pensioners average income vs working age family income

1246

Comments

  • pblakeney
    pblakeney Posts: 27,286
    Surrey Commuter wrote:
    Is this right?
    is she rich?
    It is the way it is.
    No.
    When I move into a bungalow before I get to my dotage, that bungalow will not have my name on the deeds.
    That is the route I choose. No doubt other opinions are available.
    The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
    I am not sure. You have no chance.
    Veronese68 wrote:
    PB is the most sensible person on here.
  • surrey_commuter
    surrey_commuter Posts: 18,867
    PBlakeney wrote:
    Surrey Commuter wrote:
    Is this right?
    is she rich?
    It is the way it is.
    No.
    When I move into a bungalow before I get to my dotage, that bungalow will not have my name on the deeds.
    That is the route I choose. No doubt other opinions are available.

    You are a very trusting person.
  • mamba80
    mamba80 Posts: 5,032
    Surrey Commuter wrote:
    PBlakeney wrote:
    Surrey Commuter wrote:
    Is this right?
    is she rich?
    It is the way it is.
    No.
    When I move into a bungalow before I get to my dotage, that bungalow will not have my name on the deeds.
    That is the route I choose. No doubt other opinions are available.

    You are a very trusting person.

    PB if your serious, then you need to start planning it now and set up a trust and life interest, also get a GP report to say you are of sound mind esp if you plan a complex Will, if you ve got more than one child, then you need specialist legal advice.
    where money is involved, Cane and Abel were model children.

    i have learnt this through bitter experience.
  • pblakeney
    pblakeney Posts: 27,286
    mamba80 wrote:
    Surrey Commuter wrote:
    PBlakeney wrote:
    Surrey Commuter wrote:
    Is this right?
    is she rich?
    It is the way it is.
    No.
    When I move into a bungalow before I get to my dotage, that bungalow will not have my name on the deeds.
    That is the route I choose. No doubt other opinions are available.

    You are a very trusting person.

    PB if your serious, then you need to start planning it now and set up a trust and life interest, also get a GP report to say you are of sound mind esp if you plan a complex Will, if you ve got more than one child, then you need specialist legal advice.
    where money is involved, Cane and Abel were model children.

    i have learnt this through bitter experience.
    Have faith. You are going to lose it any way.
    Or piss it all up against the wall while you can. Another of my options.
    The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
    I am not sure. You have no chance.
    Veronese68 wrote:
    PB is the most sensible person on here.
  • mamba80
    mamba80 Posts: 5,032
    its my intention for my daughter to have whatever i ve accumulated through life, i worked since i was 16 and for the last 20 years have a paid a small fortune in Tax, quite a bit of it at 40%.
    If its acceptable for amazon or google to pay reduced amounts of tax, then its ok for me too.

    the deal is i pay in and the NHS is there for cradle to the grave essential care, if they make having insurance for my care in old age tax deductible or have a reduced tax rate for those that pay extra for this, then fair enough but they dont.
  • confused@BR
    confused@BR Posts: 295
    Yes it is grim. A distant relative of mine was heard to remark "old age, no for the faint hearted". I am 70 and have writen a will and POA (as has my wife), my mother-in-law died in October of last year after the (typical) hellish last year. She was in a Nursing Home charging £1100 per week and we were grateful. Thank God for the NHS but it is anything but a panacea. When the end drew near Mum was clear that "anything but Basildon Hospital" was what she wanted. That despite her life being saved at least twice in the previous twelve months. She was quite wealthy but we never told her how much the Nursing Home was costing. It would have caused her profound distress.
    So do not fall for the nonsense of how wealthy the 'old age' are, it is an artificial construct to hide how shabbily everyone is being dealt with. Pensioners are not rich, Tax-avoiding millionaires are rich, the rest of us are 'making do' Britsh pensions are among the lowest in the 'Western World' but it serves a certain agenda to overlook that inconvenient fact.
    'fool'
  • Stevo_666
    Stevo_666 Posts: 61,314
    mamba80 wrote:
    Surrey Commuter wrote:
    PBlakeney wrote:
    Surrey Commuter wrote:
    Is this right?
    is she rich?
    It is the way it is.
    No.
    When I move into a bungalow before I get to my dotage, that bungalow will not have my name on the deeds.
    That is the route I choose. No doubt other opinions are available.

    You are a very trusting person.

    PB if your serious, then you need to start planning it now and set up a trust and life interest, also get a GP report to say you are of sound mind esp if you plan a complex Will, if you ve got more than one child, then you need specialist legal advice.
    where money is involved, Cane and Abel were model children.

    i have learnt this through bitter experience.
    It doesn't have to be that complicated. The usual tactics of changing the parents ownership of the house to tenants in common rather than joint tenants, then making their wills so that their estate goes to kids rather than the spouse still works well in terms of some of the kids inheritance intact.

    It also avoids the benefit in kind tax trap that might be a problem for Blakeys bungalow idea.

    That and giving the next generation a financial helping hand if possible before care is needed.
    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • mamba80
    mamba80 Posts: 5,032
    Yeah my Mum made provision but it was challenged, failed though but having a GP report to say the provisions of Will and/or tenancy were made whilst in sound mind, was the one thing she didnt do and that would have avoided anyone popping up, what people say before death, isnt always what they do after.

    As they say where there's a Will, there's a Family.
  • Stevo_666
    Stevo_666 Posts: 61,314
    mamba80 wrote:
    Yeah my Mum made provision but it was challenged, failed though but having a GP report to say the provisions of Will and/or tenancy were made whilst in sound mind, was the one thing she didnt do and that would have avoided anyone popping up, what people say before death, isnt always what they do after.

    As they say where there's a Will, there's a Family.
    Point noted - not really an issue for me as I'm an only child and only have one kid.
    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • rjsterry
    rjsterry Posts: 29,499
    Surrey Commuter wrote:
    PBlakeney wrote:
    Options for life with an eye to old age.
    1. Live off the state.
    2. Work, wee-wee it all away, live off the state.
    3. Work, give it to your children, live off the state.
    4. Work, be supported by you family. Which means them giving up work.
    5. Work, give all your money to a care home.
    6. Be born into an ultra rich family or become ultra rich.

    Everyone make their decisions based on their opportunities and morals but there are only two options that benefits the family.

    This was a debate about incomes. I am not debating health or moral issues. Just as well these pensioners have such a high income so as to lower the burden on their children.

    depends which part of the family you are benefiting.

    My aunt got divorced 40 years ago and bought a small bungalow in Suffolk, worked all of her life and retired. She has no children, one sister and three nephews one of whom had been granted POA. So she had a small pension and a bungalow worth £200k. Upon developing alzheimers her own funds were used to keep her in her own home with increasing levels of care provided. As she deteriorated she moved into a care home and her bungalow was sold to pay the £1k a week fees.

    Is this right?
    is she rich?

    We will all have dealt with similar situations so I will not bang on about the emotional side of things but I believe we did the right thing for our family ie her. I am a long way from being a saint but the thought of baling out her assets and leaving her at the mercy of the state was never an option.

    I do not believe that you should take every penny that you can from the state but understand why people do and would never criticise them for it.

    I suppose this is just the other side of the current battle between central and local government over who funds social care.
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Part of the anti-growth coalition
  • plowmar
    plowmar Posts: 1,032
    Reading the comments above a lot of us pensioners have been fortunate due merely to timing. I am a type 1 diabetic since 1969 and my life expectancy was just short of getting to 50 in 2000. so i am in overtime wirth still many years to go.
    When I started in banking that year I was enrolled in a non contributary pension scheme - nought to pay- and started to draw it shortly after my 55th birthday due to ill health. Just old enough to get state pension at 65 - wife has to wait until 66, 6 years longer than expected.
    But with mortgage paid off giving a net benefit of approx 1300 per month, leaves us considerably better off than we were before so compared to the average worker logic dictates we will be better off than them. Now both on occupational pensions our net position is 2-300 better off than when working. A few years younger and things would have been very much different.
    Re tv licence - have to be 80, bus pass - what's that I cycle, fuel allowance - you're really up in arms about 200 per year?
  • surrey_commuter
    surrey_commuter Posts: 18,867
    plowmar wrote:
    Reading the comments above a lot of us pensioners have been fortunate due merely to timing. I am a type 1 diabetic since 1969 and my life expectancy was just short of getting to 50 in 2000. so i am in overtime wirth still many years to go.
    When I started in banking that year I was enrolled in a non contributary pension scheme - nought to pay- and started to draw it shortly after my 55th birthday due to ill health. Just old enough to get state pension at 65 - wife has to wait until 66, 6 years longer than expected.
    But with mortgage paid off giving a net benefit of approx 1300 per month, leaves us considerably better off than we were before so compared to the average worker logic dictates we will be better off than them. Now both on occupational pensions our net position is 2-300 better off than when working. A few years younger and things would have been very much different.
    Re tv licence - have to be 80, bus pass - what's that I cycle, fuel allowance - you're really up in arms about 200 per year?

    Your £200 adds up to £2-3bn in total and all pensioner benefits to approx £5bn.

    Is it right that the bloke down the road earning less than you pays more tax to fund your winter fuel allowance?
  • Mikey23
    Mikey23 Posts: 5,306
    Yes it just depends whether you were in the right place at the right time. When i joined the civil service at 18 i was enrolled to the CSP scheme automatically. Never thought about the advantages of cashing out at 60 and still getting a state pension 5 years later. That certainly isnt the deal now.

    And it does feel weird getting a £200 winter fuel allowance. But its what the government of the day decided so i cant fret about the bloke down the road. If it gets taken away some time soon then thats ok too. And it goes back into the economy anyway when i spend it
  • Stevo_666
    Stevo_666 Posts: 61,314
    I think the winter fuel allowance is to help pensioners melt snowflakes.
    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • plowmar
    plowmar Posts: 1,032
    Sorry Surrey comuter but on your figures there wouls appear to be 100 - 150 million pensioners. and even then it doesn't take into account pensioners that don't have good company pensions or none at all, they do need the fuel allowance and it is likely cheaper to give every one it than go through a means test and the staffing and paper work that entails.

    and just as a rough idea the 2-3 billion 'saved' would only keep the health service going for less than a week.
  • rjsterry
    rjsterry Posts: 29,499
    plowmar wrote:
    Sorry Surrey comuter but on your figures there wouls appear to be 100 - 150 million pensioners. and even then it doesn't take into account pensioners that don't have good company pensions or none at all, they do need the fuel allowance and it is likely cheaper to give every one it than go through a means test and the staffing and paper work that entails.

    and just as a rough idea the 2-3 billion 'saved' would only keep the health service going for less than a week.
    Err, it's 10-15million pensioners, which doesn't sound too far off. Yes, it is cheaper than a means tested system, but cheaper still in the long term would be insulating homes so that they are easier to keep warm. It was brought in as a bit of a sticking plaster, and now seems to have become 'essential'.
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Part of the anti-growth coalition
  • Mikey23
    Mikey23 Posts: 5,306
    And heaven help the party that takes it away. Pensioners rising up with pitch forks and burning torches. Political suicide to upset the grey vote...
  • plowmar
    plowmar Posts: 1,032
    Yes decimal point in wrong place, sorry. But perhaps we are tackling this at the wrong end, shouldn't the bigger energy supliers charge reasonable prices and not give out massive dividends and bonuses. If the newer small providers can charge less and still make profits why are the bigger ones less efficient?
  • plowmar
    plowmar Posts: 1,032
    This has got off the subject though hasn't it so this is my last comment on this.
  • surrey_commuter
    surrey_commuter Posts: 18,867
    Mikey23 wrote:
    And heaven help the party that takes it away. Pensioners rising up with pitch forks and burning torches. Political suicide to upset the grey vote...

    At the moment they are known as pensioner entitlements. Once they are being referred to as benefits you can reach for the pitch fork.

    At the very least you could make them taxable. Or of course scrap them and target the money to the needy.
  • surrey_commuter
    surrey_commuter Posts: 18,867
    plowmar wrote:
    Sorry Surrey comuter but on your figures there wouls appear to be 100 - 150 million pensioners. and even then it doesn't take into account pensioners that don't have good company pensions or none at all, they do need the fuel allowance and it is likely cheaper to give every one it than go through a means test and the staffing and paper work that entails.

    and just as a rough idea the 2-3 billion 'saved' would only keep the health service going for less than a week.

    Seems the pensioner problem is greater than I thought, factoring in the poor ones rhere must be at least a billion of them (unless I should have been subtracting)

    You are right it would be easier to carve money off the NHS budget.
  • Pross
    Pross Posts: 43,461
    The winter fuel thing came in, from memory, as a typical political knee-jerk because 'fuel poverty' was the buzz word at the time.

    If they used their heads politicians would realise that doing away with it would have an immediate saving and the added benefit that a few thousand coffin dodgers might pass away quickly each year from hypothermia therefore saving on expensive end of life care ;)
  • blueturtle
    blueturtle Posts: 33
    You lot make me laugh! One day you too if you are lucky will become a pensioner.Surely it is in your own interests to keep the state pension as high as possible. You all sound like turkeys voting for Christmas.Get real.
  • surrey_commuter
    surrey_commuter Posts: 18,867
    blueturtle wrote:
    You lot make me laugh! One day you too if you are lucky will become a pensioner.Surely it is in your own interests to keep the state pension as high as possible. You all sound like turkeys voting for Christmas.Get real.

    It is people like you who took the great out of Britain!!!!

    You need to look at the bigger picture - if that means we lose out so be it.
  • BelgianBeerGeek
    BelgianBeerGeek Posts: 5,226
    blueturtle wrote:
    You lot make me laugh! One day you too if you are lucky will become a pensioner.Surely it is in your own interests to keep the state pension as high as possible. You all sound like turkeys voting for Christmas.Get real.
    Balls. You pensioners have had 60+ years to sort yourselves out, but you want me to pay for your continuing existence?
    Kind of similar to the argument for paying for child care through taxation. They're your kids, you pay for 'em.
    Why not look after yourself and your own? Why the heck is this my problem?
    BTW I am in my mid-forties and do not have any expectations that I will ever retire, or be able to.
    Ecrasez l’infame
  • Mikey23
    Mikey23 Posts: 5,306
    Delivered without a hint of irony. I presumed someone is paying for my civil service pension, my state pension, my wifes teachers pension, my free prescriptions, my bus pass, my winter fuel payment and my free total hip replacement because i was stoopid enough to cycle across black ice. I guess its you... thanks mate
  • blueturtle
    blueturtle Posts: 33
    I have paid into my state pension for over forty years.In return i was promised by the government a pension this was a contract between me and the state. I fulfilled my obligation the government is now fulfilling theirs. Oh,and by the way i am still paying income tax on my pension,such as it is. As has already been said we get one of the lowest state pensions in Europe. Dont take what little we have away from us.
  • surrey_commuter
    surrey_commuter Posts: 18,867
    Mikey23 wrote:
    Delivered without a hint of irony. I presumed someone is paying for my civil service pension, my state pension, my wifes teachers pension, my free prescriptions, my bus pass, my winter fuel payment and my free total hip replacement because i was stoopid enough to cycle across black ice. I guess its you... thanks mate

    Damn I had forgotten about the free prescriptions. Please don't tell me you can an annual eye test.
  • surrey_commuter
    surrey_commuter Posts: 18,867
    blueturtle wrote:
    I have paid into my state pension for over forty years.In return i was promised by the government a pension this was a contract between me and the state. I fulfilled my obligation the government is now fulfilling theirs. Oh,and by the way i am still paying income tax on my pension,such as it is. As has already been said we get one of the lowest state pensions in Europe. Dont take what little we have away from us.

    Nobody is talking about the pension. They are talking about the universal benefits that the tw@t Brown introduced and now cost billions of pounds a year that could be better targeted at those that need it rather than those who reach an arbitrary age.
  • giropaul
    giropaul Posts: 414
    Surrey Commuter wrote:
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    PBlakeney wrote:
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    You're assuming a) she's been in a fit mental state to make arrangements and b) that her care is paid for by someone other than herself.
    A bit of a detour but...Once ill health presents itself it is time for hard decisions, and planning. Medical issues aside...
    Power of attorney is one of the first steps. Financial planning if there are savings are the next. The state pays for care if savings are below a certain level. Research good care homes in their area, they exist.
    Of course this will come with the benefit of hindsight to most, by which time it is too late and why it is best to consider your future early.

    Getting back to the OP, just as well all those pensioners are rich.

    Mate. You're not understanding what I'm saying.

    Living in a care home, which lots of old age diseases require, is chuffing expensive, and will annihilate all but the biggest savings.

    That's the point. It's not about financial planning. It's about care homes being really expensive. And if you are unfortunate enough to have a long, drawn out illness, which is increasingly the case for many older people, where you need long term support in a care home, it's incredibly expensive.

    I guess in this scenario an integral part of the financial planning would be leaving your elderly relatives at the mercy of the local authority.

    Am I alone in thinking that baling out money to avoid care home fees is akin to dodging tax and is morally wrong?

    It is also seen as " self deprivation " and councils and the DWP are getting much more aggressive in identifying it and seeking redress.

Categories