Bubbaclaus wrote: » I'm renting alone. Budget for spending means exactly what it says on the tin...it's my spending budget. As I mentioned in my previous post im saving.
Greentopia wrote: » Good, but that doesn't invalidate the stats that say 1 in 5 are suffering some form of deprivation. And there are many old people who may have enough for basics but through necessity of cutting back on many things including any pleasures in life like a night out and are just scraping by. They're still living in poverty.
Greentopia wrote: » Very easy to say. I'd like to see you try it for a month. Unless you're already living on a fixed low income then I'm going to politely suggest you're talking through your hoop.
Bubbaclaus wrote: » Max water charge is 160 per year, which would be split between 2 adults. So max charge per adult is €80. Approximately €1.50 a week. Or the cost of a single pint every 3 weeks.
Barely There wrote: » Go to any fancy hotel or spa next weekend. Majority of guests will be oldies. As a group they've far more disposable income than those working 5 days a week to pay the mortgage and child care. Most of them did very well indeed from the boom and they've been protected from the recession at every turn as our spineless politicians are scared ****less of losing the 'grey-vote'. It suits them very we'll to have advocacy groups and people like yourself portraying them all as poor awl crators struggling to keep a few briquettes in the fireplace. It's laughably far from the truth for the majority of them. Talking through your hoop? Have a look in the mirror son.
Ronnie Worried Workaholic wrote: » Then back to topic. Ensure your future by having a pension plan.
Greentopia wrote: » Getting rent allowance or in the private sector? you're obviously not living in Dublin if that's the case unless you're in a slum tenement. Ok, so what's your total income?
Greentopia wrote: » Hmm, mine are zero as I have no intention of paying, but that's another matter... :pac:
So you're seeing the ones who can afford that. How is that relevant to my point about 1 in 5 not being able to afford even a basic standard of living? Barely There wrote: » As a group they've far more disposable income than those working 5 days a week to pay the mortgage and child care. Most of them did very well indeed from the boom and they've been protected from the recession at every turn as our spineless politicians are scared ****less of losing the 'grey-vote'. It suits them very well to have advocacy groups and people like yourself portraying them all as poor awl crators struggling to keep a few briquettes in the fireplace. It's laughably far from the truth for the majority of them. Talking through your hoop? Have a look in the mirror son. How would you know? are you an OAP? do you work in social services for older people or older peoples charities? how do you have the authority, knowledge or experience to speak for the 'majority of them'? And I iz female and you're probably young enough to be my son
Barely There wrote: » As a group they've far more disposable income than those working 5 days a week to pay the mortgage and child care. Most of them did very well indeed from the boom and they've been protected from the recession at every turn as our spineless politicians are scared ****less of losing the 'grey-vote'. It suits them very well to have advocacy groups and people like yourself portraying them all as poor awl crators struggling to keep a few briquettes in the fireplace. It's laughably far from the truth for the majority of them. Talking through your hoop? Have a look in the mirror son.
Bubbaclaus wrote: » You're intention is irrelevant, it'll be coming out of your state handout and/or salary soon enough.
Greentopia wrote: » Hmm, mine are zero as I have no intention of paying, but that's another matter... :pac: I know what they are, I have two unpaid bills in my kitchen, and they will sky rocket once the caps are lifted. Mine have added up to €123 so far as a single person so no, they're not max 160 per year. And the levels they are now is only because of continues protests causing the Govt to row back on charges.
Greentopia wrote: » So you're seeing the ones who can afford that. How is that relevant to my point about 1 in 5 not being able to afford even a basic standard of living? How would you know? are you an OAP? do you work in social services for older people or older peoples charities? )
Bubbaclaus wrote: » I am renting in Dublin. Why should I disclose all my info to you? You tried to claim I was talking out my hoop and when I proved you wrong youve been very narky. My income is irrelevant. I have a job and im receiving no state handouts. My goal for the last year has been to spend less than 200 per week (just under €900 per month) and I've been sticking to it. So ive been living (quite easily, I might add) on 20 Euro less per week than the state pension you claim drives people to poverty.
Ronnie Worried Workaholic wrote: » Again, do you know what you're talking about. You would also get 100 back. Easy to go off grid if you don't pay your bills.
Ronnie Worried Workaholic wrote: » Quote 1 in 5 all you like. 80% are fine so. And as I am an OAP I can confirm he is right.
Bubbaclaus wrote: » Surely the 1 in 5 should have the same standard of living of the other 80%, given they have the same income. Unless they haven't moved beyond the celtic tiger and are still trying to live beyond their means.
Greentopia wrote: » What? the other 80% obviously have higher income.
Greentopia wrote: » Didn't ask you to disclose all information, but you've already put out theere the fact that you have "spending money" of less than €200 a week. I'm trying to ascertain if this is you total income or not. Of course your actual income is relevant if you're making a claim to be able to live on less than €200 a week while still saving! and in Dublin! your ability to do so is based on what your actual income is (which you won't state so I'm going to assume it's more than 200 which changes everything), whether you're living alone, getting rent supplement (ok, so you're not then?), if you're being subsidised by the bank of Mum and Dad or are paying all bills and expenses yourself and so on. Someone with €200 a week "spending money" after all bills are paid or who is living with several other people and therefore has a much lower rent to pay than someone living alone and has much lower bills to pay also might very well be able to live on less than that. Someone living alone paying full private rent even if it was 'only' say €800 a month, plus all bills, charges and expenses, food etc would not be able to survive on less than €200 a week and save money. Lots of factors to take into account. That's why I'm asking you a few questions about your income and circumstances. There's some information you're not telling me.
Barely There wrote: » Increase the pension. More social welfare for the lone parents. Fix all the leaky pipes. Just don't ask me to contribute towards anything. Sure can't we just tax Dennis O'Brien instead?
Drumpot wrote: » I'm a Financial Broker and in my experience people who value pensions do them and people who don't value them don't. It really is that simple. People who have a negative opinion of them (some justified, some not) look for any reason and excuse to not to them. I think a big part of the problem is that the industry makes them out to sound more complex then they are and many people simply do not trust anything associated with the financial services sector. I work in the industry and I don't fully trust it so I don't blame people! That said, what I find extremely fascinating (in an annoying way) is how banks are the least trusted institutions in this industry and yet People do Pensions, Life Assurance and use other services with banks who are normally not the most cost efficient or the superior option. Back on topic, I find the people that do Pensions do not need to have the benefits explained to them. They have already made their minds up to do them. I don't really try to "sell" Pensions because its wasted breath to people who don't want to understand the value. I am not saying Pensions are perfect or ideal for everybody, but some people get hung up on parts of Pensions that are possibly not as relevant as they believe. If you are on the higher rate of tax and contribute zero to a Pension you need to serious think again. Depending on your income, you can get between 33%-40% relief on a contribution. So you put in €100 into a pension and the net cost is at most €67. I am finding that many young people are more astute and interested in Pensions. They also like the fact that they wont have access to their pension until their 60s. they wont be able to impulsively draw the funds out and buy a car/holiday. So why not just save into a Bank/savings plan? You should do that anyway, but it costs you €100 of taxed income to put €100 into a savings plan. It costs you €67 (higher rate) to put it into a Pension. But what about fund performance and charges ? (I hear the cynics shout). Yes, asides from what you contribute, the fund performance (more then charges) will be a huge factor in how much you will have at retirement. That is why people should get more involved in deciding where to invest their pension monies. Most big companies and brokerages have generic fund options and people just presume it will grow to their expectation. Get involved in your Pension planning. Ask questions about the fund performance and what are reasonable expectations. Nobody can say for certain how a fund will perform but you can take lower risks for more consistently returning funds. I have existing clients who only take an interest in their pension value when it goes down. They wont talk to me when its going great, that's the time to consolidate, but people instinctively wait until something bad happens to do something instead of being actively involved in their Pensions journey. In terms of charges, yes they can be high, but in general the biggest charges are an annual management charge (around 1%) and a reduction in the amount of your premium that gets allocate to your Pension. This is worth considering, but for me if the charge is high, once the fund can justify it (there's one fund in particular that consistently performs well and is worth it!), I don't see why people would complain. If a fund consistently returns what it says it will, why would a person haggle over the charge? If you don't like Pensions or have had a bad experience with them, ask yourself how involved you were in the process. How much do you really know about them? IN some cases people know very little and don't try to get past the parts of pensions that annoy them. If you are educated enough to make an informed (not emotive) decision, then fair enough, they aren't for you. I would still recommend trying to have an alternative strategy for retirement. If you are on the higher rate of tax, you will do well to find a more tax efficient way of doing that . .
Bubbaclaus wrote: » I spend 200 a week. That covers all my outgoings. I don't receive money from the government or anyone else. What my income is is completely irrelevant, im only spending 200 of it.
FURET wrote: » Taking Canada as an example, www.moneysense.ca/2006/04/05/classic-couch-potato-portfolio-historical-performance-tables/ Taking the US, http://www.uexpress.com/scottburns/index.html?uc_full_date=20090215. Since 1970, the US index and the international index have performed very similarly, with less than a 1% difference in compounding between the two. There's no saying which will perform better going forward - but the correlation is very tight. So guessing whether Europe, the US or Emerging will do better going forward is pointless. The trend is similar. (David Swensen, Pioneering Portfolio Management, New York Free Press, 2009, p. 170)
spud_grower wrote: » the S + P for example was priced at 339.97 on January 1st 1990 , its closed Friday @ 2080
professore wrote: » You never mention that they tax you when you draw down the pension, and who knows what the tax will be in 30 years time.
Greentopia wrote: » So it's ok that 20% of our population of older people are suffering hardships like food and fuel poverty and homelessness? "I'm alright Jack" eh? :roll eyes:
