What is the best age to be in 2012 financially?
Poll: What is the best age to be in 2012 financially?
Total Members Polled: 233
Discussion
BoRED S2upid said:
House prices will never decrease to reasonable levels again so the young are screwed, there won't be such a wave to ride this time.
However - interest rates and mortgage payments are a LOT lower than in the 80's ..I bought my first house in 1989 [at the peak
] ... interest rates were around 10-11% - my monthly mortage payment then of around 800 GBP / month was a huge chunk out of my salary [800 then would be 1600 - 1800 today with inflation ?? ]The purchase price would now be about 2.3x what I paid ..not much more than inflation in 20+ years..but the interest rate on my loan - if 90% of todays value would only be 175GBP per month interest at 1.25% [what I am paying ], plus capital repayment
.So actually cheaper to buy today than in 1989 in absolute and relative terms
. Interest rates stayed quite high until the late 90's or so ...The obvious theory is I suppose that leaving school or university now has got to be the worst but I think the worst is probably being 30 odd now. You won't have got the benfit of buying property before the house price boom but you are entering decent earning years with very high taxation levels which are likely to be with us for at least five years and probably ten years.
I'm 44 and think I've been very lucky....I was able to buy a flat in a good area of London aged 24 in 1994 when I was earning £30k a year. That same job probably pays £30k to £40k a year now but property prices have more than quadrupled....the flat I bought for £120k in 1994 is now worth £500k plus. Taxes were lower and living costs were definitely lower...there are things now that we regard as essentials....broadband, mobile phone etc which hardly anyone had back then.
I think for the people over 50 it really depends which industry and part of the country you were in....the 70's and 80's were times of very high taxation, inflation and both had deep recessions. If you lived in the South East of England and were say a policeman and are now retiring you prospects for a decent retirement are probably a lot better than if you had lived in the midlands and had worked in car manufacturing for example.
I'm 44 and think I've been very lucky....I was able to buy a flat in a good area of London aged 24 in 1994 when I was earning £30k a year. That same job probably pays £30k to £40k a year now but property prices have more than quadrupled....the flat I bought for £120k in 1994 is now worth £500k plus. Taxes were lower and living costs were definitely lower...there are things now that we regard as essentials....broadband, mobile phone etc which hardly anyone had back then.
I think for the people over 50 it really depends which industry and part of the country you were in....the 70's and 80's were times of very high taxation, inflation and both had deep recessions. If you lived in the South East of England and were say a policeman and are now retiring you prospects for a decent retirement are probably a lot better than if you had lived in the midlands and had worked in car manufacturing for example.
Life is what you make of it, those that mope about moaning their bad luck and equally those who complain of others good fortune just need to put those thoughts out of their head. Being a 'baby boomer' myself, worked hard all my life and made enough to manage an early retirement (rather than die of stress related illness)I can't say I had it good. I had what was in front of me and made the best of it in my own way. Now things are very different but opportunities are out there for those that have the wherewithal.
AJS- said:
No one is denying baby boomers worked hard. But you did have free university, free healthcare, no need to really save for a pension, grammar schools and probably most usefully of all house prices that have grown out of all proportion to anything else. Most of which I (at 33) can't count on.
Only 3% of those leaving school during the 1960's went onto Uni. Many schools were sausage machines turning out factory fodder with no pressure on educational quality placed upon the schools. I was one of the factory fodder kids leaving school at fifteen years old with no qualifications. After two years of work going nowhere I decided to improve my lot for myself by taking on learning of skills needed in the workplace. doogz said:
To me, age is much less important than work ethic and attitude.
I'm a 20 something grad, like mentioned in the OP. No-one's ever handed me anything. My Dad died when i was 18, I put myself through uni, working a couple of jobs to help support my Mum and sister. I graduated, got a job, paid off all my student debt, and have around £100k equity in a £300k house.
I know people I was at school with, and at Uni with, that had things a lot easier than I think I did, that have much less to show for it, and it's nothing to do with their age.
100% spot on. It is work ethic and attitude that is so important, make your own slice of luck also helps.I'm a 20 something grad, like mentioned in the OP. No-one's ever handed me anything. My Dad died when i was 18, I put myself through uni, working a couple of jobs to help support my Mum and sister. I graduated, got a job, paid off all my student debt, and have around £100k equity in a £300k house.
I know people I was at school with, and at Uni with, that had things a lot easier than I think I did, that have much less to show for it, and it's nothing to do with their age.
swerni said:
crankedup said:
AJS- said:
No one is denying baby boomers worked hard. But you did have free university, free healthcare, no need to really save for a pension, grammar schools and probably most usefully of all house prices that have grown out of all proportion to anything else. Most of which I (at 33) can't count on.
Only 3% of those leaving school during the 1960's went onto Uni. Many schools were sausage machines turning out factory fodder with no pressure on educational quality placed upon the schools. I was one of the factory fodder kids leaving school at fifteen years old with no qualifications. After two years of work going nowhere I decided to improve my lot for myself by taking on learning of skills needed in the workplace. BoRED S2upid said:
swerni said:
crankedup said:
AJS- said:
No one is denying baby boomers worked hard. But you did have free university, free healthcare, no need to really save for a pension, grammar schools and probably most usefully of all house prices that have grown out of all proportion to anything else. Most of which I (at 33) can't count on.
Only 3% of those leaving school during the 1960's went onto Uni. Many schools were sausage machines turning out factory fodder with no pressure on educational quality placed upon the schools. I was one of the factory fodder kids leaving school at fifteen years old with no qualifications. After two years of work going nowhere I decided to improve my lot for myself by taking on learning of skills needed in the workplace. BUT...
Don't you think too many people were going to uni anyway? I know it's a whole new debate, but we as a country got obsessed with every child having a degree. To the point, in my view, where we actually de-valued higher education anyway.
So I don't pity the current generation that, I only hope they and their teachers have the good sense to realise which of them will benefit from further education, and which would benefit more from going and getting a job.
BoRED S2upid said:
Im 34 and we got paid to go to Uni and they were free. Labour are to blame im sure, not that im complaining, a free degree and paid to do it compared to nowadays. I feel sorry for the kids of today.
I'm 45, and whilst the Fees may have been paid by my LEA, my parents were high enough earners such that they were expected to pay for my maintenance, a sum of £2120 a year. 
A contemporary money blog on The Guardian website suggests that 35 is the best age to be, disagreeing with the survey in the OP and disagreeing with the collective view of PH respondents. There are some caveats: "Simon Warsop, business development director at Aviva, describes those around 35 as the 'squeezed middle-ages' and says they are 'weighed down with responsibility and making ends meet'."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/blog/2012/apr/18/i...
Comments are closed but there's honesty in this one..."I think that your teenage years are the best because you still have a wide range of opportunities and can rely on your parents for help."
Good old Bomad
http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/blog/2012/apr/18/i...
Comments are closed but there's honesty in this one..."I think that your teenage years are the best because you still have a wide range of opportunities and can rely on your parents for help."
Good old Bomad
I can't imagine its very good for pensioners. My mother retired a few years ago. She had managed to save towards her retirement in ISA'a and initaly she was bringing in enough to live on, and still have a normal lifestyle.
With the crash in interest rates the return on her savings has dropped by about 75%, so she has to spend her capital to survive now. This obviously means her returns also go down each year, compounding the problem. Her savings will give out in the next few years.
At that point I'll probably have to start paying some of her bills.
With the crash in interest rates the return on her savings has dropped by about 75%, so she has to spend her capital to survive now. This obviously means her returns also go down each year, compounding the problem. Her savings will give out in the next few years.
At that point I'll probably have to start paying some of her bills.
Another reason why a significant proportion of twenty and thirty somethings have better financial security short-term. This must also be counted on the downside for their parents who will typically be in their 50s and 60s.
There has to be a better than evens chance that the numbers have increased in the past year or two.
"ONS figures show that 25% of men aged 25 to 29 now live with their parents. This is almost double the proportion of women in their late 20s (13%) who still live at home. The official statistics also show that, for more than 10% of men who have reached their early 30s, home is still with the parents; this compares with 5% for women of a similar age."
Click
There has to be a better than evens chance that the numbers have increased in the past year or two.
"ONS figures show that 25% of men aged 25 to 29 now live with their parents. This is almost double the proportion of women in their late 20s (13%) who still live at home. The official statistics also show that, for more than 10% of men who have reached their early 30s, home is still with the parents; this compares with 5% for women of a similar age."
Click
turbobloke said:
...70 according to the report at the link below. Which is news to me but then I'm not 70.
Worst age is 45, according to the author. Maybe 20-something grads with student loan repayments and house price woes would disagree.
http://www.babusinesslife.com/Tools/Features/Inter...
Oh,wonderful; guess what age I'm going to be on Saturday! Worst age is 45, according to the author. Maybe 20-something grads with student loan repayments and house price woes would disagree.
http://www.babusinesslife.com/Tools/Features/Inter...
Zod said:
turbobloke said:
...70 according to the report at the link below. Which is news to me but then I'm not 70.
Worst age is 45, according to the author. Maybe 20-something grads with student loan repayments and house price woes would disagree.
http://www.babusinesslife.com/Tools/Features/Inter...
Oh,wonderful; guess what age I'm going to be on Saturday! Worst age is 45, according to the author. Maybe 20-something grads with student loan repayments and house price woes would disagree.
http://www.babusinesslife.com/Tools/Features/Inter...
This will be sure to cheer you up, along with the pinch of salt that came with the article...
Blair's anthem said:
Things can only get better
Clearly the lyric was referring to a forty four and ten tenths birthday.98elise said:
I can't imagine its very good for pensioners. My mother retired a few years ago. She had managed to save towards her retirement in ISA'a and initaly she was bringing in enough to live on, and still have a normal lifestyle.
With the crash in interest rates the return on her savings has dropped by about 75%, so she has to spend her capital to survive now. This obviously means her returns also go down each year, compounding the problem. Her savings will give out in the next few years.
At that point I'll probably have to start paying some of her bills.
But does she have a lot of cash tied up in a house?With the crash in interest rates the return on her savings has dropped by about 75%, so she has to spend her capital to survive now. This obviously means her returns also go down each year, compounding the problem. Her savings will give out in the next few years.
At that point I'll probably have to start paying some of her bills.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff