Franglais:
Carryfast:
The maximum amount loaned is well under 50% of the value so it’s not ‘selling the house’ as such.
It’s just a part remortgage which hopefully won’t be due for repayment before deathmoneysavingexpert.com/mortg … y-release/
As always MoneySavingExpert gives a good simple idea of what its all about.Carryfast:
It’s all just a reflection of an over supplied labour marketNot many are saying there is a labour over supply at the moment?
Carryfast:
which you’ll lose the property anyway or have to downsize into a small hovel just delaying the bankruptcy for the privilege.One or two living retirees in a family home that was bought for their (now flown) family, needs more heating and taxes paying, is likely older so needs more maintenance. Of course we are emotionally invested in homes more than houses, but the economics need looking at too.
Carryfast:
Or at worse being ripped off by the state pension system by increasing an already too high pension age which many won’t live to see or won’t live long after.Carryfast:
.Workers should be retired on a decent pension by the age of 60 not raiding hard earned property equity to survive.Carryfast:
the laughable propaganda that we’re all supposedly living longerLife expectancy in the UK (apart from Covid) has been increasing for decades.
macrotrends.net/countries/G … expectancy
So, if are at school until we are…?..20. work until we are 60 you say, then live to 80…how is that funded in your idea?
40 years work funding 20 years retirement? As someone who is always moaning about paying taxes how do you see it happening?
(I bet I`ll regret asking such a question!)Carryfast:
probably lose a lot of it to inheritance tax anyway.Who “loses” in inheritance taxes? Not the person who earned the money, they are dead.
Taxes are needed to fund the short working life and long retirement you proposed above, but don`t want taxes to pay for.
Firstly inhetrritance tax is levied on the estate of the deceased.So it’s effectively just a further tax on the proceeds of their net wage after income tax has been deducted.
The deceased obviously loses because it’s their property bought out of their already taxed wages with the intention of handing it on to their offspring.
The inference of theft of property re allocated on an each according to their needs basis is obvious within your mindset.
By your logic obviously anyone who worked for a decent house with a nice garden would have it forcibly taken by the government if it’s deemed as being too much for their needs at any time.It’s obvious that you have issues with the idea of property ownership.
As for living longer those pushing the lie obviously also have a financial interest in delaying and with holding pension payouts as a result of it and you just want everyone to ignore that conflict of interest.
The pension age should be 60 at most for both women and men.
Being on JSA based UC at over 60 is not only ridiculous it’s degrading and you want to force more into that situation it by removing property rights.
While if anything I’m seeing a clear reduction in life span across a wide circle of friends and family compared to my Grandparents’ generation.
express.co.uk/finance/person … sion-injus
As for the labour supply like pensions you want us to trust the employer classes to define the labour supply obviously rigged in their favour.Over 60’s competing in the job market with 20’s and 30’s and adverts actually stating they have more applicants than vacancies says it all in that regard.
Pension is deferred wages nothing to do with taxation.The truth is the employers don’t want to pay the required wages to meet health care and retirement costs and private pension providers are in it to make a profit.
So they rig their liabilities with an unfit for purpose rationed state health and pension system, based on the idea that most will die before getting what they are due, if they don’t die before that.
While health care rationing does both.