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

[Powerbungalow]

I'm not being unsympathetic

Theres a lady on the news at the moment, saying how times are tough and shes only cooking one meal a week - imagine she's eating cold food.

One thing that stood out though "I own my own house and it costs in maintenance" Depending on where she is, would you not get a life time mortgage or sell and rent? She has a big asset, why not use it to have a better life? I know I would.

She may be holding on to it for inheritance, but she didn't say - if so, then can her family help. It just seems totally crazy

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.

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.

@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?

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.

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.

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?

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?

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.

@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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

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.

Well I’m 38 and I started working at 12. Most of my friends started working at 14/15 and we all worked throughout A-Levels and university. I have already worked for longer at the age of 38 than my mum did her entire career. And I “only” have another 30 years to go.

You're not going to start talking about the world wars or workhouses are you? These threads always end up descending into that.

Not full-time you didn't. Saturday jobs perhaps.

I had part-time jobs from 15/16 but didn't start work full-time until I was 20. Now 66 and still working. My mother and grandmother worked all their lives.

@Katypp i didn't say that it wouldn't exsist - I said long and well funded.

NMW isn't good either, but it isn't relevant to this discussions, as companies could pay more if they wanted to.

All tax payers are still paying for women who retired at 60 in 2010 (unless they all randomly dropped dead and it hasn't been announced)

Why should current workers be HAPPY to pay for the boomer generation to get more than we ever will. And STILL be told if we are struggling that we just need to buy less coffee.

To be clear I am happy to pay into the system and I do think we should support the elderly and vulnerable - but when the system is chipped and chipped away it feels deeply unfair. When as a child you watch your early boomer grandparent's able to retire in their 60s with good health travel and enjoy their golden years you want that. By the time I started work that timetable was already being eroded.

It feels unfair to see a generation take advantage of a system that you have to pay for that you won't get to see the same benefits from.

Ignoring the rest of my post I see. Always such selective responses on these threads.

So PT work doesn’t count? That’s a wild thing to imply on a site like Mumsnet!

@TheyGrewUp

Around 20-25% of 15 year olds are in work today, in the 70s (when current retirees were teens) it was around 60% that had dropped to 25% by the 80s

I am 34 and I got my first job at 13 on the fruit stall at the market.

Full time work for 15 year olds was made illegal in 1972

I just love that poster implying PT work isn’t relevant on a site like Mumsnet!

Oh and if part time work doesn't count we must make sure to scratch off the approximately 44% of older (over age 50) workers transition into semi-retirement or work part-time before fully stopping work.

And all the women working PT! Should we discount all these people @TheyGrewUp?

You must realise there's a massive difference between p/t work as a teenager/student and as a parent.