Help protect children from gaming harms.

Take our survey

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

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

559 replies

Powerbungalow · 22/07/2026 10:29

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

OP posts:
BIossomtoes · Yesterday 12:37

StealMySunshining · Yesterday 12:30

It would be lost on you.

In other words you don’t have one.

Ginmonkeyagain · Yesterday 13:10

The invlusion of pension pots in tje eatate for IHT was to close a tax avoidance loophole that opened up after the pension freedoms brought in by George Osbourne. Previously you had to use a DC pension pot to buy an annuity, but that was changed to allow people more freedom, so they could leave money in the pot or draw out lump sums from the age of 55 to spend on what they liked. As they were not counted in the estate for IHT purposes but could be used to store money (and there are great tax breaks for lutting money in to them), they became a great tax dodge for high earners.

It still won't affect that many people as you woild have to be pretty well off to have a DC pension pot that you a. don't need to use to fund your retirement and b. that is large enough to tip your estate in to IHT.

Pepperlee · Yesterday 13:26

StealMySunshining · Yesterday 11:34

No. Because you don’t want a solution. Why change a system that vastly benefits you, eh?

How does it vastly benefit me? I get SP. I have a PP and 50% of my late husband's PP. I pay the right amount of tax. FFS explain how I'm vastly benefiting ? And I do want you to tell us what your solution would be.

Pepperlee · Yesterday 13:35

StealMySunshining · Yesterday 12:09

I am paying the appropriate, proportional rate of tax for my income. Just like you should be. Except I don’t moan about paying it.

But you certainly moan about everything else. Who on here has moaned about paying tax? It's a fact of life. Death and taxes. You're making stuff up to suit your agenda.

Katypp · Yesterday 14:56

Pepperlee · Yesterday 13:26

How does it vastly benefit me? I get SP. I have a PP and 50% of my late husband's PP. I pay the right amount of tax. FFS explain how I'm vastly benefiting ? And I do want you to tell us what your solution would be.

The irony is some of the loudest moaners on here are the ones who are taking a lot from the state themselves.
I realise that pps might not have children, but the ever-suffering young families who are utterly convinced that no one has ever had life as hard as them and they are unique in paying for pensions for the older generations are themselves recipients of maternity pay, child benefit, free childcare, UC top-ups worth thousands every year.

Seymour5 · Yesterday 15:41

StealMySunshining · Yesterday 10:46

IHT on unused pensions: does not affect pensioners, it affects their beneficiaries.

IHT thresholds frozen: as above

Tax allowances frozen: welcome to the world the rest of us inhabit

House sale funds: what do you mean by “effectively”? It either is or it isn’t, where’s your evidence?

Proposed council tax changes: “proposed” is the operative word here, and again, welcome to the world the rest of us inhabit

PPT or LTV: again, “mooted”, and again, that would affect everybody

Retirement ages change: I doubt the current cohort of pensioners need to worry about that, do you?

Is the above literally all you could come up with? Some policies that make absolutely no difference to pensioners, but affect their beneficiaries. Policies that do and will affect us all, and a change in retirement age that will have absolutely no impact on the current cohort of pensioners?

Give me a break. Was perpetual victim hood taught in schools or something?

The only statistical fact that has so far been provided on this thread was by me: only 36% of the cohort born between 1937-1946 were in FT work for more than 75% of their adult lives. That’s it. So all this guff about current pensioners having worked all hours and poured blood, sweat and tears is nonsense. As a cohort, you most certainly didn’t. And seeing as we can’t make policy decisions based on Sally next door, we need to make them based on trends.

Now I appreciate that is difficult to swallow because for some reason so many of today’s pensioners act like they were on the front line or something, but these are the facts.

Have you considered that the reason why a smaller proportion of people born1937-46 were in full time work? I would think those were mainly women, as many men of that age were very much of the ‘breadwinner’ mentality.

Looking after a home and family has certainly changed in my lifetime, born in ‘46, and even more so for those older than us. No fridge, no freezer, no washing machine, no microwave, no car, no supermarkets, no convenience foods. Few homes had central heating, many had no bathrooms or indoor lavatories. Clothes were often hand sewn, or knitted. Women often looked after older relatives who lived with them.

Life has become much easier in those respects, far less labour intensive, allowing younger generations of women to use childcare and develop careers, and therefore work for a bigger % of their lives.

Pepperlee · Yesterday 15:57

Seymour5 · Yesterday 15:41

Have you considered that the reason why a smaller proportion of people born1937-46 were in full time work? I would think those were mainly women, as many men of that age were very much of the ‘breadwinner’ mentality.

Looking after a home and family has certainly changed in my lifetime, born in ‘46, and even more so for those older than us. No fridge, no freezer, no washing machine, no microwave, no car, no supermarkets, no convenience foods. Few homes had central heating, many had no bathrooms or indoor lavatories. Clothes were often hand sewn, or knitted. Women often looked after older relatives who lived with them.

Life has become much easier in those respects, far less labour intensive, allowing younger generations of women to use childcare and develop careers, and therefore work for a bigger % of their lives.

They haven't considered anything because they jump on the bash the boomer bandwagon. Most of the moaners haven't got a clue what life and money was like back then and don't want to know. Our 1st house had no bathroom and the toilet was down the yard and up the street and was shared with a neighbour. This was late 1960s. We lived there for 5 years with 2 small children. I'm sick of these nasty people. I'm thankful my own children, and my eldest grandchild, have a standard of living far beyond what we had and I'm thankful they're not full of bitterness because I get a SP.

Somersetbaker · Yesterday 16:51

Ginmonkeyagain · Yesterday 13:10

The invlusion of pension pots in tje eatate for IHT was to close a tax avoidance loophole that opened up after the pension freedoms brought in by George Osbourne. Previously you had to use a DC pension pot to buy an annuity, but that was changed to allow people more freedom, so they could leave money in the pot or draw out lump sums from the age of 55 to spend on what they liked. As they were not counted in the estate for IHT purposes but could be used to store money (and there are great tax breaks for lutting money in to them), they became a great tax dodge for high earners.

It still won't affect that many people as you woild have to be pretty well off to have a DC pension pot that you a. don't need to use to fund your retirement and b. that is large enough to tip your estate in to IHT.

It's actually not quite that simple, the tax free transfer to another beneficiary could only happen if the original beneficiary died before the age of 75, after that the transfer was/is taxed at the receivers marginal tax rate. I'm not quite clear how the changes to IHT affect this. As previous poster it does encourage spending the pot, which is after all what it is for and not to over invest ( I know not a problem for most people). This does affect me, and I'm wondering about drawing the tax free lump sum, gifting it and hoping I live another 7 years, luckily I'm in good health, so deprivation of assets won't apply, in any case I have other funds available.

Differentforgirls · Yesterday 16:57

StealMySunshining · Yesterday 12:09

I am paying the appropriate, proportional rate of tax for my income. Just like you should be. Except I don’t moan about paying it.

🤣

New posts on this thread. Refresh page