The pandemic and people being furloughed resulted in a lot of people working daft hours getting a taste of life outside of work for probably the first time in decades in some cases and they found they quite liked being at home at normal mealtimes, getting to spend time with family and friends, do hobbies and social activities. Couple it with the fact that 50-60hrs a week, week in, week out for years usually leaves you mentally and physically broken then it comes as no surprise that those who could afford to retire early, go part time or go for a lower paying job with more sane hours did so.
dozy:
[
Well you’ve gone wrong then somewhere Connor , I’m 60 & my mortgage was paid of 20 yrs ago
No I haven’t. I invested what I was going to overpay my mortgage with instead of paying the mortgage. Much better returns.
Say I have a £100,000 mortgage at 2% over 25 years. I overpay at £200 a month. I pay off my mortgage 9 years and 5 months early, I save £10,724 in interest, paying a total of £116,455.
Say I don’t overpay the mortgage and I invest the £200 a month instead at the stock market long term historic average rate of 7% returns. My fund would be worth what the mortgage is by year 15 so I could pay off the mortgage 10 years early. But more importantly it’s cost me just £112,520 in combined mortgage payments and monthly investments. So I’m not only mortgage free over a year quicker but it’s cost me £3935 less to do so.
If I were really going to do it to the max, and by god do I wish I’d had the balls to actually go through with this especially given the 24% my fund has grown between today and this time last year, I’d go interest only on the mortgage reducing the £424 a month to £167, top up the monthly investment by the difference between interest only and repayment mortgage to £457 a month. Invested with the same 7% average returns I’d be mortgage free at 11 years 10 months costing me a total of £89,000 out of my pocket which is actually less than I’d taken out the original mortgage for.
Edit: Sod it, I’m putting my money where my mouth is. For £75 I can change my mortgage to interest only so I’m going to, just waiting on the phone call from the bank. Interest only works out at £68 a month, £15.69 a week. You can’t even rent a bedsit for a week for that, there’s no point ever paying off the mortgage at that rate.
The top truck driver in the country has suddenly become the top financial advisor. If it sounds too good to be true then it probably is. High returns = high risk. Low returns = low risk. The way you promote the scheme on Facebook would make people think you have invested in some totally unique, high returns, can’t fail investment product…what a Muppet.
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.
Carryfast:
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.
A tax on their estate… not on them…they are dead… they have ceased to exist…
Can you guess?
youtube.com/watch?v=vZw35VUBdzo
.
You haven`t even attempted to say how 40 years of work can pay for 20 years of education and 20 years of retirement?
.
^^^^
16 minus 5=11, 81 minus 67=14, that is if a job entailing hard physical allows you to get to be 81. And 67 minus 16=51. That’s 25 years at school and retired and 51 years at work. Looks a bit different now. I’m fully with Carryfast on what he has written in this post.
Franglais:
Carryfast:
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.A tax on their estate… not on them…they are dead… they have ceased to exist…
Can you guess?
youtube.com/watch?v=vZw35VUBdzo
.
You haven`t even attempted to say how 40 years of work can pay for 20 years of education and 20 years of retirement?
.
It’s a tax on the estate/property of the deceased therefore it’s a tax on the deceased.
It has to be paid out of the content of the estate before probate is granted to anyone.
If it isn’t a tax on the deceased then why and how does a wife have her dead spouses’ unused inheritance tax allowance added to her’s which is then used to calculate her tax liability when she dies.
40 years of work pays for 20 years of retirement by increasing existing wage levels by 50% to provide the required deferred wage requirement thereby passing the cost back into the economy.Also topped up with an income tax based state pensions system which imposes the highest burden on the highest earners.
But you’d obviously prefer the employer classes to keep the cash owed in wages if not exporting the jobs to sweatshop economies, so as to increase profits at the expense of employees.Also ripping off the NHS and state pension system to reduce the income tax burden on the highest earners from 80+ % to 40%.
Then you claim that you’re not a Tory.
Income should only be taxed once.
Which obviously doesn’t mean taxing the hard earned estates of the working/middle classes to subsidise 40% income tax cuts for the highest income groups.
Conor:
Juddian:
Maybe some have realised the likely coming social care changes possibly means a typical working persons hard earned house and savings are likely to be taken by the state to pay for one’s care nearer to clocking out time, so might as well enjoy a retirement and get yourself down to the same financial position as those who’ve never done a days work in their lives, or those who’ve never paid a penny into the system, sometimes the same people, all of whom who will continue to get everything for free right up to the end.I recently had a month off sick where this was driven home to me. Here’s me muggins having done the right thing, saved my money, invested it, built up a nice little stash sat on £95 a week SSP entitled to sod all else because of that stash despite paying more stoppages than some people earn meanwhile up the road someone who has earned a load more than me but spent it on going on foreign holidays a few times a year, brand new car every few years and whatever other crap and has no savings would be able to also claim universal credit and get £100s a week.
Saving is not rewarded in this country. Might be time to pay a lump off the mortgage, put in that kitchen we’ve been talking about for a few years, put a few bob under the mattress given the interest rates on savings are zero and shove the rest in my pension because certainly having it sat in investments and savings accounts isn’t doing me any favours.
Universal credit is “100s a week”?. Dont ever claim it Conor you will be sorely disappointed.
cav551:
^^^^16 minus 5=11, 81 minus 67=14, that is if a job entailing hard physical allows you to get to be 81. And 67 minus 16=51. That’s 25 years at school and retired and 51 years at work. Looks a bit different now. I’m fully with Carryfast on what he has written in this post.
Carryfast suggested retirement at 60 not 67.
Why 16 minus 5? Are you earning from 0 to 5?
Start work 16? (the earliest possible) End at 60, gives 44yrs of work, and about 37 of not working.
Now I am with you that it sounds nice, but, how can you see the finance working?
So we are including babies and toddlers in this are we ? 0 to 5 ? How terrible to be an unproductive, useless mouth burden to the nation. Then child benefit £3.02 a day; nursery care £67 a day for 0 to 2, which allows the mother to return to work. Minimum wage @ £8.91hr. Work 8 hrs, net gain £ 4.28 a day.
“Share your wealth whilst you still have it - or lose it to the state later.”
It puzzles me why it is that the richest people are the most stingy to their own relatives, especially their offspring…
Our current environment - really shouldn’t be encouraging people who have low incomes to take out debt AT ALL.
“Debt” should be to ONLY purchase an inflating asset, such as a property.
“Consumer Credit” - causes nothing but pain to all those who have never learned the correct way to handle debt, which is to borrow as much as you can for as low an interest rate as you can - for as long as you can. Let Inflation erode that debt over the longer timeframe, don’t acquire paid-up assets early, lest you be financially penalized, and most of all - get that interest flipped over into something cheaper as soon as possible!
LABOUR could and should be telling people how to reduce their debts without paying extra not this “Chase 'em until they murder/suicide” attitude they seem to have had for over a generation now…
“Less is more” - when managed properly.
Franglais:
cav551:
^^^^16 minus 5=11, 81 minus 67=14, that is if a job entailing hard physical allows you to get to be 81. And 67 minus 16=51. That’s 25 years at school and retired and 51 years at work. Looks a bit different now. I’m fully with Carryfast on what he has written in this post.
Carryfast suggested retirement at 60 not 67.
Why 16 minus 5? Are you earning from 0 to 5?
Start work 16? (the earliest possible) End at 60, gives 44yrs of work, and about 37 of not working.
Now I am with you that it sounds nice, but, how can you see the finance working?
Tell us more about the French system.
The lifespan of humans is 3 score years + 10 anything more than that is a bonus which I’m sure the employer and banker classes can afford by increasing deferred wage levels.
Also bearing in mind that pension payments generally stop on death and plenty don’t get anything because they die before they reach 66 let alone get what they are due.
You’re advocating a something for nothing culture on an exploitative selective basis.
Whether it’s nicking someone else’s property because you think it’s too good for them and you want to hand it over to a more ‘deserving’ case obviously decided by you, or saving employers’ wage costs by not forcing them to pay for a decent pension and health care for the workforce.
Start work at 16 work to 60 = 44 years work or 40 years if starting at 20.
Then you’re obviously saying that most people will live until they are 97.
The years before starting work have nothing whatsoever to do with funding retirement.
Also bearing in mind that pensions = contributions + interest accrued and the state pension isn’t based on 44 years of contributions.
It would take a miracle for the average worker to do that with no breaks anyway.
Either way retirement funds are totally dependent on the amount of deferred wages/ savings that employers are prepared, or forced, to provide.The same applies to health care costs.Employers trying to minimise those costs is the problem.
Winseer:
“Share your wealth whilst you still have it - or lose it to the state later.”It puzzles me why it is that the richest people are the most stingy to their own relatives, especially their offspring…
Our current environment - really shouldn’t be encouraging people who have low incomes to take out debt AT ALL.
“Debt” should be to ONLY purchase an inflating asset, such as a property.“Consumer Credit” - causes nothing but pain to all those who have never learned the correct way to handle debt, which is to borrow as much as you can for as low an interest rate as you can - for as long as you can. Let Inflation erode that debt over the longer timeframe, don’t acquire paid-up assets early, lest you be financially penalized, and most of all - get that interest flipped over into something cheaper as soon as possible!
LABOUR could and should be telling people how to reduce their debts without paying extra not this “Chase 'em until they murder/suicide” attitude they seem to have had for over a generation now…
“Less is more” - when managed properly.
The really stupid bit is putting cash into a rip off pension which is rigged in favour of the pension provider instead of paying off the mortgage sooner or buying a more valuable property.
As for consumer debt it’s just another method that employers use to reduce their wage costs and help their cash flow.Like health care rationing and poverty retirement funding for their workforce.
I dont see any problem in finding money to pay better pensions or a basic income - remember how the tories screamed poverty for years then suddenly covid apears and they suddenly find 400 billion down the sofa.
Carryfast:
Winseer:
“Share your wealth whilst you still have it - or lose it to the state later.”It puzzles me why it is that the richest people are the most stingy to their own relatives, especially their offspring…
Our current environment - really shouldn’t be encouraging people who have low incomes to take out debt AT ALL.
“Debt” should be to ONLY purchase an inflating asset, such as a property.“Consumer Credit” - causes nothing but pain to all those who have never learned the correct way to handle debt, which is to borrow as much as you can for as low an interest rate as you can - for as long as you can. Let Inflation erode that debt over the longer timeframe, don’t acquire paid-up assets early, lest you be financially penalized, and most of all - get that interest flipped over into something cheaper as soon as possible!
LABOUR could and should be telling people how to reduce their debts without paying extra not this “Chase 'em until they murder/suicide” attitude they seem to have had for over a generation now…
“Less is more” - when managed properly.
The really stupid bit is putting cash into a rip off pension which is rigged in favour of the pension provider instead of paying off the mortgage sooner or buying a more valuable property.
As for consumer debt it’s just another method that employers use to reduce their wage costs and help their cash flow.Like health care rationing and poverty retirement funding for their workforce.
If one owes a bank more - then there is more incentive for them to keep lending to you, and you get encouraged to stretch yourself, debt-wise. If you have maintained very careful, and tight control over your debts, then you get penalized by the rug being pulled later in the day “First chance they get”…
Eg. A mortgage payer who’s paid faithfully for 24 out of 25 years of their mortgage, that then say, contracts cancer, goes to zero income because of not working their Zero Hours Contract and subsequently defaults their mortgage…
The lender will JUMP at the chance to “Re-possess” rather than advance that person further, and cheap finance in their hour of need. Banks are NOT socialist, of course…
On the other hand, a person who’s on an interest-only mortgage and in all other aspects in the same situation - will be encouraged to entirely re-finance that mortgage, or redeem it by selling the property in the near future, hopefully for enough to make that mortgage redemption… The lender bends over backwards to help out in this scenario, as to NOT do that - threatens the bank with a default of the ENTIRE outstanding mortgage (interest only - means the full original amount borrowed - is still owing!)
…Thus the lender doesn’t want to rock the boat too much, lest the borrower either re-finances at another bank, losing that business, dies earlier than expected, leaving the lender unable to repossess during probate, or evict any next-of-kin as sitting tenants as well… All-in-all - much easier for the lender to lose over a long period of time, compared to the sheer encouragement to “pull the rug” when a borrower has already paid back over 90% of the original amount - but faceplants just in time for the lender to enforce FULL re-posssession, stripping that borrower of any equity that might have been in the property sometimes as well…
This latter point is done by first evicting, and then if there is say, some positive equity from the sale of say, £30,000 - there will be “fees and charges” such as “Changing the locks” and “cutting the grass” or even “Making essential street repairs” - which just happen to eat up just about ALL of that £30,000 positive equity amount, thus ensuring the kicked-out mortgage defaulter - gets NOTHING, and the bank cops the lot…
Paying off 90% of your mortgage - is MUCH more risky to the borrower then than paying off 0% of your mortgage!
The mortgage borrower is at greatest risk the year before the final percent of mortgage is paid.
I have only just read through this thread. Interesting. Franglais wrote earlier
“We are all in differing personal circumstances and our own position changes with time. Always discuss any long term plans with others, preferably experts, but even forums such as this with non experts give insights into courses we may not be aware of at all.”
Which is not bad advice of course. But, if you seek advice pick your expert carefully. Note that banks are rarely (if ever) offering independent unbiased advice. They are looking at ways to get more out you for them.
Some years ago I was fortunate to be in a well paid position overseas. This caused me to be the target of many experts always ready to proffer their “expert” advice to me, intended of course to make me wealthier.
So many of them were slick chancers, some simply wide boys. I never took their advice. But I did enjoy putting this to them. I would say that if they are the expert, telling me that they are better qualified than me for knowing how to grow my wealth (don’t get any ideas dear reader. I am not really rich, just comfortable) then, to assist me, they will surely be asking what I actually earn and possess, no? Therefore I would say they must be quite wealthy too as they would surely be using their expertise for their own benefit. So I would challenge them to tell me what they were presently worth and how they had accumulated it. None ever accepted.
Thus I figured I might be doing well enough by my own research. And did so.
Dipster:
I have only just read through this thread. Interesting. Franglais wrote earlier“We are all in differing personal circumstances and our own position changes with time. Always discuss any long term plans with others, preferably experts, but even forums such as this with non experts give insights into courses we may not be aware of at all.”
Which is not bad advice of course. But, if you seek advice pick your expert carefully. Note that banks are rarely (if ever) offering independent unbiased advice. They are looking at ways to get more out you for them.
Some years ago I was fortunate to be in a well paid position overseas. This caused me to be the target of many experts always ready to proffer their “expert” advice to me, intended of course to make me wealthier.
So many of them were slick chancers, some simply wide boys. I never took their advice. But I did enjoy putting this to them. I would say that if they are the expert, telling me that they are better qualified than me for knowing how to grow my wealth (don’t get any ideas dear reader. I am not really rich, just comfortable) then, to assist me, they will surely be asking what I actually earn and possess, no? Therefore I would say they must be quite wealthy too as they would surely be using their expertise for their own benefit. So I would challenge them to tell me what they were presently worth and how they had accumulated it. None ever accepted.
Thus I figured I might be doing well enough by my own research. And did so.
The most helpful for me was not from those who advised “do this” and “don`t do that”, but from those who Explained what taking certain course might lead to. Giving me the option to choose, after explaining the possible outcomes.
.
I remember well one bank advisor (upfront clearly explained only selling policies from a limited pool) talking about health insurance. We looked at differing schemes and worked through the costs/benefits/risks etc. Looking at how different occupations were historically paid out and reasons for such. (That was an eye-opener in itself)
Looking at the workings with a professional, even a biased one, gave me the way into making a decision (having a better guess!) about what best to do for myself.