O/T Budget.....new threshold for NI

I went late 80s and 90s and had to take out loans, despite vigorous protests against them. Nowhere near at the levels they're at today though.

 

According to my wife's magazine, in 1957 30% of household income went on food and 9% on housing, by 2020 this was 11% and 14% respectively ( though 14% does seem a bit low to me).

 

Had to have a 10% deposit on first house bought early 90s.

 

That’s cos it includes people with 20 yr old mortgages and those who have none.
That’s why it’s current house prices and rent v current income that’s the litmus test.

Me living in a nice house that even on my (reasonablly comfortable) income I couldn’t afford to buy tomorrow, is the story.

 

We got a 100% mortgage in the 90’s and they weren’t a rarity.

but even when we bought this and needed a 5% deposit, it was a couple of grand, my son just put down 10% on a £250k house, a completely different kettle of fish even allowing for inflation.

 

What bugs me, and always has, is the way that 60-65 year olds are just handed everything on a plate.

They are the richest and most comfortable in society. They're the generation who got cheap houses so logically should have most savings. They are most likely to have completed their mortgage payments based on average age of purchasing a property and average length of a mortgage. They are at the top of their career having had the opportunity to achieve over 40 years worth of pay rises and promotions. Indeed many are so well off that they have taken early retirement.

And yet they are given free prescriptions, discounted rail tickets, discounts at boots, football grounds, cinemas, national trust discounts, opticians discounts, pub meals discounts etc.

Meanwhile if you're in your early 20s on minimum wage job to get sod all.

 

And what do you think they had in their early 20's?

 

Nowt, but our parents and grandparents hadn’t benefitted from the post war boom, so they had nowt either. Some of our parents were just about comfortable in their later years.

whereas my kids will see me in a very comfortable retirement at 60 that they’ve got no chance of. By the time I get my state pension I’ll have a few quid a month less income than now, post mortgage free prescriptions, the government is genuinely looking after the wrong sectors of society. Pensioners and millionaires don’t need protecting, young families are the ones that need protecting.

 

I'm guessing not a lot but is that how it should work? You struggled 40 years ago so it's only fair to take take take now and watch your kids struggle?

Just seems barmy to give everything to those who don't need it at the expense of those who do. Saying they struggled too at that age isn't just unnecessary it's actually extremely selfish

 

A tweet I saw today was something like…

if you really had it tough and think that others should too ‘because it never did you any harm’ it definitely did you some harm.

 

Also "Me living in a nice house that even on my (reasonablly comfortable) income I couldn’t afford to buy tomorrow, is the story."

Why do you think they have no chance of a comfortable retirement given what you say about living in a "nice house"? Are you intending to spend all your money before you die and/or leave your house and valuables to charity rather than your kids? Most of todays generation, excluding a small number whose parents have taken out loans using their house as equity , or a larger number who rent (council or private) will see a sizeable benefit when both parents die especially as 'large families' are no longer the norm with most people having one or two kids at most. If they inherit a property that does not have a mortgage, they can sell it and invest or pay off their own mortgage if they have one, or rent it out. Either way, by the time they are in their 50s or 60s it may well enable them to wind down or even retire.
If, you leave a house and a car and other valuables it could easily amount to 400-500k and, even after inheritance tax and death duties are paid at whatever applicable rate exits, that will still leave a sizeable chunk of money.

 

We did in late 70’s.

 

I love all the young 'uns on here telling us old gimmers how we had it so good in the 70's.

They never had to put up with multiple series of 'Terry and June' on the BBC when there was only ITV and BBC2 as optional viewing and certainly no internet or video games.

 

Are you talking about a particular age group when you talk about ‘young families’? The parents or their kids?

 

Or credit cards.

 

A lot of generalizations in there, matey!

There are many examples of people in the age bracket you describe who are well off. But equally, there are plenty of examples of people of that age who are less fortunate - sometimes through no fault of their own. A period of 40 years would mean that those living through it have lived through many economic cycles. Most will have lived in less prosperous times as well as better ones. Many of the people you describe may have lost their jobs in the mines or the steelworks during Thatcher's time, and have had to rebuild. I think that at any age you can find examples of people who are better off than yourself, but plenty who are less well off. As for the benefits you instance, the government is shortly due to announce it's response to a consultation on raising the age for free prescriptions so as to realign it with the later state pension age. Boots's is clearly a commercial decision for them. BFC will give you a seniors ticket when you are 65 (unless you pre-qualified at 60).

Having said all that, and repeating myself from above, I do think the question of inter-generational fairness ought to receive more attention. And the exemption of pension income from liability to pay NI is something that seems odd to me. So far as I can make out, it exists for historical reasons, dating from when contributions and health/welfare benefits were more closely linked. These days it looks more like another type of taxation.

Oh, you missed out winter fuel allowances!

 

Firstly people shouldn't have to rely on their parents leaving them money, and secondly that money will generally arrive when people are past the stage of their life when they most need it.

Also I would dispute that "most" will receive a sizeable benefit. I'm certainly not counting on it.

 

I can honestly say that I did not receive ‘sizeable benefits’ from my parents. My dad died at 55, after years of illness, and my mum was living in a council bungalow at the time of her death. Anything we have has been worked and/or saved for. I’m not denying that there is genuine inequality in this country. I’m just not sure that some of the opinions on here are targeted at the proper cause.

 

I agree, however I think some posts are ignorant as to the realities of the generational disparity.

 

I'll repeat what I said earlier. Nobody is criticising those folk who grew up in the 60s/70s/80s. Nobody is saying that your generation didn't work hard, and that you didn't have to sweat and save to get where you are today. People have grafted for years and years, and rightly should be able to live comfortable retirements. Its fully deserved and I take my hat off to you.

Just that it clearly is financially very difficult for this generation to do the same. And also that 10% of 70k is quite a smaller number compared to 10% of 200k.

Especially when the average wage has not increased in line with this.