to ask if you're pissed off with the Baby Boomers?

[DamFineBeaver]

Because people who are currently young-ish adults (MN's main demographic?), and younger, will be paying for the lavish lifestyle they've enjoyed?
The money borrowed for their nice big pensions will be paid back by us and our children.

Does this mean they shouldn't spend so much time in Tenerife?

Well bloomingMargaret no one forced you to start sharing your details, so people are bound to challenge them.

On the mortgage question and rates over the years, I think that many people pay mortgages for a lot longer than 20 or 25 years as they move up the housing ladder. We started with a mortgage on a 2 bed apartment in 1979 and finally paid off the mortgage (thanks to an inheritance) in 2012, so we had mortgages for 33 years, most of which were at times when interest rates have been significantly higher than they have been in the last decade. Fortunately we didn't fall for the hard sell of endowment mortgages back in the 80s/early 90s or we may have had a significant shortfall when the mortgage term ended.

Margaret, exactly, the sensitive details are already shared, there is just some error or something you are not telling us and rather than admitting it you are choosing to attack me and my well documented mathematics skills. You don't have to give any sensitive details just correct whichever one was previously misrepresented, A-F.

I am only worried about your finances because you keep popping up like some kind of bat-a-mole, making the same claims that have already been refuted and demonstrably disproved, that someone working in local government could get 2/3 fs after 30 years, which is not the case unless there were extenuating circumstances.

I do think the hard sell of endowment mortgages was appalling. The FS company I worked for had a staff mortgage scheme. You could either take out an endowment mortgage (which pretty much everyone took because that was one of the company's biggest selling products) or a repayment. You had to have a meeting with one of the sales reps before you could take advantage of the staffs benefit.

I went along knowing I wanted a repayment mortgage and the hard sell I got from the advisers was awful! He pretty much said I was an idiot for not wanting a product that would not only pay off my mortgage but would likely leave me with a lump sum on top. I love the stock market. I have dabbled in it since I was 15 years old. I invest heavily in it but one of my big rules was to never ever risk my house on it. This adviser had no interest in my cautious approach and was only interested in selling me an endownment- and I was a staff member! I can only imagined how they pressured members of the public.

Taz1212 we had a bit of hard sell back in the late 80s/early 90s. We saw the building society manager and said we wanted a repayment mortgage. He told us he had, by law, to explain the options. This turned out to a 3/4 hour selling pitch for endowment mortgages. We then said thank you but we want a repayment mortgage. We got it, fortunately. Lots of other people were conned by the idea of a large amount of money turning up at the end of the term which would finance their retirement as well as pay off the mortgage debt. I don't think this worked out for many people.

Its perfectly my prerogative to decide what parts to share, all you need to know is its 2/3rds. To suggest I need to share more as I've already shared alot, makes certain people look like rape apologists. Just because someone goes out in a short skirt, doesn't mean she has to "share it all" or is "asking for it".

My pension is pretty stingy compared to some anyway www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/pensions/11230486/Britains-most-generous-pension-scheme-enjoyed-by-those-who-wrecked-yours.html

I give up, Margaret, it is clear you are not going to admit you are wrong, when I am not actually asking for any sensitive info and you go on the attack and start babbling about rape. However, I hope everyone else on the thread will see that your figures do not add up and visit the lgps website if they want to check for themselves.

Margaret people are questioning it because it just doesn't make sense. To work out a FS pension you take the FS times the number of years worked and divide it by the accrual rate. For example:

Someone retires after 30 years on a salary of £30k and the scheme has an accrual rate of 1/60. You multiply 30 x 30,000 and divide that by 60 to work out the final salary.

There are exceptions, but the most common accrual rates are 1/60 and 1/80. Having done some rough figures, your DH's pension would have had a rather unusual accrual rate- something like 1/45 but I might not be exactly right (have just done some rough estimates).

FS pension payouts are based around the accrual rate. What you are saying doesn't make sense for the overwhelming majority of these schemes (speaking as someone with years and years of experience in the industry).

When you have finished searching the Torygraph for proof you are hard done by, why not dust off your abacus and have a look at this local government pension scheme so that you don't continue to embarrass yourself by arguing that black is white.

Base rates haven't gone above 6% since 2000. Whether or not you benefited from the fall in interest rates will depend on when you bought, the size of your mortgage and when you paid off your mortgage, and won't affect people who either never had a mortgage or bought a house with an inheritance.

However, it will certainly have benefited many people born between 1946 and 1964.

Obviously people who got on the housing ladder in the 70's and had paid off there mortgage by the 90's will have been adversely affected by high interest rates.

Margaret it's interesting that you're not making any attempt to refute Bedraggled's figures. It should be perfectly possible to do so without revealing any personal information.

I don't think Margaret appears to know much about pensions.

However, vociferously arguing that it was normal to get a 2/3 final salary pension after only 30 years of service in a local government job would seem to support the argument that baby boomers were very lucky.

It wasn't normal though Merry, that's the point!
Although I agree that we were lucky in some respects.

Well I'm not giving away exactly where he worked as could be traced back to me.

No idea on these acrue rates, all I know is what I get and I think he may have increased contributions to avoid paying higher tax but not by massive amounts.

I haven't said its normal, but very common. I'm still in the bottom 30% for household incomes in the UK. Hardly rich.

So you don't know?
And yet you have been posting on here for days as if you did know, helping to stir up considerable animosity against a generation of people (and god knows, there's enough of that already).
Why?

I know floisme. I just thought it was a strange argument - although now Margaret has said that she doesn't know how her pension was calculated.

Merry, but those same people who are benefitting from the low interest rates since 2000 might be the very same people who were also hit by the very high rates in the 80s.

You can't just look at one end of the timescale, which is what seems to be the norm here.

You can't know if it is common or not if you have no idea how pensions are calculated.

You can't compare your income to other households if you have no dependents and no rent or mortgage. Any calculation of your wealth would also take into account your assets as well as your income.

I've never managed to get a self-important entitled baby boomer like Margaret to ever admit they are wrong. They all endlessly bang on about how hard they worked, how much harder they had it and how today's youth waste all their money. Thankfully there are lovely baby boomers who fully acknowledge they've enjoyed unique privileges that are unlikely to ever come again. My parents are among them. They've done v v well at a time when there was ample opportunity to do so.

Well I think it's safe to conclude that, when it comes to pensions, Margaret doesn't know what she's talking about.

Personally I intend to bear that in mind the next time she posts.

I agree nomama - my point is that you can't divide people into those affected by high interest rates (age 50-70) and those affected by high house prices (aged 50 and under).

I think the biggest influence on wealth is the family you were born into, not when you were born.

I benefit from any good luck my parents had and I will pass on any advantages to my children - that is just what most people do whenever they were born (unless I am living in some kind of bubble).

I'm bored so I asked DH who still works in pensions and he says there were some old schemes with a 1/45th accrual rate (e.g. The police at one point) so it is possible that Margaret's husband was on one of these, but they are a minority of schemes and not not the norm.