long hours have you, wow, you are special. Moaning about someone moaning who wasn't moaning, classic.

Off you pop.

 

[Palerider]

They're also not buying an average priced house though either.

That's a very good point. Our first house was a terrace on Queens Road in Cheetham. Those houses can still be bought for around £130,000. Mortgage around £620 a month (£7500 a year). Minimum wage is around £26000, take home around £22000. It's doable for a single person but would be a breeze for a couple.

 

[We've got Guardiola]

If that truly is the case, people who live in Sweden, Denmark, Germany, Austria and Switzerland must have really low scores on wellbeing when surveyed.

What you actually need is effective rent controls and high quality rental properties for wellbeing.

If you put all of those countries into a list then the UK has the highest housing costs of all of them. Germany is the best comparison as the largest European economy. The average salary to house price there is around 5x, here it's nearly double that! Renting however in Germany is different as landlords aren't allowed to take the piss and their culture is not to buy houses simply for exploitative profit.

Why not then add other measures? What about income equality, health outcomes, university fees or well just name anything that could be judged of benefit.... The UK is rock bottom of the list for most of them.

Tuition fees itself is a good one, obviously many over 50 didn't goto university but how much did it cost for those who did? That's right, nothing. I pay £250pm towards my student loan but I will never ever pay the balance off because the interest accumulates at a faster rate than I'm repaying it. And if I earn more money I will pay even more.

Tuition fees in most countries in Europe are free because well they actually do value young people and their future. If we look at the last 15-20 years of Tory government, what did they do for young people? And who voted for them? lol

 

[Fiftyyearsandcounting]

The only way to solve this issue is to say from 1 April 2027 there wil be no state pension for anyone born who turns 18 after this date, reduce their NI contributions to counter this but they must provide for their own future. No way should you pay into a system only to be means tested at an old age. Public sector pensions had this done 20 years ago and they only gave 10 years notice.

Fine in theory but there needs to be some form of investment protection. I retired just after the financial crisis. The value of my "Pension Pot" suffered a drop of nearly 25% and severely affected the annuity (at the time an annuity was compulsory).

 

[Kompany Car]

If you put all of those countries into a list then the UK has the highest housing costs of all of them. Germany is the best comparison as the largest European economy. The average salary to house price there is around 5x, here it's nearly double that! Renting however in Germany is different as landlords aren't allowed to take the piss and their culture is not to buy houses simply for exploitative profit.

We all love an infographic...

In terms of similar size countries these are the multiples of income. Noting that the numbers for the UK and France are skewed by London and Paris which are commonly accepted to be some of the highest valued real estate in the world.

Germany7.9 – 8.9
Spain8.5 – 9.1
United Kingdom8.8 – 9.9
France11.5 – 12.0
Portugal11.5 – 12.5

 

[BlueNomad]

You are Warren Buffet and I claim my Fabergé egg.

Busted! It’s in the mail…but I’m not hearing good things about the Royal Mail, so keep your eyes peeled!

 

[Ho Chi Man City]

I think you could make this point better without resorting to highlighting that sort of frivolous spending, tbh. If we're going to do that, I could equally point out that my dad's generation were able to go to the pub for a couple of pints after work literally every day.

There are legitimate areas where older generations had it worse. One good area to look is the percentage of their salary spent on certain items. So if we compare what percentage of people's salaries was typically spent on various items in around 1970 compared to today...

This is from ChatGPT, but it kinda reflects what I've seen on more legitimate sources, I just couldn't be arsed ploughing through them all.

Housing and utilities: 12-16% vs 18-25% (way higher now)
Food: 25% vs 11% (way lower now)
Clothing: 10-12% vs 3% (way lower now)
Transport: 8-10% vs 14% (higher now)
recreation/culture: 6-8% vs 11-12% (higher now)
restaurants/hotels/holidays: 3-5% vs 7-9% (way higher now)
communications: 0% vs 3-4% (way higher now)
Alcohol and tobacco: 7-9% vs 2% (way lower now)
Household goods: 6% for both

It's worth mentioning that both groups have frivolous spending on there, and this narrative of 'never went on any holidays' or 'stop spending your money on Starbucks and avocado toast' falls a little flat from a generation that was spending a huge percentage of their income on fags and booze.

People these days have benefited from a huge drop in the cost of things like food, clothing, electronics, travel, etc. But they've subsequently the victim of huge increases in other areas like housing, utilities and transport (transport is mostly a result of car ownership, which is obviously a quality of life improvement, but also in many cases a necessity to access decent job opportunities). It's worth mentioning of course that this is a percentage of household income, and these days, a household income is often two people, so in real terms, that probably hides the amount that things have swung against the younger generation.

For young people, there are also new categories of outgoings. The rise of dual income households mean that a young family living in London, for example, could be paying 20% of their income in childcare. And particularly relevant to this thread, the complete removal of things like final salary pensions mean that young people today are having to invest more of their money in their own future.

I think the main difference, however, is that the areas where older generations had it easier were things that were wealth builders. Sure, food is cheaper now, clothes are cheaper now, technology is cheaper now, but those things are disposable. Older people were starting work at a time where wealth-building assets like houses and pensions were easier to come by. Sure, it might be a struggle to buy a house while also paying way more for other costs of living, but there's an end in sight. For young people these days renting, they don't see that end in sight. They just see a future where the cost of rent goes up and up and up, and there's no stage where it's been paid off.

That’s a lot to take in but 2% on alcohol and tobacco? So minimum wage at 18 would be around £380 a week, that’s £7.60 a week on booze and fags, no problem for non drinkers and non smokers but it equates to one pint a week in Manchester City Centre, or a pint and a half outside the centre. I’m not having that, plus a lot of the last couple of generations use drugs which are expensive.

 

[BlueNomad]

You’ll never be able to convince them because all they hear is you think they had it easy while they remember the sacrifices that they made. So there excuse is that you think it should be easy and that you are unwilling to make sacrifices. The very basic fact that virtually everything is far more expensive in relation to median income is lost on them.

While there may be a scintilla of truth to that, it feels like the current generation doesn’t REALLY understand the word “sacrifice,” or at least what it meant to previous generations.

What sacrifice didn’t mean was an Apple iPhone that was 1 generation old or only getting your nails done once a month instead of every week, or a car that is 5 yrs old or, or…

…it meant going without or saving for it until you could actually buy it with this thing called “money” that you went out and actually earned…doing ANYTHING you could!

A few of my own great, post-Uni grad, post-wedding “earners” were selling sports equipment and stocking the jockstraps in a sports store, sitting in a drive up booth along the roadside and accepting undeveloped rolls of film to be developed and picked up a week later, taking parking lot payments at sports events, then walking around inside trying to sell programs once the game began, then helping direct traffic out of the lot after the game.

The ONLY good thing about those jobs were they put food in our mouths and paid to keep the lights on. No car, no iPhone, no nail jobs, no trout pouts in sight…and no cigs & alcohol because we just couldn’t afford them!

Back then, we called it “LIFE” and just got on with it so we could maybe make it better the next day! At one point, I was living in America and had $5 to my name…and I couldn’t get it out of the bank as it was the minimum deposit allowed! My gf used to take me to a fast food place at night and I’d get a crispy chicken sandwich. Lived on those for almost 3 months, with the occasional tin of boiled new potatoes with a tin of chicken à la king over them ($1 “meal”). That woman became my wife of 40 yrs and counting!

Life, eh! You just gotta keep pushing forward, quit blaming everyone else for your lot in life, and getting on with getting on making it better for yourself and your loved ones.

Good luck to us all!

 

[I'm With Stupid]

That’s a lot to take in but 2% on alcohol and tobacco? So minimum wage at 18 would be around £380 a week, that’s £7.60 a week on booze and fags, no problem for non drinkers and non smokers but it equates to one pint a week in Manchester City Centre, or a pint and a half outside the centre. I’m not having that, plus a lot of the last couple of generations use drugs which are expensive.

It's an average of everyone in the UK now, not an average of 18 year-olds on minimum wage though. Only around 10% of people smoke now, so sure, those people are spending a lot more than 2% on smoking, but averaged out over the entire country, it's 2% because for 90% of people it's zero. The average British household spend around £15 a week on alcohol, tobacco and drugs according to this, and if you're under 30, that drops to £5 a week. That works out at £780 a year, which is 2% of a £39,000 household income. Again, there are a lot of people (20%) who drink nothing, and another decent number who might drink rarely. I don't live in the UK any more, but I reckon I'm reasonably typical of this group. I don't usually have alcohol in the house, and I might go out for a few beers once a month or so even though I eat out more than once a week (I live in a much cheaper country). Drugs are a real minority interest. Most people aren't regularly using them and even most of those who are are only doing so rarely. Honestly, I think a lot of these things are so expensive nowadays that increasing numbers of people are simply not bothering. Hence why all the pubs are closing.