To think the standard of living for retired people had to change

[downdowndowndowndown]

I'm a millennial. I will retire in my seventies. Many in my age group will be still paying their mortgage off well into their sixties. Many will never be able to buy. This is not a moan about that.

My mums generation were able to buy cheaper houses in the eighties. Some have also inherited well (houses which their parents owned and didn't have to sell to pay for care, which had risen in price to above a million). They had better pension plans. Some were able to go to university for free and their degrees actually meant something in the workplace: They often paid off their mortgages in their forties. I see a lot of my parents relatives have retired early and have very enviable lives.

Two uncles have retired in their early sixties. They are both in good help. They spend their days on many holidays, eating out multiple times per week, going to garden centres, renovating their beautiful houses, helping children financially and with childcare. They will have presumably worked out their finances and could afford to continue to live like this for the rest of their lives! Possibly thirty more years!

I think they are possibly going to be unique in their quality of life. We will never have that and I don't see my children's generation having things any earlier.

In essence the generation before me were mostly fortunate, unless personal situations changed their financial situation or they lost their homes during the nineties interest rises. Retirements and pensions were never designed to support people for three decades and that things had to change hence raising the retirement age and making people pay more towards their care.

PS if we are all so wealthy please be happy about potential inheritance prospects. Though for one I'm doing a Shirley Valentine as soon as work/ time allows !! I'll be spending on inter railing and island hopping hopefully 🤣

@MrsDanversGlidesAgain you could just answer my question? Why does me saying I think the NHS will charge eg free prescription age means I begrudge current pensioners getting them? Or was I not supposed to respond to that accusation?

Then just pop my clogs all of a sudden without bothering anyone 😀

Also the lack of social housing has had a huge impact on younger generations.

@MrsDanversGlidesAgain this thread has been derailed since the first page by people assuming that it was in some way derogatory towards boomers and Gen z. It's essential question was 'how is the government going to pay for our generation to have a similar quality of life when we have far less assets (on the whole), a depleted birth rate and climate change to deal with?' What will go? What will no longer be there. My suspicion is things like the NHS being free to all, social care, partially funded care home beds, reduction on council tax or heating for most. The current emphasis on introducing free childcare suggests their focus will be on getting the younger generation to start having kids again, something which will be hard when we spend our peak fertile years living with parents or in shared houses, or in insecure private rentals. Planning a baby whilst living in your van or in a houseboat? Nah

The current emphasis on introducing free childcare suggests their focus will be on getting the younger generation to start having kids again, something which will be hard when we spend our peak fertile years living with parents or in shared houses, or in insecure private rentals. Planning a baby whilst living in your van or in a houseboat? Nah

They are certainly trying to push the “have more dc line” but it doesn’t make sense as that obviously doesn’t help in the short term.

OP the uncle postman at the time was likely on a great salary - at the time 1980 it was around 10k which is equivalent to over 50k today

Whereas today they get under 30k on average

So many things have changed

I lived in house share in the 80s rented.
Not everyone has parents you could live with - I didn't.

This thread has been derailed since the first page by people assuming that it was in some way derogatory towards boomers and Gen z

Hard to assume that you meant anything else if you go back and read the envy you clearly have over your family for having a decent standard of living in retirement.

YABU.

There are a LOT of pensioners living in poverty. That's why the triple lock has been in place for so long (plus they are an important electoral block).

There are always anecdotal stories of people retiring early and living the good life. I promise you they are a small minority. Yes, houses costed much less years ago, but there were other things that were negative so it is all a trade off.

@downdowndowndowndown
I agree with you. This is not being discussed by politicians at all which is clearly a mistake.

This video is very informative for those who are arguing so much against the fact that the current 60+ generation are/will be the wealthiest/ most fortunate of all generations.

OP the uncle postman at the time was likely on a great salary - at the time 1980 it was around 10k which is equivalent to over 50k today

Yes wage stagnation is often forgotten. 30k in the early 00s is equivalent to 53k today.

They aren't going to have any success with the 'have more DC line' when people can't afford housing, as the OP says. Shortsighted bunch.

There are a LOT of pensioners living in poverty.

Nobody is denying that but there has been an improvement since the 70s.

“As a group, pensioners are now less likely than average to be in relative income poverty, with a rate of 18% just before the pandemic, compared with 31% for families with children”

Anything that wants to make life harder for one group is derogatory to that group - it's treating them as worth less than others

We need to lift all people out of poverty and give them good homes

Including the pensioners

No one has said that lots of pensioner don't live in poverty, just that they are the wealthiest group in the population and also that subsequent generations will be poorer.

This is not the reason for the triple lock. It was introduced to buy Tory votes.

I agree but it’s hard to take things away from people, unfortunately that means our generation are basically fucked unless we can afford to pay into private pensions.

A lot of people will end up on benefits, whatever that might be in their old age.

There’s also a huge issue with falling school rolls since funding is based on headcounts

https://amp.theguardian.com/education/2023/may/29/more-90-primary-schools-in-england-to-close-or-face-closure-for-lack-of-pupils

Wealth is in property. ie their homes

All property increases in value over time,
owning your home means the tax man isn’t paying your rent every month

As I said over 10 pages ago, these threads are pointless because people react in only one of 5 ways:
• I am a boomer and not wealthy so I am offended by your generalisation

• I am a boomer and wealthy but I deserve to be because life was hard for us back then
• I am a boomer and generations after me actually have it much easier than me
• I am a gen X/millennial and all I’m saying is how are we going to have any kind of secure retirement if we can’t buy homes, have families or save for retirement
• I am a boomer and younger people can afford houses and families if they just stop wanting a 4 bed detached with fancy decor and £1000 taps

The reason politicians won’t deal with it is because large swathes of the population start screaming in outrage when anything remotely tangential to the topic comes up. There’s no possibility for sensible debate as everyone either asserts that it isn’t happening because they themselves are poor, or asserts that it is happening but it’s the fault of younger people who just need to buck up and stop whining.

@fitzwilliamdarcy you are exactly right.

Yes, a lot of pensioner wealth is in property. Property has increased in value in recent decades, hence pensioner wealth. It doesn't necessarily follow that property will continue to increase in value in real terms, just because it has for this generation.
One of the @downdowndowndowndown main points, surely is that, because, younger generations have not been able to afford to buy homes, they will have less wealth in old age and less ability to pay for care and everything else they may need.

Spot on @fitzwilliamdarcy
Not many 'boomers' seem to be able to see things clearly.
I did post the video above to try to dispel some of the myths.

fitzwilliamdarcy · Today 11:18

As I said over 10 pages ago, these threads are pointless because people react in only one of 5 ways:
• I am a boomer and not wealthy so I am offended by your generalisation
• I am a boomer and wealthy but I deserve to be because life was hard for us back then
• I am a boomer and generations after me actually have it much easier than me
• I am a gen X/millennial and all I’m saying is how are we going to have any kind of secure retirement if we can’t buy homes, have families or save for retirement
• I am a boomer and younger people can afford houses and families if they just stop wanting a 4 bed detached with fancy decor and £1000 taps

The reason politicians won’t deal with it is because large swathes of the population start screaming in outrage when anything remotely tangential to the topic comes up. There’s no possibility for sensible debate as everyone either asserts that it isn’t happening because they themselves are poor, or asserts that it is happening but it’s the fault of younger people who just need to buck up and stop whining.

Yes and your point is 100% proved by reading back through this thread.

Did you read my comment. I said it was also a vote play. That doesn't mean it was wrong though.

Not sure I buy the generation argument. There has never been a bigger gap between rich and poor in this country now, the very rich now are richer than the very rich 30 or 40 years ago.