LEAVE the Conservative Party and save your country!

Stevo_666

rick_chasey said:

You lot are here -> .

























This was the point of the article -> .

Well explained. We now understand exactly where we were going wrong.

kingstongraham

Stevo_666 said:

kingstongraham said:

pblakeney said:

Add up average property value which you'd expect to be paid off, and the pension pot required to retire and this is hardly surprising. I have one word for the young, "will".

Final salary pensions are worth an unbelievable amount of money. I have one from my first 4ish years of work, which is worth a bit more than £70k. My total pre-tax earnings in that employment was £105k. Taking inflation into account, that was worth an extra 40% of my wages in that employment.

Final salary pensions are more of a public sector thing IMO. I have never been public sector and by pure luck have one old DB scheme, like yours that is worth a lot for the time I was there, but will definitely not pay the bills in old age as I was only there for a short time in the early 90's. Everything else is/was DC schemes so my strategy has been to build up the value in my DC schemes so that I can live pretty well once I've stopped working.

Exactly so. That's one reason why so many of those who are now 65+ are relatively minted compared to the expectations of those in similar situations who are younger. On average.

rjsterry

kingstongraham said:

Stevo_666 said:

kingstongraham said:

pblakeney said:

Add up average property value which you'd expect to be paid off, and the pension pot required to retire and this is hardly surprising. I have one word for the young, "will".

Final salary pensions are worth an unbelievable amount of money. I have one from my first 4ish years of work, which is worth a bit more than £70k. My total pre-tax earnings in that employment was £105k. Taking inflation into account, that was worth an extra 40% of my wages in that employment.

Final salary pensions are more of a public sector thing IMO. I have never been public sector and by pure luck have one old DB scheme, like yours that is worth a lot for the time I was there, but will definitely not pay the bills in old age as I was only there for a short time in the early 90's. Everything else is/was DC schemes so my strategy has been to build up the value in my DC schemes so that I can live pretty well once I've stopped working.

Exactly so. That's one reason why so many of those who are now 65+ are relatively minted compared to the expectations of those in similar situations who are younger. On average.

I would also add that there is no limit to the amount of income you can receive and still consider yourself 'just about managing'. People's view of how well off they were/are can be a long way off what the numbers actually say.

TheBigBean

The idea that people should be able to both buy a house and inherit a house was always going to run into difficulties.

Being too poor to marry and have kids is a poor argument.

That said, I have sympathy for anyone who is currently young.

surrey_commuter

rjsterry said:

kingstongraham said:

Stevo_666 said:

kingstongraham said:

pblakeney said:

Add up average property value which you'd expect to be paid off, and the pension pot required to retire and this is hardly surprising. I have one word for the young, "will".

Final salary pensions are worth an unbelievable amount of money. I have one from my first 4ish years of work, which is worth a bit more than £70k. My total pre-tax earnings in that employment was £105k. Taking inflation into account, that was worth an extra 40% of my wages in that employment.

Final salary pensions are more of a public sector thing IMO. I have never been public sector and by pure luck have one old DB scheme, like yours that is worth a lot for the time I was there, but will definitely not pay the bills in old age as I was only there for a short time in the early 90's. Everything else is/was DC schemes so my strategy has been to build up the value in my DC schemes so that I can live pretty well once I've stopped working.

Exactly so. That's one reason why so many of those who are now 65+ are relatively minted compared to the expectations of those in similar situations who are younger. On average.

I would also add that there is no limit to the amount of income you can receive and still consider yourself 'just about managing'. People's view of how well off they were/are can be a long way off what the numbers actually say.

If your outgoings are greater than your income then you will be “just about managing”

A big factor is family wealth, if granny is paying for the school fees and you get free holidays then that will be worth at least £50k pa in take home or £100k of earned income.

Two girls working for me earning circa £60k a year, one is the main bread winner (fiancé is artisan joiner) the other has family money and everything she earns is disposable, the chap she met and will marry is a multi millionaire with his own chateau. They both hammer me for pay rises because they are skint.

Pross

Dorset_Boy said:

Pross - when the State Pension was set up shortly after the end of WW2, male life expectancy was 64, and the State Pension age was 65.
Life xpectancy for a 65 yo now is to 83/84 on average and there's a 1 in 4 chance of living to 100. That's almost a 3 month increase in life expectancy for each year that has passed!
So the younger generation may have to work 5 years longer than their grandparents., but they'll still have a longer retirement.
If the start a savings culture as soon as they start working, they'll still be able to retire before SPA. However that might mean not getting the latest iphone every 2 years paying £75 pm for it, and not buying 2 or 3 coffees every day.

Sure but it doesn't feel that way when you're 20 and see 50 years of work ahead of you and the thought that you'll be ancient by time you get there.

surrey_commuter

Pross said:

Dorset_Boy said:

Pross - when the State Pension was set up shortly after the end of WW2, male life expectancy was 64, and the State Pension age was 65.
Life xpectancy for a 65 yo now is to 83/84 on average and there's a 1 in 4 chance of living to 100. That's almost a 3 month increase in life expectancy for each year that has passed!
So the younger generation may have to work 5 years longer than their grandparents., but they'll still have a longer retirement.
If the start a savings culture as soon as they start working, they'll still be able to retire before SPA. However that might mean not getting the latest iphone every 2 years paying £75 pm for it, and not buying 2 or 3 coffees every day.

Sure but it doesn't feel that way when you're 20 and see 50 years of work ahead of you and the thought that you'll be ancient by time you get there.

By the the they have had a couple of gap years to discover who they are they will work the same number of years as you and I.

I would change the rules on state pension so the poor fvcker who has done manual work since leaving school at 16 does th same number of years as the above mentioned person who enters the workforce 8 years later

rjsterry

surrey_commuter said:

rjsterry said:

kingstongraham said:

Stevo_666 said:

kingstongraham said:

pblakeney said:

Add up average property value which you'd expect to be paid off, and the pension pot required to retire and this is hardly surprising. I have one word for the young, "will".

Final salary pensions are worth an unbelievable amount of money. I have one from my first 4ish years of work, which is worth a bit more than £70k. My total pre-tax earnings in that employment was £105k. Taking inflation into account, that was worth an extra 40% of my wages in that employment.

Final salary pensions are more of a public sector thing IMO. I have never been public sector and by pure luck have one old DB scheme, like yours that is worth a lot for the time I was there, but will definitely not pay the bills in old age as I was only there for a short time in the early 90's. Everything else is/was DC schemes so my strategy has been to build up the value in my DC schemes so that I can live pretty well once I've stopped working.

Exactly so. That's one reason why so many of those who are now 65+ are relatively minted compared to the expectations of those in similar situations who are younger. On average.

I would also add that there is no limit to the amount of income you can receive and still consider yourself 'just about managing'. People's view of how well off they were/are can be a long way off what the numbers actually say.

If your outgoings are greater than your income then you will be “just about managing”

A big factor is family wealth, if granny is paying for the school fees and you get free holidays then that will be worth at least £50k pa in take home or £100k of earned income.

Two girls working for me earning circa £60k a year, one is the main bread winner (fiancé is artisan joiner) the other has family money and everything she earns is disposable, the chap she met and will marry is a multi millionaire with his own chateau. They both hammer me for pay rises because they are skint.

I think when it was fashionable to talk about the JAMs, it didn't mean struggling to cover your third skiing trip of the year.

kingstongraham

Pross said:

Dorset_Boy said:

Pross - when the State Pension was set up shortly after the end of WW2, male life expectancy was 64, and the State Pension age was 65.
Life xpectancy for a 65 yo now is to 83/84 on average and there's a 1 in 4 chance of living to 100. That's almost a 3 month increase in life expectancy for each year that has passed!
So the younger generation may have to work 5 years longer than their grandparents., but they'll still have a longer retirement.
If the start a savings culture as soon as they start working, they'll still be able to retire before SPA. However that might mean not getting the latest iphone every 2 years paying £75 pm for it, and not buying 2 or 3 coffees every day.

Sure but it doesn't feel that way when you're 20 and see 50 years of work ahead of you and the thought that you'll be ancient by time you get there.

There were forecast to be 375 OAPs for every 100 people of working age in 2042, up from 301 in 2017, even with increasing pension age. I don't know what impact the past year will have had on that.

I'm also not convinced that those who are young now will necessarily have a longer retirement than their grandparents - but if they do, they will need now to save to pay for it on a realistic expectation of longevity. Unlike those who are currently 75+.

rick_chasey

I do find it amusing that the stats are quite clear why it’s different for the current younger generation and the oldies on here do their best four Yorkshiremen impression. I’m sure you all had it terribly tough.

The point of the article was trying to explain the new fault line in UK politics (and probably rest of the western world), which is age, why that might be, which also, if you go along with the premise, explains the more culture warsy type politics.

Pross

Most of the oldies on here have kids in that generation and / or work with younger people believe it or not. Just because we started listening to Radio 2 doesn't put us completely out of touch. Arguably I'm better placed to understand the plight of people in their late teens / early 20s than someone like you approaching middle age and with younger kids

Pross

We should have a thread on issues Rick understands more than the rest of us.

pblakeney

Bookmarked for a return in 25 years time. 😉

Dorset_Boy

Pross said:

We should have a thread on issues Rick understands more than the rest of us.

Rick understands EVERYTHING better than the rest of us.......

... or so he thinks!

rjsterry

Pross said:

Most of the oldies on here have kids in that generation and / or work with younger people believe it or not. Just because we started listening to Radio 2 doesn't put us completely out of touch. Arguably I'm better placed to understand the plight of people in their late teens / early 20s than someone like you approaching middle age and with younger kids

GTFO!

rjsterry

rick_chasey said:

I do find it amusing that the stats are quite clear why it’s different for the current younger generation and the oldies on here do their best four Yorkshiremen impression. I’m sure you all had it terribly tough.

The point of the article was trying to explain the new fault line in UK politics (and probably rest of the western world), which is age, why that might be, which also, if you go along with the premise, explains the more culture warsy type politics.

Except that most of us on here (granted it's a small sample) are solid Centrist Dad material, and don't really fit on either side of that fault line.

orraloon

Pross said:

...listening to Radio 2 doesn't put us completely out of touch...

Ahem. Jo Whiley has / is playing 2 hours of total belters on that there Radio 2 right now. So there.

Stevo_666

Pross said:

We should have a thread on issues Rick understands more than the rest of us.

Blimey, that could be the biggest thread in Cake Stop

rick_chasey

Pross said:

Most of the oldies on here have kids in that generation and / or work with younger people believe it or not. Just because we started listening to Radio 2 doesn't put us completely out of touch. Arguably I'm better placed to understand the plight of people in their late teens / early 20s than someone like you approaching middle age and with younger kids

I’m going to hazard you didn’t read it. The dividing line is around 45-50 in the article

Pross

Yep, I'm sitting nicely in the middle of that range so maybe I'm still OK.

Jezyboy

rick_chasey said:

I do find it amusing that the stats are quite clear why it’s different for the current younger generation and the oldies on here do their best four Yorkshiremen impression. I’m sure you all had it terribly tough.

The point of the article was trying to explain the new fault line in UK politics (and probably rest of the western world), which is age, why that might be, which also, if you go along with the premise, explains the more culture warsy type politics.

I do wonder how much the stats are skewed by London/SE.

I realise there are some white collar professional jobs where provincial office staff are regarded as country bumpkins, but I'd argue that in many cases, the mug is the one who ends up earning a tiny bit more, but spending way more than that on rent/commuting.

There does seem to be a set assumption that these articles are about 30/40 year olds in fairly decent salaried jobs who are spending frivolously. What about those who are stuck in minimum wage (or just slightly higher) positions?

pinkbikini

So Williamson, having spent time on trying to cancel non-existent ‘cancel culture’ in universities (during a pandemic with massive consequences for education) is now diverting his energies to reforming behaviour in schools because kids have forgotten how to behave during lockdown. Yes, this is clearly the key issue that needs addressing at the moment.

Extraordinary dog-whistle politics for Telegraph readers. He’s clearly not worried about his complete failure in his current role, with no guidance (still) on university tuition and no clear plan for A-level assessments, on top of his abject failures from last year to co-ordinate school openings, allocate grades effectively or take any responsibility for school pressures during a crisis.

This man clearly can’t focus on major issues and is out of his depth.

How is he still in his second major govt position for which he has no qualification and no aptitude? Forget your Unite members and shadow chancellors. Here’s your corrupt politician and key muppet.

To quote a member of his own party, a “venomous, self-seeking little shit”.

Any self-respecting party would have kicked him over the back benches years ago.

orraloon

He's eminently qualified for his job, that of licking Spaffer's arris.

pinkbikini

Duplicate removed

pblakeney

pinkbikini said:

Why does censored get censored but not cunts?

The simple use of a plural.

PS - It can be interesting to look back at old threads. This one had very little interest and yet, here we are.

https://forum.bikeradar.com/discussion/comment/19132580#Comment_19132580

pinkbikini

Yep, no one expected Spaffer to be a serious candidate. Im trying to find a positive - perhaps no one thought the Conservatives could become so woeful that he would be their best shot.

Williamson must have a brown envelope with pics of Spaffer paying women off, or have something on Stanley.

What a bunch of shits.

pblakeney

Nice to see that an opinion I had in 2014 has been more than confirmed during 2020/2021 though. 😉 Would have been better if I had been wrong but here we are.

kingstongraham

We're paying Cameron £115,000 a year to try to get himself even more money.

In a nice synchronicity, "Last night Labour said the messages suggested Sunak may have broken the ministerial code and called for a “transparent and thorough investigation”."

kingstongraham

Cameron thought he was up for £60m just for himself.

rick_chasey