AIBU to wonder why a pensioner struggling financially would not use housing equity?

No, why should she give away what she wants to help her family? If they've all worked hard and paid enough tax, while others spent their money on something else, she should have the right to give it to them.
We're a strange society: we don't insist richer people use private healthcare/education, and we don't mind if people spend their wages on luxury, but insist older people with money pay for their own care homes.

And paying in much more, let’s not forget. And doing it all in a much harsher economic climate.

How many of today's 22 year olds started work at 15 or 16?

Again, what does any of that have to do with personal financial planning?

None of your points are relevant.

The solution is simple: all benefits beyond the basic state pension should be means tested, not just in terms of need but in terms of assets. And that should include all assets, including homes.

Forgive me, I was basing my response on the dozens of threads moaning about greedy boomers on MN, who hoard their wealth, don't pay for their children's holidays, have the nerve to stay in their own home and dare to point out how much higher expectations and living standards are now.
I am sure they are absolutely delighted to pay for the pensions of these greedy people whose only mistake was to be born when they were.

@StealMySunshining exactly, I can respect Doris down the road and be kind to her personally and still think she should have saved better for her own retirement.

Lets not forget most people who are 22 today will not retire till they are 68. Why should they be thrilled that they will get less than their predecessors despite working just as hard and paying in just as much.

But if you have a relatively high retirement income then none of this is applicable to you. If you have planned and budgeted accordingly then there’s no need for you to make any changes. There are plenty of retired millionaires living in mansions the world over, after all.

My point is that pensioners need to cut their cloth accordingly just like the rest of us, and they can’t expect the taxpayer to pick up the slack because they don’t want to make any changes to their lifestyle. If your pension provision affords you your current lifestyle then that’s different.

1. There is absolutely no evidence that there will be no state pension in the future, despite it becoming a 'fact' on MN
2. A pension is well below the NWM - are people who earn the NMW 'well-funded' too?
3. Women stopped retiring at 60 in 2010. State pension is now from age 67.
4. You do realise that every generation has paid for the pensioners alive when they were working? There is nothing unique about today's 22-year-olds paying for pensioners.
5. I realise there are more pensioners than there were (although this will begin to drop when the baby boomer generation goes) and fewer workers. So what's your solution?

Okay, let’s say that your statement is factually correct (even though it isn’t), what bearing does that have on any of what I have said? What does societal respect have to do with personal financial planning?

What a bizarre response. It’s okay to just not give a response if you don’t have something constructive to add to the debate. And I’m not a new user, I just name change regularly.

I don't think you are probably that shit with money.

There are always savings that can be made and it's fair to say most people can do better if they try.

But comparing to people who wear hair shirts or have unusual living conditions (there is always one that pops up when cost of living is discussed) is not really constructive.

I have one common bill that for extraordinary reasons costs me nothing. This is highly unusual though. Going on a thread discussing the cost of that bill and proclaiming it costs me £0 is hardly constructive. It isn't really reflective of the real world and the issues other people face maintaining an average lifestyle.

@Katypp why would someone who is 22 today be happy at the prospect that they are paying for someone to enjoy a long well funded retirement when the likelyhood is they will not be afforded the same?

But it's all a big pyramid scheme that's started to come tumbling down. Their parents mostly died before they took out more than they put in.

Probably because they expected the same respect as they showed older people when they were younger and assumed today's workers would be happy to pay their pensions the same as they did for their parents when they were working.
How wrong they were.

Another downside of equity release (as experienced by a friend of mine whose MIL had used the money from equity release to help finance her life) - when the owner dies, NOK have about a week to clear out and empty the house of the deceased's belongings before the equity release company take possession.

If they've kept everything tidy and minimal this is fine, but if they've been anywhere on the spectrum of hoarders or have lots of belongings that have been bequeathed to relatives, this can be a tall order for the bereaved.

Which is fine, but a lot of posters are saying they wouldn't move and they wouldn't take equity release so would prefer to struggle on with an income that's inadequate for their circumstances, which seems to be the worse of the three choices.

Nope. It's a con and in those circs I'd move and free my own equity.

But if you didn't have 'a relatively high retirement income' and especially if you wanted to remain in your current home wouldn't that mean that equity release might look like less of 'a con' given that you wouldn't have tens of thousands of pounds of moving costs to pay?

A lot of people are. Spend loads of 'walking around money'. Don't bother to shop around. Or a lot of their essential expenses are the expensive version, meaning they need more money for what they consider to be a basic standard of living.

If you tend towards the opposite, you can be content with a much smaller amount of money. So you're a lot less likely to feel like you're struggling financially, because your means cover your needs and wants.

Someone on a thread about holiday spending money was talking about the difference in cost between getting your breakfast from a supermarket, or the local equivalent of Greggs, that might cost £5 or less vs eating in a cafe, where similar food might cost more like £10-15. Repeatedly make decisions like that and you can literally live well on half the amount of money.

Taking crap? 🤣

I totally agree and if they need to they should. However, we will have a relatively high retirement income, about a year away, and once we pay the costs of downsizing:

Estate Agency fees
Solicitors fees
Removal costs
Stamp duty

Probably about £85k, it would take a long time for the savings to reach the prevailing on-costs. We'll review at 75 and I would if anything happened to DH.

Which is what I said. We must be shit with money. We do socialise a lot though and my husband has a couple of expensive hobbies. Mine are less expensive but still cost money.

It's so weird people assume boiler = gas

I repressurised my own boiler which is perfectly legal because it's an oil fired combi.

Anyway I stand by my point that it isnt uncommon for people to (suddenly in some cases) to find themselves without the help, skills, knowlegde, tools or confirdence to carry put many home maintenence tasks.

I have empathy for them and for how scary and precarious they must feel, and do not automatically think they're idiots.

For a new user you seem particularly obsessed with me.