UK political class want to raise pension age to 75

[Little John]

I'm 55 and do a physically hard job. I can do this mainly because I look after myself - a lot of people don't and it's all down to their poor decisions.
I don't expect the state will be able to pay me a pension when I get to what is the current pension age.
Government spending is way too much as it is and a lot is funded by debt - which people who aren't even born yet will have to pay - how the hell is that fair or morally acceptable? That's like me getting a BMW and then expecting my 1 year old grandson to pay for it.

What a load of wholly inaccurate drivel.

So, to be clear, your contention is that as the population ages into it's sixties and beyond, the increasing incidence of ill health in the population that tracks that aging process is entirely or, even, mainly due to "poor decisions"

Are you seriously that stupid?

Or is it merely that you don't like the idea of paying for someone for someone else's needs (even though, statistically, your probability of being on either side of that equation is largely down to a whole series of random variables), but need a pseudo moral narrative to cover your self-interested blushes?

I would have more respect for your position if you just came out and admitted you don't like the idea of paying for anyone else irrespective of their needs.

You know just how much I care for peoples needs? Well, enough to give a kidney to a stranger, That's how f***ing much you wanker.

So.

That stupid then

[ReserveGrowthRulz]

What a load of wholly inaccurate drivel.

So, to be clear, your contention is that as the population ages into it's sixties and beyond, the increasing incidence of ill health in the population that tracks that aging process is entirely or, even, mainly due to "poor decisions"

Are you seriously that stupid?

Or is it merely that you don't like the idea of paying for someone for someone else's needs (even though, statistically, your probability of being on either side of that equation is largely down to a whole series of random variables), but need a pseudo moral narrative to cover your self-interested blushes?

I would have more respect for your position if you just came out and admitted you don't like the idea of paying for anyone else irrespective of their needs.

You know just how much I care for peoples needs? Well, enough to give a kidney to a stranger, That's how f***ing much you wanker.

So.

That stupid then

That isn't stupid you insensitive, plagiarizing, geologically ignorant dumbass.

[Little John]

I've been thinking about a family trust or similar for some time now and recently Southbank Investment have been going on about a Corbyn government coming after the wealthy, which basically means the middle class because the rich can afford to bugger off elsewhere and take their money with them. Even under current tax law it would make sense for us because the land I bought and house I built on it weren't an "investment" they were a place to live and grow food and fuel in an uncertain future. I want to pass it on without them getting a whopping great unaffordable tax bill.

Also having seen my step mother in law and then my mother go into a care home and watched as their house and estate was gradually eased from under them at about £3000 per month to pay for the fees. I don't want that to happen to us. I think it is iniquitous that because I have worked hard to buy a house, renovated and extended one and built another that I should have to pay for my elderly care while someone who has rented all their lives gets that care free and carefree. It all comes down to why the f**k bother to do any thing in life if the only reward is having done something?

I know that not everyone is capable or has the chances that I might have had but why should I lose everything while someone who has more money than they know what to do with and someone else who has no money at all can both get away with paying nothing while I lose everything. At the moment when you're old it pays to have been extremely greedy or very lazy in life.

As to having only one child I don't think that that is fair on the child either. Two children is still below the replacement rate and will result in a smaller population but it spreads the load of elderly care over two adults and means that there is always a spare if one of the children dies. One child also collapses the population faster than might be advisable and leads to the birth of a lot of male babies and miscarriages of female one and a shortage of wives as they found in China. Not good for social cohesion.

I can pretty much agree with that Ken. That is to say, there needs to be enough in the state pot taken out of income as tax. Which, as it happen, there was. The problem is not there there was not enough collected to account for pensioners today and into the future. The problem is that successive governments stole that money and spent it on other shit.

Irrespective, what can never be right is to encourage people to work hard and save and then pull the rug out from underneath them by making all of that saving and building pointless at the end of life. Or, if thing are so dire that such drastic measures are required. Then the haircuts need to start at the very top and work downwards as necessary. That is clearly is not what is happening.

As for China's one child policy and its effect on the ratio of male babies to female babies. This was not due to "miscarriages". It was due to sex selective abortions due to Chinese (and broader Asian) dumb ass cultural norms on the value of males and females.

[woodburner]

RGR, I think you are being a little generous with the adulations

[stumuz1]

so, the sooner parents in their, say, fifties, transfer their assets to their kids, they safer will be those assets. Whicuth is precisely why, in about 5 or so years, we will have diddly squat in our name cos it will all be in our kid's names.

A few observations.

If you transfer the house to the kids at 50, the seven year rule applies.

BUT


If the little darlings do something stupid (enter into stupid contracts, injure someone, run a business that ends in bankruptcy) they have a nice fat asset that the injured party can go after.

When you transfer, you literally give it away forever.

[/b]

[ReserveGrowthRulz]

RGR, I think you are being a little generous with the adulations

Plagiarizing because you lack the ability to think for yourself is one thing, and not a surprise from a cut and paster like Little John anyway, but disparaging others for what is truly a sacrifice is deserving of derision.

[stumuz1]

Would anyone see a benefit for a topic ' Alternative pension provisions'?

I have cashed in all my pensions a while back, which are mostly in cash/gold/land.

However, I thinking along the lines of things which reduce your liabilities and thus the need for so much pension. Sort of fiscal future proofing.

Eg, negating your energy bills will negate the need for about 80k pension pot.

Thoughts?

[fuzzy]

Great idea, although advice would be country specific.

[Little John]

so, the sooner parents in their, say, fifties, transfer their assets to their kids, they safer will be those assets. Whicuth is precisely why, in about 5 or so years, we will have diddly squat in our name cos it will all be in our kid's names.

A few observations.

If you transfer the house to the kids at 50, the seven year rule applies.

BUT


If the little darlings do something stupid (enter into stupid contracts, injure someone, run a business that ends in bankruptcy) they have a nice fat asset that the injured party can go after.

When you transfer, you literally give it away forever.
[/b]

Yes, that is a major concern, obviously.

I am, as a consequence, investigating the possibility of setting up a "life-tenancy" for us with a guaranteed fixed rent for the duration of the tenancy when we hand it to our son. Thus, if he f*cks up in some way and creditors get everything, including the house we are living in, those creditors will just have to sit on it until we are dead.

[stumuz1]

I am, as a consequence, investigating the possibility of setting up a "life-tenancy" for us with a guaranteed fixed rent for the duration of the tenancy when we hand it to our son. Thus, if he f*cks up in some way and creditors get everything, including the house we are living in, those creditors will just have to sit on it until we are dead.

That will work, BUT!!!, the rent will have to be market rent. Or, the council/inland revenue treat it as a ' relevant disposal'

[Little John]

I am, as a consequence, investigating the possibility of setting up a "life-tenancy" for us with a guaranteed fixed rent for the duration of the tenancy when we hand it to our son. Thus, if he f*cks up in some way and creditors get everything, including the house we are living in, those creditors will just have to sit on it until we are dead.

That will work, BUT!!!, the rent will have to be market rent. Or, the council/inland revenue treat it as a ' relevant disposal'

Can you explain that in a bit more detail Stumuz1?

[Little John]

From what I have just read, if a property is let by a landlord to a "connected" tenant (parent, child etc) at below market rate, all this means is that the landlord will not be able to claim for the usual tax allowances on rented property. I've not seen any mention, as of yet, of any other penalties.

[stumuz1]

It's a 'gift with reservation of benefit'

Basically, selling the house to the kids for £1 and then living init for free!

Taxman is wise to this.

https://www.saga.co.uk/magazine/money/p ... r-children

[Little John]

Ok got it.

The market rent bit wold be taken care of by just putting it into their account Then them setting the tax liability on the rent aside and paying us back the remainder in cash each month. That would bring the bills down to a nominal amount given that the market rents round here are relatively low and the "market" rent range is very wide. So, a house such this may be rentable at around £350-£400 pcm. So, even if my eldest ends up on a 40% tax band, which is looking likely. So, we would be looking at a tax bill of around 150-250. But, if the rent was set at market rate, the other penalties applied to "connected" persons would not apply and so all of the tax allowances related to rental properties could be claimed for/offsetting the tax bill somewhat further.

Indeed, though I haven't discussed this detail with him yet, I'm pretty sure my eldest would be happy to pay the tax on the rent as part of his own "pension" contributions given he will be getting the house when we are gone, which would be around his fifties/sixties, just when he would need it for his own impending old age.

Also, I have just discovered, if I gift the house to my eldest, with a lifetime tenancy with a fixed nominal rent below market rate the following appears to be the case.

1) He would not be able to claim any tax allowances on the property for repairs etc.

This would be irrelevant to us since we would continue to keep the property in good order. If and when we got sufficient old, we have already discussed he would take over any repairs.

2) The property would be liable for inheritance tax on our death, in principle, due to the below market rent.

However, in practice, this property falls way below the current inheritance tax threshold and will highly probably continue to do so unless there is an unprecedented boom in the local economy and/or the inheritance threshold is altered truly dramatically. The only potential spanner in the ointment is if both me and my wife were to die within seven years of the house being gifted. Not impossible, I guess, but highly unlikely given when we intend to hand it over.

3) The lifetime tenancy and fixed rent, if my initial enquiries are correct, should protect us in the event of my son f*cking up and getting his assets taken off him by creditors. But, I am by no means certain of this yet and will need to take legal advice on it.

4). There is a "nuclear" option and this involves handing the property over to my eldest and "moving out" to "live with my eldest". But, being allowed to make "regular visits" to the property. I think the limit may be 28 weeks per year or something like that. This arrangement gets round all of the above issues surrounding tax and inheritance. But, would leave us exposed on the lifetime tenancy front. Because, obviously, we would no longer be "tenants" of it.

[Little John]

All of the above, from everything I have been reading on it today, seems to hinge on the property being "gifted". Either by implication, for a nominal price. Or overtly.

So, would one solution be to sell the property at full market price. But, immediately on receiving the money, give it to my eldest to be able to pay it off immediately.

That seems to get round all of the "deprivation of assets" issues with local councils vis a vis social care in old age. Because we sold the property at full market value and because we then had the cash to do with as we saw fit, all we have to do, when we are old enough to need social care, which is about 25 to 30 years away, is say that we have spent it all.

Also, selling it at full market value to my eldest gets round any inheritance tax or capital gains tax issues.