Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

Thread gallery
10
Katypp · 25/05/2026 17:28

BIossomtoes · 25/05/2026 15:50

Please explain “wasting their good fortune” when most people have done exactly what they’re supposed to: worked all their lives, bought a house, saved into a pension scheme. In what way is that waste?

Dunno. Sounds good though doesn't it?

Katypp · 25/05/2026 17:26

ruethewhirl · 25/05/2026 12:00

And some desperately poor ones.

OK. So what are THEY doing about it?
Because pps on this thread have been very vocal about greedy, grasping and selfish boomers who deserve to be poor because they have not done anything to help themselves.
Yet ... it's apparently perfectly fine and understandable that 45% of today's workers (who have far more opportunities to pay into a pension than the despised boomers ever had) are not paying into a pension because ... because ....because.
I will say it again - there is nothing unique about the finances of today's young families. The circumstances they are living in are unique, but so were mine in the 80s/90s amid soaring interest rates, or the families living through the house price crashes of the late 90s/00s. The years of bringing up children have always been and always will be the most expensive of our lives.
You can't on one hand advocate for pensions to be scaled back but then not acknowledge this is likely to be an even bigger problem in the future. The ony difference is today's workers seem to know what they are doing in a way workers in the past didn't.

Nemorth · 25/05/2026 16:46

I started saving into my pension as soon as I had my first job that offered a match (2002). I figured if I did that I’d get used to not having it in the first place. Then every year when the personal tax allowance went up (hah, those were the days!) I’d increase the percentage I saved.

My pension pot is quite healthy now.

It’s almost too hard to start when you have a whole range of commitments but if we can encourage our young people to start in their first job then they can get used to the outlay. Then they can cut their cloth accordingly and hopefully never stop paying in.

DH and I have started stakeholder pensions for our DC. We only pay in £20 each per month but one DC has 48 years of growth and the other 52, so who knows!

BIossomtoes · 25/05/2026 15:50

Apprentice26 · 25/05/2026 15:21

They dont “blame” them for their good luck. They blame them for not acknowledging it, for taking out even more just because they can and for wasting their good fortune

Please explain “wasting their good fortune” when most people have done exactly what they’re supposed to: worked all their lives, bought a house, saved into a pension scheme. In what way is that waste?

crossedlines · 25/05/2026 15:45

Apprentice26 · 25/05/2026 15:21

They dont “blame” them for their good luck. They blame them for not acknowledging it, for taking out even more just because they can and for wasting their good fortune

Taking out even more? Eh?

Apprentice26 · 25/05/2026 15:21

ThreadGuardDog · 25/05/2026 11:58

I’ve never understood why MN condemns and blames boomers for the economic climate they lived through. Are they saying that being presented with the same opportunities they would have done things differently ? And levelling accusations of boomers being self centred and bringing up their children to be the same, is a bit rich when you look at the levels of bad behaviour and entitlement from today’s children. We do the best we can with what we have at the time and everything is relevant to it’s time. Boomers were responsible for fighting for and securing a lot of the things subsequent generations have benefited from. Conveniently forgotten in the rush to condemn.

They dont “blame” them for their good luck. They blame them for not acknowledging it, for taking out even more just because they can and for wasting their good fortune

crossedlines · 25/05/2026 14:29

MsGreying · 25/05/2026 12:27

How much do people need to live on when they retire?

dh and I are looking to retire soon. Our occupational pensions will be about 2k a month (DH) and 1650 a month for me (I went down to 3 days a week work for a short period of years when the kids were babies so my pension took a bit of a hit.) We’ll both get decent lump sums as well. When one of us dies, the other will get half of their monthly pension payments. The mortgage is paid off so we’ll be ok. We won’t get state pension until 66 and 7 months (DH) and 67 for me.

tbh there’s no way I’d want to live on the state pension alone. I’m very glad we both worked full time apart from that small number of pt years I did, and that I continued working during the bloody awful era of high interest rates and all my net pay going on the nursery bill.

Papyrophile · 25/05/2026 14:14

MsGreying · 25/05/2026 12:27

How much do people need to live on when they retire?

It depends on multiple factors, of course. We're only semi-retired at 70, because DH is still running the business he started 34 years ago, although he's no longer hands on onsite. But he retains oversight of the commercial aspects, and is the memory bank for the company. I still look after the pension funds that we have, but not all the routine admin tasks which are mostly automated now.

Our home costs as much or more to run as ever, mainly because at 70 we don't have the stamina for a steeply sloped garden, so we need a contractor to do the heavy lifting. We shall move and downsize a bit, but we are also helping our DC with their rent in the Southeast for the next year or so. None of the everyday costs have gone down because we are retired: we have to eat and drink and stay warm. There's no longer a mortgage, which helps, but CT is £365 per month.

nearlylovemyusername · 25/05/2026 13:15

VintageLane · 24/05/2026 19:23

That needs some context. 45% of adults are not saving into a pension, but that includes the unemployed and self-employed. I think the figure for auto-enrolled employed people is substantially higher - something like 90%.

This makes sense. Given that 25% of working age population are economically inactive, 45% makes sense because is includes self employed who very frequently work cash in hand of have mechanisms to save under business umbrella

Differentforgirls · 25/05/2026 13:14

MsGreying · 25/05/2026 12:27

How much do people need to live on when they retire?

We have £3000 per month. No mortgage though. Direct debits are about £450, food, petrol etc about £550.

We pay council tax, car insurance and tax, football and golf season tickets and fees and tv licence from the interest on our savings yearly.

When we both get our SP we will have £5000 per month. First one in 3 years time.

crossedlines · 25/05/2026 12:45

BIossomtoes · 25/05/2026 12:09

The same ones who raised their families at a time of double digit inflation, basic rate income tax at 35%, with NI on top and interest rates ranging from 7% to 17%.

The posters who are so venomous in their hatred of boomers obviously forget that many of us who they despise have adult children in their 20s and 30s and have a very good understanding of the particular challenges facing that generation. I can see that the housing market for renting or buying is the biggest challenge - and I wholeheartedly support far more and faster building of affordable homes and rent controls. The job market is also difficult, though less so if you’re prepared to do whatever job comes up. And many young people are sold a dud when it comes to university…. It was a ridiculous idea to aim for half of young people to go. There are way too many people in uni who just haven’t got the academic ability and would have been far better off learning a trade.

But when I look at my adult offspring, there are also a lot of advantages they have over my experience of living through my 20s and 30s. They’ve travelled much more widely and their social life at uni was unrecognisable from mine. When I went to university only 8% of people got in, there was no messing around with gap years, if you got in, you went, and lived a pretty frugal existence for 3 years.

My eldest dd has recently bought her first flat and even with the more recent hikes in interest rates, her fixed term mortgage is a far lower rate than we experienced. And interestingly when she came to furnish it, pretty much every piece of furniture/ white goods was the same price as 30 years ago - so in relative terms, way cheaper. In our early days of home ownership, Dh and I had to take on second jobs in the evening/ weekends as well as working full time - that was the reality of home ownership. And then of course the crash and negative equity which made us wish we’d never bought in the first place.

And perhaps one of the most important things: should my dd have a baby, she’ll have the right to a year mat leave (compared to the 12 weeks I had) and on her return to work will get free childcare hours (compared to the zero I got)

This is why spouting venom at any particular generation is utterly pointless. There are advantages and disadvantages to being born into any generation and it shows a real lack of intelligent thinking to just cherry pick the good bits and ignore the bad.

MsGreying · 25/05/2026 12:27

Dweetfidilove · 19/05/2026 17:20

I just heard this report and my heart sank. Apparently the pension bill is expected to go up in multiples, as even those who are saving, are not saving enough.

Given we're locked in an extended COL, I can't imagine this will improve any time soon.

How much do people need to live on when they retire?

BIossomtoes · 25/05/2026 12:09

ThreadGuardDog · 25/05/2026 12:02

Are these the same ‘bratty’ children who fought for things like equal pay, maternity leave and pay, workplace pension provision for women, better childcare and more - from which future generations continue to benefit ?

The same ones who raised their families at a time of double digit inflation, basic rate income tax at 35%, with NI on top and interest rates ranging from 7% to 17%.

ThreadGuardDog · 25/05/2026 12:02

AniahJeremiah · 24/05/2026 19:55

Thick or just ignorant?

Young people have not always been poorer. In the 80s young people on average were more likely to own a home than over 55s. No coincidence that the young people then were BOOMERS (a common thread that runs) and the old people were ww2 veterans and their spouses, largely empoverished and deserving of the elderly discounts they never received but their bratty children did (Winter Fuel Allowance, Triple Lock, Free bus passes)

In 2000 over 55s owned 55% of the GDP and now is closer to 80%. Likewise for under 35s it was once closer to 40% of the GDP now closer to 10%.

FWIW I am 35 with two kids not some stroppy teenager. The "young" milennials now include the borderline middle aged with families.

Are these the same ‘bratty’ children who fought for things like equal pay, maternity leave and pay, workplace pension provision for women, better childcare and more - from which future generations continue to benefit ?

ruethewhirl · 25/05/2026 12:00

BIossomtoes · 24/05/2026 19:20

The next 20 years will see the biggest inter generational transfer of wealth ever. There are going to be some very wealthy younger people.

And some desperately poor ones.

Differentforgirls · 25/05/2026 11:59

ThreadGuardDog · 25/05/2026 11:58

I’ve never understood why MN condemns and blames boomers for the economic climate they lived through. Are they saying that being presented with the same opportunities they would have done things differently ? And levelling accusations of boomers being self centred and bringing up their children to be the same, is a bit rich when you look at the levels of bad behaviour and entitlement from today’s children. We do the best we can with what we have at the time and everything is relevant to it’s time. Boomers were responsible for fighting for and securing a lot of the things subsequent generations have benefited from. Conveniently forgotten in the rush to condemn.

Exactly!

ruethewhirl · 25/05/2026 11:59

BIossomtoes · 25/05/2026 10:31

I’m amazed it hasn’t been reported. Far more innocuous posts on this thread have been.

It has now, don't know why I didn't do it straight away.

ThreadGuardDog · 25/05/2026 11:58

Differentforgirls · 24/05/2026 21:28

Like me?

I’ve never understood why MN condemns and blames boomers for the economic climate they lived through. Are they saying that being presented with the same opportunities they would have done things differently ? And levelling accusations of boomers being self centred and bringing up their children to be the same, is a bit rich when you look at the levels of bad behaviour and entitlement from today’s children. We do the best we can with what we have at the time and everything is relevant to it’s time. Boomers were responsible for fighting for and securing a lot of the things subsequent generations have benefited from. Conveniently forgotten in the rush to condemn.

Papyrophile · 25/05/2026 11:57

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/pensions/state-pensions/triple-lock-cannot-last-forever-scrapping-it-now-disaster/

Apologies that this comes from the Torygraph (although there's something very similar in The Times today -- for all of the ancients who still read broadsheet news). Both are behind paywalls though.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/pensions/state-pensions/triple-lock-cannot-last-forever-scrapping-it-now-disaster

Kirbert2 · 25/05/2026 11:48

Papyrophile · 24/05/2026 19:08

This has been an interesting and intellectual discussion thread. I've read and learned quite a lot about how people make financial decisions for the long term (or don't). My contributions have been personal anecdata in general. And I'm not entirely typical.

My conclusion is that pension saving has to be made mandatory, from the first pound earned, at every age. The suggestion made somewhere on social media that every baby born should have £10K deposited in their name at birth, that cannot be touched until they are 60, no matter how disabled or deranged or needful they are, would be much cheaper all around.

There's another thread currently running, that I am only reading along because I don't have anything useful to contribute, about NEETs. No one is mentioning the increased cost of caring for babies born prematurely, to adulthood, or the toll exacted on the parents.

It is quite marvellous that the medics can save a 23 or 24 week foetus, but one also needs to accept the price of doing so. Your miracle baby is costing the NHS (and all of us) about £50k per year. Every year in school requires additional support, such as 1-2-1 TA help. Even at NMW that's £25,000 per annum. Yes it is really really distasteful and very unpleasant to write this, but the community cannot afford to let self-interest (your personal wishes for your child in need) dictate policy. I don't have a decent answer though. And you would not like the answer I'd have to make as an alternative.

Not every child is born disabled. Any child is an accident or illness away from a disability.

My son was born healthy (and 1 week late!), he became disabled literally overnight when he was 8 due to complications from an illness. I can't even begin to imagine the costs it required to not only save his life but everything else that followed and now the care and support he will need for the rest of his life e.g he needs 2:1 TA support at school. I'd argue that the cost regarding all of his care including past and now is probably even greater than a premature baby's care.

Papyrophile · 25/05/2026 11:00

DrRylandGrace · 24/05/2026 12:21

My earlier posts on the thread stated precisely this: that the auto-enrolment opt out needs to be removed and pension saving made mandatory because too many people who could afford to save are being irresponsible and not doing so. I also stated that a similar mandatory scheme needs to be put in place for the self-employed unless they can demonstrate sufficient assets to self-fund retirement and a pension is therefore not necessary (13% of the workforce derive their income solely from self-employment and only a tiny percentage of them make any pension savings at all).

It seems some people here zeroed in on specific comments of mine that would disadvantage them without reading the others and then started trying to discredit me because they didn’t like the facts I presented on one particular matter. This happens regularly here and is precisely why the UK economy is such a mess with no sustainable long-term planning based on evidence: people are not prepared to contemplate anything that might disadvantage them personally even when it is necessary.

The state pension needs to be means-tested. For me personally this will mean I don’t get one despite having funded those claiming one currently. It still needs to happen and trying to find spurious reasons to reject this mathematical necessity just because it would disadvantage me would be irrational and ridiculous. We need people to behave like adults and capable of looking at the big picture but many refuse to do so.

Meanwhile, as I also stated we need a credible industrial strategy, huge investment in infrastructure and education, to adopt a functional healthcare model similar to our European neighbours, and a total overhaul of the UK tax system to remove cliff edges and levy tax on a household unit basis like all other sensible countries in order to remove perverse incentives and distortions and raise productivity and growth which is the only way to sustainably raise living standards.

Due to our dysfunctional political and electorial system, our largely economically illiterate electorate and the refusal of large numbers of people to accept the changes that need to be made or have any sense if social responsibility - preferring to try to find scapegoats and bang on endlessly about what are often trivial irrelevancies from an economic perspective - I highly doubt that this will happen and therefore living standards in the UK will continue to decline. We don’t have a single UK party even prepared to put forward the evidence-based policies required to improve things let alone one capable of actually implementing them.

In general, I agree entirely.

Regarding infrastructure and our lamentable record on building anything to replace the crumbling Victorian legacy, it is noticeable that all our politicians and civil servants are incapable of managing contracts.

Why this should be I don't know, but it's a national disgrace. Norway finished a nine-mile undersea tunnel (Ryfylke) in 2019 that cost under one billion pounds. HS2 has already wasted £100 billion. Spain's Renfe has built a national high speed rail network, at much lower cost per kilometre. Every city in France with a population of over 150,000 has a tram system or a metro. Because the rails are fixed, developers can plan with some degree of certainty what and where new infrastructure and housing should go. Don't mention the scandalous cost of PFI schools and hospitals.

I'm not blaming any one party, but it suggests that somewhere sometime in the last 30 years we lost any will to take the public realm seriously.

BIossomtoes · 25/05/2026 10:31

ruethewhirl · 25/05/2026 10:27

You should be thoroughly ashamed of yourself for saying that. For so many reasons.

I’m amazed it hasn’t been reported. Far more innocuous posts on this thread have been.

ruethewhirl · 25/05/2026 10:27

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

You should be thoroughly ashamed of yourself for saying that. For so many reasons.

jumpingjohnny · 24/05/2026 23:42

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

Well, they did do that between 1939-1945... They had special Drs in special camps. Generally, they are not praised for their efforts though. I wonder why? 🤔

Swipe left for the next trending thread