My main point is too many people rely on the state pension (which is what this article is talking about) and just expect to sit back and be paid. I don't like that attitude at all. I have no problem with all the NI payments I've made going to the most needy but they should be encouraged to work and help others in the process. Sounds like a fantastic idea to me.
If you want financial independence then invest in other things yourself over your life. The government can do whatever they want to the state pension in the future, I certainly won't be relying or expecting anything from it.
People just need to face the reality. The changing demographics (more old people, less young people) make the current state pension arrangements unsustainable. Even if you could sue the government, that won't create the income needed to actually pay the pensions. What we actually need is more immigration, more young folks sprogging a baby every 2 years (more often if possible) and a campaign to encourage people to take up smoking (preferably unfiltered players No 6) and drink at least 10 units of alcohol a night after a full fat fry up of sausages and chips.
And there IMO is the problem. Don't pay in? Can't take out unless a naturalised person/citizen that is disabled and unable to pay in.
There would be uproar but it would fix the issue of how much benefits and pensions people get.
BTW, Google has picked up on keywords in this discussion and placed an ad for people with a £250,000 portfolio on the page. They obviously haven't worked out how much we get paid...
I aim to save 10% of my wage every year of my working life as a rule. Mostly trying to pay off the mortgage at the moment rather than the stock market with the economy and all that.
The real aim is to be totally independent from the state financially long before I retire. I recommend this book if anyone is interested in becoming financially free It inspired me.
Last edited by zag; 26th October 2012 at 01:04 PM.
I was recently party to a discussion that opened my eyes. One of LeBoyfriends colleagues has just bought his 4th house. 'How?' I asked, 'he earns less than you do LeBoyfriend!' Well here's the clever part I had never considered...
Assuming we don't remortgage or borrow heavily against the house in the intervening years, by the time LeBoyfriend and I reach our late 50's, early 60's (earlier if we invest money we may inherit before then), we will own our house outright, or at least a healthy % LTV (easily over 80%). If we put up a % of that equity as collateral against a mortgage on a house of similar value (so 10-15% say), then 'rent' the place to our children to pay the mortgage, we possess a sizable equity.
This is what his colleague does - he and his partner own 2 properties outright, which they use as collateral against other mortgages for buy-to-rent properties. As he rents them to his children, the issue of nightmare-tennants is negated. His children are also no worse off - sure, they won't OWN the house themselves until he dies, so you could argue that they are still in the same trap as renters (not getting any return on the money they spend), but eventually they will own it, which really is no different to having a mortage themselves as until they own the majority of the equity, they effectively rent it off the bank.
To me, £100,000 in the bank will always be £100,000, so if inflation causes the value of that money to halve, we've effectively lost 50%. If we buy a house worth £100,000, and inflation takes it to £200,000, even if we 'break even' (in the sense that the money has the same relative value now as it did then), our chunk of money will still buy us the same 'value' of goods - a house, a car, whatever as opposed to half a house at the new, inflated rate. LeBoyfriend is a bit short sighted about investing and it's one of the few things we disagree strongly about - he has this grand idea that when he inherits whatever is coming to him, it's all his and he can do what he likes - I think this is a silly idea as he would be better investing it in the house so it retains some semblance of value, but he feels that he'd rather keep it for himself to fritter away.
I'd like to invest in a stocks and shares portfolio but I don't think I'm brave enough to cope with the ups and downs - the ups, maybe but not the downs.
@AMLightfoot - money itself is a large scale shell game, controlled and run by those who have the most power over it, you are totally right in leaning toward investments with solid inflation based increases as the system itself seeks to devalue money in order to allow more people into the system. Land and houses are one of the few things that are a decent foothold in the current economic system. Money itself is devalued by inflation, resources like gold are far to heavily traded to be too far behind inflation and are always threatened by technology or disillusion of the systems that dictate its value, the first proper gold filtering project would wreck the value of it if they found a decent way to filter its particulates out of the sea. Diamonds are a scam from the get go as they are artificially limited in supply, land and water are about the only things that are actually bound be reasonable long term principals when it comes to investments.
You need to be a bit more alert an nimble if dealing with companies in the share market but if you can stay ahead of the automated trader bots your probably alright. It does rely on companies behaving rationally though which is not the safest of bets.
Personally I see the whole money market thing as being a surprisingly immersive game to keep everyone busy enough to not notice that most of the gains are made by those manufacturing the strings that everyone else pays dearly to pull. Property is one of the few things that is more difficult to be tampered with. Just be sure that you stay 'WELL' within your means as the rules on loans can change at a moments notice if the string manufacturers get antsy.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)