To think that a lot of us will be in trouble when we retire...

[Fleetheart]

This generation seems very unlike the previous ones in that we take out loans for everything, buy holidays on credit, kitchens on credit, new clothes etc etc. And pension schemes are getting less and less generous. And most of us don’t understand them anyway. I’ve always earned well, but have split up from partner, so still have s lot on my mortgage, no savings, and really not very much in my random pension schemes most of which are money purchase schemes and won’t pay a lot. And I know many people of my age (mid 50s) who have no pension at all. And meanwhile the govt is being less and less generous. What will become of us all?

Maybe you find pre sliced vegetable example bizarre. I am not well off so make everything from scratch. Our food bills would increase if I had to buy things pre sliced or pre made.
You example of meals out and weekend breaks tells me clearly you are talking about better off people. So yes in that case you may be right.

You’re the one who brought up pre-sliced vegetables to illustrate your argument that very old people spend as much as people twenty years younger.

What’s your point, apart from ‘woe is me’? It’s simple: we should all be putting away as much as we can in order to have the best lifestyle we can manage. The lifestyle of the average very old person is different, usually, to the lifestyle of the average sixty-something, irrespective of how much you earn.

That Government website link is very useful! Just looked and I have 34 years of full contributions (and one part year in 2005 when I had my son), and another 16 years to go before I retire so I will definitely get the full state pension. I also have my company pension which I contribute to every month (so does my employer).

I've never bought anything on credit or had any loans, except my mortgage which is now paid off. I also have never had any money from my parents. I just worked hard and saved a lot and went without a lot in the early years when I wasn't earning much. There wasn't the expectation to own new kitchens / furniture or nice cars if you didn't have the money in those days fortunately - all my friends also drove old bangers! I bought my first house when I was 20, by having two jobs (I worked in a pub four nights a week as well as my full time job) and by renting out two of the rooms to lodgers, so I got on the property ladder early which helped too. I'm 51 now and I feel well prepared for a comfortable retirement. My husband has a private pension as well as full entitlement to the state pension. We also have other investments and savings in addition to our pensions.

It will definitely be harder for the next generation though, so we have ISAs for both of our DC that will give them enough for a good deposit for their first homes and another ISA for their university fees so they won't start their working lives with any debt. I will encourage both of them to start making provision for their retirements as soon as they start working.

I am wombat thank you for that explanation.

Re choosing when to die I think it's very relevant! Many many people would feel relieved to know they won't have drawn out painful deaths, left at mercy of ruthless others, eating into estate for next generation.

It's more common in other eu countries.

Quality of life doesn't dimish for many I know plenty of elderly with extremely fun active social lives, fit, healthy, good family and friend networks. But when that isn't in place, and person ill it's not nice at all it can be barbaric.

@Iamthewombat That is what you take from that - woe is me, Idiot
My point is that for people who are poorer, their costs do not reduce when they retire, they can increase in some areas.

For people with disposable income for meals out and weekends away, of course their lifestyle costs reduce when they no longer go out of the house much. Amongst older people I know with money though, that does not tend to happen until they are pretty frail. Because there are plenty of companies providing very easy holidays to older people, so picking you up at your house by taxi. So don't assume 80 year olds with money all sit in the house watching TV. Not what I see.

Sam and poppy you could start sipp for them as well.

I may do this for mine, absolutely minimal amounts will be going in for the however, once it's open it's open. And I'm hoping even small amounts will compound.

Also I can then encourage them to contribute to it from their finest jobs even if only small amounts and they can't access it.

Sorry Jennymanara, you have lost me. On the one hand you are saying that poorer people spend more in their eighties than people in their sixties, and on the other you claim that richer people spend more in their eighties than they would in their sixties.

Who said that all people over 80 sit in the house all day watching TV?

Work on building a lucid argument. Including trying not to insult people you disagree with.

If you are in a care home at the end of your life, you are scarcely in a position to travel the world, so contrasting care home fees with the cost of world travel is pointless.

Well, it seems very pointful if you're claiming that you'll spend less money in your 80s in your 60s, as no one in a home will.

Living entirely independently over 80 is rare, so if you don't have close and devoted family you're likely to need to factor in some sort of care - and you can buy an awful lot of meals out for even low level (and very basic) care

Mums care home fees were £950 a week in her 80s. I would say that's definitely the most she ever spent in her life!

That’s why people’s homes and savings usually fund care when they are at the end of their lives and can’t care for themselves. I’m talking about day to day spending. The discussion started with my saying that annuities are poor value and it’s better to manage your own money.

Annuities pay a fixed (with an expensive option to be index linked) amount each year until you die. That doesn’t suit most people. Requirements change over time.

What’s your position? That you prefer to live less well in retirement in order to protect your house for your children?

It’s up to the individual whether to take less out in the early years and more later. I’m certainly not advocating blowing the lot before you are 70. However, most people do less as they get older and don’t spend as much. You’re welcome to disagree with the Institute and Faculty of Actuaries on this one, although they spend quite a lot of time studying statistics.

Anybody who chooses to retire and live frugally for twenty years in order to pay for care later, gambling that they can preserve their house and other assets to bequeath to their children or the cats’ protection league is welcome to do so. I, and most other people, would prefer to enjoy retirement before I get too old to go on walking holidays, or play tennis, or fly long haul safely and comfortably. I wouldn’t compromise that in order to pass my house on to the next generation. If it’s sold to pay for my care, it’s sold. You can’t create money from thin air, and I don’t expect working people to pay for my care when I have assets that can fund it.

It's surprising just how many people do expect their 'inheritance' to be protected though - don't know who they think should be paying for the care of their 'oldies'. The state? Funded by the taxpayer - you and I.

I know of someone who should have been in care 12 months ago, but isn't because her funds are being preserved - can only imagine what (or who) for!

Living independently over 80 isn’t rare at all. What are you basing that on? Most over 89s live entirely independently. Many drive. Many get drunk. Many go on cruises. Many dance or cycle.
A small percentage need care.

Of course you can live independently over 80. Let’s not conflate ‘slowing down and wanting to do fewer energetic and expensive activities’ with ‘going into care’.

My parents’ combined age was 195 when they entered their care home. In their 80s my mum was still riding her bike, my dad was playing 18 holes of golf three times a week. Most people live independently in their 80s.

From Age UK:

Being able to know that we will receive health and care if and when we should need it
matters to all of us, at any age, but it is all the more salient as we get older. Many people in
their sixties and seventies enjoy good health and do not need any additional support with
daily living, but as we move into our ninth decade and beyond this becomes less common
and more of us will need help.
By the time we reach our early eighties only one in seven of us will be free of any diagnosed
long term health conditions and, once we reach the age of eighty five, eighty per cent of us
will be living with at least two. The same pattern can be observed when it comes to care
needs: by our late eighties, more than one in three of us have difficulties undertaking five or
more tasks of daily living unaided.

There's a huge gap between 'living independently' (doing your own shopping, not needing to be checked on, being able to take trips out alone) and 'going into care' and I maintain that it's unusual to be in your 80s and not need any additional help of the sort that - if your family won't do it for free - you need to pay for.

Having observed a number of octogenarians, I think Age UK is talking out of its arse.

Age U.K. is after money. It’s what it does.

The paragraph says by eighty five you might have two diagnosis of chronic illness. Many younger people have that! I do but definitely still live independently and work full time plus.
There’s also a decade between 80 and 90, so ‘in their eighties’ means very little. It actually says by your late eighties only 1/3 of people will need support. Hardly ‘most’.

It actually says by your late eighties only 1/3 of people will need support.

No, it says that 1/3 need can't perform five or more daily tasks without help. That's quite a bit beyond just 'needing support'

Anyway, I'm a bit confused by why this thread has turned to the view that most 85 year olds are still partying on down - in that case, why can't we all work to 75?

Not RTFT but this does worry me.
I've had an NHS pension since 22 - now mid 40s. But I've had mat leave x 2 and now work very p/t. No idea what i will get out at the end, but suspect it will be less than i hope - I'm too young for final salary scheme, and if i cont p/t it looks likely to be low. I dont think i could do my job until 65 let alone 75. Hoping to start a private pension once childcare costs reduce.

Seen lots of pp about wanting euthanasia when they are older. But watching both my parents suffer from dementia, this is a difficult option. Dm now needs daily help from carers, (which is not cheap) but still has a reasonable quality of life/ can enjoy herself etc. It must be very hard, whilst slowly losing your ability to think, to decide when you have reached a certain point and should choose to die. By the time you've reached that point you've probably lost the ability to rationally decide and manage to organise it. Also, potentially you could be quite healthy and able to enjoy yourself, but also need costly care (e.g. personal care due to arthritis), and not want to be dead! I think in reality most of us would also find such a decision when in relatively good enough health too difficult to make. There must be a reason more people dont do it now??

Pastaparadise- your maternity leaves won’t affect your work pension because that counts as ‘continuous service.’

I took three maternity leaves, and like you, returned part time ( 3 days a week) when the babies were small. At this point the same amount that I had as take home pay went straight out again on nursery fees so I was working literally just for the benefit of continuing my pension!

But once the children were in school and we were only paying for the wraparound care rather than all day, I stepped back up to full time, and tbh it was the best thing I ever did. Even a few years of being part time hit my pension, but it’s the being part time for a really significant chunk of your work life which is the real killer. So although you might feel a bit despondent about it now, if you can go back up to full time then you’ll see a difference.

Like you, I couldn’t imagine doing a demanding job until 65. But I found from my mid 30s to mid 50s was absolutely the right time to be full time... you have the energy then. I can imagine working part time (probably in something less demanding) easily until I’m 65, possibly 75. As I said upthread, it’s good mentally for people to keep their brain and body active. I see it as pulling out all the stops and working hard while stacking money into my pension while I can, precisely so I can reduce to part time, easier work when I’m older

I'm a bit confused by why this thread has turned to the view that most 85 year olds are still partying on down - in that case, why can't we all work to 75?

partying? Do you really want to use that word for the odd cruise or a round of golf? It’s hardly partying is it? My parents are retired. Dad is older, mid 80s. They live independently in a large house (employ a cleaner and gardener). They are well off in retirement, do not need any carers, both still drive and do their own shopping, they enjoy going out to restaurants and the theatre and enjoy going for short breaks in the U.K. and manage to do this nearly every other month in the summer. Nowadays the short breaks involve minimal activity, just a bit of mooch about a village/lake then stop for coffee about 4 times a day! A nap at the hotel in the afternoon and then a lovely meal cooked for them in the evening. It’s a very nice lifestyle and they are very lucky that they can afford to do that in retirement but I’d hardly call it partying and it certainly doesn’t prove that they should have both worked until 75. Both have chronic health conditions which are actually life-threatening (terminal, really, I suppose) so I don’t know what category they can be put in by the actuaries. I’m sure anyone seeing them on their short breaks assume they must be living the life of Riley as their illnesses are not visible (not right this moment, anyway)

The most important thing that MN has taught me in that the world is full of people living many different types of lives and that it’s important not to make assumptions about people’s reasons for their life being the way you perceive them to be. People have to do what works for them and their own individual situation (which you know nothing about) and if that means that graduate women in their 40s are working part time in coffee shops or running their own cake making business, then so be it. I think most of them HAVE weighed it all up, which is something you may be wise to remember @Iamthewombat instead of assuming that graduates’ lives should follow them same trajectory that yours does.

Incidentally I consider my children extremely lucky if their TA or nursery nurse is highly educated. maybe if people like you were prepared to pay them the salary they deserved so that they could afford to put more into a pension, things would be a bit more even. Oh, but, that means you have to less to put into YOUR pension. Silly me. What was I thinking?

I’ve touched a nerve there, I see.

When did I get to decide nursery nurses’ or teaching assistants’ salaries? I didn’t realise that I had such power.

Actually, if you bothered to read my posts instead of working yourself into a self-righteous lather, you’d see that:

1. I argue for BETTER salaries for people in lower paid jobs, and wonder why so many women choose them.

1. I argue that it’s unfair to put the burden of paying for care on younger, lower paid people.

1. I challenge people who complain that nursery and social care are too expensive and note that the only way to make them cheaper would be to pay those people even less, which is unfair.

Don’t let the facts get in the way of a good whinge, though. What did I say to rattle your cage? I’ll guess.

Are you hoping to swerve selling your parents’ big house to fund their care (you’re at pains to tell us how wealthy they are, and that they employ staff), and attempt to get the local authority to pay so that you can keep all the money for yourself, for example? Because I’ve been very clear about what I think of those people.

Or are you offended by my saying that many dead wood staff cling on to public sector jobs for the pension and are not, in fact, underpaid compared to private sector counterparts despite what they tell themselves?

You need to restrain the urge to hit out at people who don’t share your views. It’s so undignified. If you can’t restrain yourself, at least come up with an evidence-based argument that stands a chance of sticking.

@Iamthewomat you’re funny! You’re the one who seems to be in a lather. Employing a cleaner for 3 hours once a week and a gardener to cut the grass when it needs it hardly makes them the Earl and Countess of Grantham! Although with your “it’s so undignified!” you sound like you’d be quite at home as the Dowager Countess...

Maybe “large” house in your world means a grand estate? In it means a house that is larger than your essential needs. In their case the home they brought their family up in, an average 4 bedroomed detached. No land, unless you count a postage sized front garden and a back one that does definitely NOT need a sit on mower for.

As for your assertion that my “cage” is “rattled”. Is that what you call it? I was simply pointing out that one shouldn’t pigeon hole people, or make assumptions, when you look at individuals at certain life stages. I gave a fairly unusual example of my parents, one of whom is mid-80s, still enjoying life and getting about and not needing care (except for cleaner and gardener for the purposes I’ve described, BUT who also has a chronic health condition and other health worries. There are many different ways that retired people live out their life and I’m not sure that with society changing so much that actuarial people can accurately predict anything anymore in terms of pension fund needs

As for your intimation that I am somehow hoping to keep my much-loved parents in their own home for my own selfish monetary reasons, well, you have shocked me there, yes. I am just hoping that with one currently battling acute leukaemia and the other with a degenerative lung condition (and also having had 2 strokes) that they are here on this planet, @Iamthewombat, this time next year. So are they, which is why they are having as many breaks away as they can because they don’t know when each time will be the last time. I don’t give a shit about any money, I just want them happy and healthy for as long as they can be, and living what little life they may have left in the way they want to, and if that means them selling their house and moving to the fucking Ritz with a team of palliatives care nurses for the last few months of their lives then that’s what I’ll help them to do. Shame on you for even suggesting that I’m some kind of money grabber when I’d already made the clear point they had serious health problems which would limit their life expectancy from this point, but that for the moment are living independent lives.

Ps. You come across as quite an angry, abrasive person, you know. I don’t know if you’re aware.

I see that you are sticking with the ad hominem approach (look it up) since you’re losing the argument. Combined with an appeal for sympathy, like an X factor contestant trying to win the crowd over.

There are so many holes in your argument that there’s barely anything holding it together, but let’s examine it:

1. You say that all of the well-qualified women working in low paid, part time jobs have thought it through clearly and fully understand the consequences of doing so. In other words, everybody making such a decision has done so in a clear-sighted way. That’s patently untrue, judging by the number of women who have chosen to go into those roles then are shocked, later, by the meagre pension they end up with. Of course some of them regret it. It didn’t ‘work for them and their individual situation’.

1. Not everybody has wealthy parents like you (although I note that you are back-pedalling now: the cleaner and gardener they ‘employ’ are now self-employed people who do a couple of hours a week). Can you understand that most women need to rely on themselves and make sensible financial decisions if they don’t have family money to fall back on? That includes the highly qualified teaching assistants and nursery nurses working for a pittance, but whom you are delighted to have looking after your children.

1. Can you understand that everybody has parents - that is biology- and a high proportion of adult people, including me, have elderly parents? I’m surprised that you think you have special insight into what it involves. It’s the same for everybody.

Keep on throwing out the insults and histrionics, though.

@Iamthewombat I think it is a real feminist issue why so many women chose jobs that are low paid in the present with related low pension in the future.

I realise, of course, that it's probably a choice made for the benefit of the family or other caring responsibilities and that's why it's feminist. This shouldn't fall on women all the time. It's also why women need to stop thinking about the childcare bill coming from their salary only and why it should come from the joint income.

Every area that CAN be flexible, SHOULD be flexible and those that can't should pay better with better pensions and even have on-site subsidised care. If only it was that easy eh?

As for the split between expensive child care and those people providing the child care not earning enough I have been shouting about this forever. What's the solution? Long time ago now but my DC went to quite an expensive nursery but the pay was good. Most staff had been there 5 years or more...they still earned less per hour than a cleaner! (Around £7 or £8 ph - 7 years ago) Yet were responsible for the most precious people in our lives.

A long time ago I added up what we'd paid in nursery fees (part-time too only 3 days a week) I stopped adding up once I got to £50,000. Still probably was a bargain. Awesome nursery. With wrap around child care and summer care for 2 primary aged children we'll easily have spent close to £60,000 in total.