To think the back to 60 campaign is grabby

[Neaoll]

It's been known about for a long time that state pension ages would be equalised.

State pension is just unsustainable, it was never supposed to be something people claim for 20-30 years. Was for people that had a hard time so they didn't starve to death in their last few years. Now it's a top-up to the richest part of society. It should have been linked with life expectancy a long time ago.

I'm in my 40s and dont expect to ever get a state pension. I've been contributing to my private pension ever since I worked to support myself.

It is very hard for anyone to buy in the south east even if they are professionals.

Remember The supposed affordable housing that was meant to go to key workers in the 00s. It never seemed to materialise

I couldn't understand the WASPI argument until I met some of them. I thought that retiring later was better because I would be expected to carry on working and pay is more than a pension. A huge number of women in their late middle age either gave up work or took part time work to care for parents or grandchildren in the anticipation that they would get a pension at 60 to live on. Once they are out of the labour market they find it hard to find another job at the same level. A lot of us didn't know the pension age was going up once, and for some of us it has been put up twice. This has resulted in women who would have stayed in work if they had known now no work or pension.
I went to a group for WASPIS in our consitituency and met one lady who had had a well paid professional career. She had given up work to care for parents, thinking she would have her pension at 60, now she is genuinely grateful to have a night job stacking supermarket shelves, despite poor health. The first step s;h;ould have been to equalise pensions at maybe 63 and then move men and women forwards together.

You do realise England is not just London and the south east?

First time buyers can buy a 2 or 3 bed house round here for £125 - £150k. My first house was 3.5 x my income so not that much change in this quite sought after area. (South West, not Bristol)

@JinglingHellsBells I can assure you the Government website is not always right. It showed my age to receive state pension as 60 and that was when I was around 56!

At present it says I will receive almost £900 a month when I receive my pension in a couple of months. I don't see how this is correct when the pension rate is not as high as that

Yes please

@Plasebeafleabite Fri 04-Oct-19 16:22:47
You do realise England is not just London and the south east?

I do yes but maybe you can't read the ONS quote.

Try again. why would they quote 7.8% if it only applied to the SE?

Argue with them. The 7.8 x is not just for the SE.

@mydogisthebest So did you email them to ask why it said that?

@higgyhog well yes, you can also get a house in the NE for £40K.
But the point is that the median salary is 29K.
So even if a house was only £125K that is more than 4 x the median salary.

Someone buying at £150K would need to earn £50K which is well about what many young people earn and only possible for a couple.

People in the system have always paid for other peoples pensions.

The pension age is being put back to make the system last a bit longer.

If you don’t like it blame Labour who set it up. There was no money anywhere to pay pensions other than from people who weren’t yet retired. It’s a ponzi scheme.

Don’t blame anybody else.

People in the system have always paid for other people's pensions

In the UK, yes. In other countries contributions are ring-fenced and put aside, so the current problem we are facing (people living much longer, an aging population) is much less acute. The original system was set up so that you retired, lived on a pension for a few years and died. It was set in a country where population structure was pyramidal - plenty of people below to support those above.

Things are different now.

Try again. why would they quote 7.8% if it only applied to the SE

You’re cherry picking your statistics as well as using your own anecdata

That equivalent stat was 5x in 2002, the earliest date ONS publish for that ratio. So 1.6x higher

That’s average house price so is unrepresentative of FTBs for example

If you have 50% equity the multiple

Sorry posted too soon
The actual multiple is lower if you have equity

@mrsmuddlepies so more women are in work now but for how many years?

Many younger people don't even start work until they are in their 20's and if they then don't work for quite a few years because they have children how many years will they actually work?

As I say, there are a lot of young families where I live. The majority of the women are not working. I appreciate that if their children are young they may not want to work or cannot afford childcare but not all of them have very young children. One has 3 children, the youngest being just over 1. She has only worked 2 years since leaving school and she is 28. Her partner works evenings (only part time) so she could work days and he could look after the youngest child. I guess benefits pays more though!

I know quite a few of them are claiming benefits - tax credits, housing benefit, council tax benefit etc. They may well all be claiming. So all taking money from the system.

I've never had any benefits even now when my health is too bad to work I am told I am not entitled to anything. Neither of my sisters have ever received any benefits apart from child benefit and I can't, off the top of my head, think of any friends that ever received benefits apart from child benefit.

Of course women of my mum's generation didn't even receive child benefit for the first child.

Please don't tell me that today's women are so hard done by

Lenders can now offer 4.5x + income multiples and the monthly cost of borrowing makes it affordable because interest rates are lower

Doesn’t make a soundbite though does it

How is it 'cherry picking' to quote the precise 2018 figures from the ONS?

If you want to post other figures that are irrelevant, fire away but it's just making you look silly.

The point of this discussion is that today, young people find it harder to get on the property ladder compared to 30 years ago and another reason why they should not be paying for women to retire a few years earlier, through their taxes.

Yes there are places in the UK where houses are dirt cheap but that's because there is no work there usually and salaries are low as well.

anyway, the courts have made a decision so this thread is redundant.

Yes of course they can offer more- you don't need to try to educate me on this as both my DCs have been through the property buying experience lately.

But 4 x the median salary is not going to buy you much if you are are south of the Wash.

And anyone who over-borrows on xxx multiples is short-sighted because there is a high risk interest rates will rise.

I have to agree Lynsey.

You have posted the headline I am quoting from the underlying statistics
You are talking about young people but average prices - cherry picking
There is not a high risk interest rates will rise in the short to medium term. The gilt yield has been at its lower point for years and commentators are discussing the possibility of negative interest rates

Ffs some people made sebsible plans to the best of their abity and they have still bern screwed over. My sister was in tbe affected group and was on JSA for a large number of years towards the end and on a factory production line before that so low paid.
She finally got her small private pension of approx £100 per week and months later her state pension. Guess what she would be better off withouth the Private Pension as she now has to pay rent and dental treatment. She would have been better off not bothering to save for her retirement.

You are wrong, Lynsey91 and unduly negative about both young mothers and in your previous posts about immigration within the UK. Your negative views will not make many warm to your cause,
I quoted before from the report by the Fiscal Studies Unit about the rise and riser of women in employment and specifically that it is young women who are leading the way in staying in employment.
You cannot argue with statistics just because you have taken against some young mothers you know.
I admire young women for having a strong work ethic which some of the older posters on here would do well to emulate.

@mrsmuddlepies well you may think I am wrong but I certainly don't. It's not just where I live that there many mothers who won't work anywhere near the amount of years older women have.

Also I hate to disappoint you but I have not mentioned immigration. You are obviously confusing me with another poster

It's not a matter of me having taken against some women I know. Why exactly are so many young couples having children and then claiming benefit after benefit? Oh we are not entitled to our pensions we have paid in for but they can get benefits that often they have not paid in for!

You can admire young women for their supposed strong work ethic as much as you like but I guess you say that because you include yourself in that group.

I can assure you that I know many many women 60 or older who had a very strong work ethic, who worked from the age of 14 sometimes for years and years and claimed NOTHING. How many of those wonderful young mothers you know started work at 16/17. I bet most of them didn't start until their 20's.

Seems to me you have taken against older women just because you know of some that didn't work for 40 or more years when many many did.

I quoted before from the report by the Fiscal Studies Unit about the rise and riser of women in employment and specifically that it is young women who are leading the way in staying in employment.

This is why these threads are so pointless on MN. You can backup that a whole generation had women working far less and that people at or near pensionable age are the richest in society with stats and people still come on and say they don't believe it because it doesn't fit in with their narrow view.

The cohort immediately before retirement should on the whole be the richest in society - because they have had a working lifetime to build up salaries and savings and have not yet stopped work at which point income falls and savings are spent

Why would anyone expect otherwise OP?

Ridiculous. There was no state funded childcare then. Young people cannot seem to grasp that things were different then.
I'm glad I'm not a child of today's young people - they are going to get battered about the head with 'we had it so hard in my day' for their whole lives.