This is Bound to End in Tears

[Beef Oven!]

But the second two columns are the real ones. Actual finance and actual family and friend support. The two things that are so vital in old age. The UK does well here and Germany and France do less well.

Perhaps it's basic literacy which is lacking in your reading the paragraph heading the "Relative Mental Wellbeing" column. Germany somehow manages to top 100% of over 50s finding "their life has meaning compared with people between 35 and 49 who feel the same". The "Old Age Poverty Rate" figures are like comparing apples and oranges, relating as they do to "half the national median" of each country. Something which, of course, varies from country to country. The figure for Germany, France and the UK in column 3 fall pretty much within the same range of statistical error, the arbitrary transition point between light and dark blue classification notwithstanding.

[french frank]

The study does not attempt to measure mental well-being. It seems to be content with looking at perception

What is 'perception' if not an entirely mental exercise? Being 'poorer than average' only matters to people who are bothered/severely affected by it. In general, the elderly are less well off than those in work; or, their income is lower. But if median income is £30,000 p.a. and I only have £25,000, that doesn't mean I'm living 'in poverty'.

our system is very fair and it is churlish for you [Bryn?] to knock it

Is it 'knocking the system' to point out that in other countries it's rather better? Must we proclaim that we're best at everything?

[Beef Oven!]

What is 'perception' if not an entirely mental exercise? Being 'poorer than average' only matters to people who are bothered/severely affected by it. In general, the elderly are less well off than those in work; or, their income is lower. But if median income is £30,000 p.a. and I only have £25,000, that doesn't mean I'm living 'in poverty'.

I think what I'm trying to say is that well-being in old age is dependent on money and family and friend support which are concrete variables.

[teamsaint]

What is 'perception' if not an entirely mental exercise? Being 'poorer than average' only matters to people who are bothered/severely affected by it. In general, the elderly are less well off than those in work; or, their income is lower. But if median income is £30,000 p.a. and I only have £25,000, that doesn't mean I'm living 'in poverty'.

Is it 'knocking the system' to point out that in other countries it's rather better? Must we proclaim that we're best at everything?

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/pensioner-household-income-higher-than-working-age-as-time-goes-by-study-a7576736.html

Pensioner incomes aren't so bad for those with good occupational schemes. It is young working people( and those on benefits) who have taken the hit of the last ten years.

A complicated area, and one where we can draw our own conclusions to fit our world view. But I'd be confident that" post housing cost" pensioner incomes won't continue to increase above those of working people for very many ears, before the destruction /reduction of workplace pensions starts to hit hard.

We have generations heading into middle age, who have less valuable houses( and collapsing home ownership rates) than their parents, worse second pensions, longer and bigger mortgages, 10% student tax and so on.

A lucky few do really well on the back of inherited property , something that should be radically looked at.

Some interesting ideas here, although I'm unclear as to how this would work out for most people.

https://www.ft.com/content/b199823a-b053-11e3-8058-00144feab7de

[Beef Oven!]

Is it 'knocking the system' to point out that in other countries it's rather better? Must we proclaim that we're best at everything?

It's not about 'having to be the best at everything', it's about the oikophobic stance so often taken by so many on the liberal left. Shouldn't we view our glass as half-full rather than half-empty?

(I find it hard to reply to your post because you keep editing it!)

[Beef Oven!]

Yeah, of course. I'm alright Jack!

The system is fair. It works on the basis that most people pay in more than they take out and a minority of people will take out more than they put in. In that sense, we're all alright Jack (whatever you meant by that).

[Beef Oven!]

I think you have correctly identified the problem for future generations. Property is a time-bomb.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-a7576736.html

Pensioner incomes aren't so bad for those with good occupational schemes. It is young working people( and those on benefits) who have taken the hit of the last ten years.

A complicated area, and one where we can draw our own conclusions to fit our world view. But I'd be confident that post housing cost pensioner incomes won't continue to increase above those or working people for vry many ears, before the destruction /reduction of workplace pensions starts to hit hard.

We have generations heading into middle age, who have less valuable houses than their parents, worse second pensions, longer and bigger mortgages, 10% student tax and so on.

A lucky few do really well on the back of inherited property , something that should be radically looked at.

Some interesting ideas here, although I'm unclear as to how this would work out for most people.
https://www.ft.com/content/b199823a-...8-00144feab7de

[Beef Oven!]

Concerning EU/UK state pensions - "UK pensioners can expect slightly more money from the government than their European counterparts" is the conclusion from a left-wing anti-Brexit "fact-checking" enterprise. Although they wriggled and twisted around before they made this conclusion and opted for a very vague headline to their "study" that conceals the fact that the UK pension scheme compares favourably with Germany, France, Spain et al.

https://www.ftadviser.com/pensions/2...veloped-world/

Just leaving this here.

[french frank]

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-a7576736.html

Pensioner incomes aren't so bad for those with good occupational schemes. It is young working people( and those on benefits) who have taken the hit of the last ten years.

I'd agree with that; but I would be surprised (so? you're surprised? ) to learn that the majority of retired people have good occupational pensions. Though … it could mean that those who don't, and are poorer, also die off earlier, with the wealthier ones surviving. And I was also discounting those who continue working: I guess this applies similarly to those who, financially, have to and those who don't.

A complicated area, and one where we can draw our own conclusions to fit our world view. But I'd be confident that" post housing cost" pensioner incomes won't continue to increase above those of working people for very many ears, before the destruction /reduction of workplace pensions starts to hit hard.

We have generations heading into middle age, who have less valuable houses( and collapsing home ownership rates) than their parents, worse second pensions, longer and bigger mortgages, 10% student tax and so on.

A lucky few do really well on the back of inherited property , something that should be radically looked at.

Some interesting ideas here, although I'm unclear as to how this would work out for most people.
https://www.ft.com/content/b199823a-...8-00144feab7de

It is complicated, and it's also something where 'generalisations' (like mean averages - median much better) can be misleading. Sometimes numbers are beyond imagining: I was reading an article this morning about a US Representatives push for a 70% tax on incomes above $10m. Why would anyone want more than $10m????

Will look at the FT article, thanks.

[french frank]

(I find it hard to reply to your post because you keep editing it!)

?? But you answered it - and I only edited it once - to add the quote from you, rather than reply in a separate post to each individual comment: it seems to be neater, somehow Sorry to provide difficulties - I'm not to know how many have seen the first version …

[vinteuil]

I'd agree with that; but I would be surprised (so? you're surprised? ) to learn that the majority of retired people have good occupational pensions. Though … it could mean that those who don't, and are poorer, also die off earlier, with the wealthier ones surviving. And I was also discounting those who continue working: I guess this applies similarly to those who, financially, have to and those who don't.

.

... 'twas ever thus - "qui enim habet dabitur illi et qui non habet etiam quod habet auferetur ab illo..." ["For he that hath, to him shall be given: and he that hath not, from him shall be taken even that which he hath... "].

.

[french frank]

... 'twas ever thus - "qui enim habet dabitur illi et qui non habet etiam quod habet auferetur ab illo..." ["For he that hath, to him shall be given: and he that hath not, from him shall be taken even that which he hath... "].

.

Certainly 'twas ever thus. But in terms of poverty v. wealth, has the proportion altered since then?

[french frank]

Some interesting ideas here, although I'm unclear as to how this would work out for most people.
https://www.ft.com/content/b199823a-...8-00144feab7de

I'd forgotten what your comment was here. Mmm, ditto More truthfully, I'm all at sea. Abolish income tax, put purchase tax/VAT or whatever up to 50%. How does this help anyone?

Okay, I've misunderstood - on to the next question

[teamsaint]

I'd agree with that; but I would be surprised (so? you're surprised? ) to learn that the majority of retired people have good occupational pensions. Though … it could mean that those who don't, and are poorer, also die off earlier, with the wealthier ones surviving. And I was also discounting those who continue working: I guess this applies similarly to those who, financially, have to and those who don't.



It is complicated, and it's also something where 'generalisations' (like mean averages - median much better) can be misleading. Sometimes numbers are beyond imagining: I was reading an article this morning about a US Representatives push for a 70% tax on incomes above $10m. Why would anyone want more than $10m????

Will look at the FT article, thanks.

I think the information around these apparently high pensioner incomes does need treating with great caution. The article is careful to point out that some of the effect is down to people working into " retirement". Presumably this include both those in good jobs doing some further well paid, less onerous work ( in many cases to help kids/grandchildren perhaps) and those who simply have to work to pay for anything above the basics. Doubtless this latter effect will continue to increase, as defined benefits pensions start to fade away.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

The slightest hint that it's going degenerate into mud-slinging and I will delete the whole Thread permanently - and it will be my discretion as to what constitutes such "degeneration". Understood? Good.

Definition of "slightest":

small in degree; inconsiderable.
"a slight increase"
synonyms: small, modest, little, tiny, minute, inappreciable, imperceptible, infinitesimal, hardly worth mentioning, negligible, inconsiderable, insignificant, minimal, marginal

Things are starting to look lachrymosal already.