Food Banks and Poverty- was Nye right?

The point I was making is that prices are high today BECAUSE interest rates have been historically low for so long.

So mortgage payments themselves are more affordable; however prices are so high that multiples of salaries cannot match them as easily.

I'd need to earn about £70k to afford my house it I were buying it now (that's on the basis of borrowing 3xsalary which was standard practice at the time.).

There is a couple called the Wilsons who invested in property in a really big way.

They weren’t particularly high earners, maths teachers I believe , but they could see the potential and ended up with hundreds of buy to let properties and are now of course multi millionaires

There was a tv documentary about them a year or so ago.

I bought at about the same time - 1986. The point I was making is that interest rates aren't that important if prices are low and affordable. Of course it matters if rates increase suddenly and you're stuck with a property you've already bought, but not if you're starting out.

But the first change was announced in 1995. I don't think everybody can expect a personal notification when changes are made in a budget. Nevertheless, I think the last change, which affected men and women was unfair. Initially, I was interested in WASPI because I'm one of the first women will be increased to 66. Then I looked into it all more closely. There was some discussion about what the claim should be in the early days and the organisation split at one stage. The new organisers went for broke as a deliberate policy. Most of them are quite wealthy women with their own pensions and/or husbands. They ignored calls from the poorer women to concentrate on the needs of the least well-off.

Sorry growstuff i couldn't have made myself clear.

I too bought with a 100% mortgage at 3 times my salary. This was 1988, just before prices started to rise. I had to find another £10k to make the place habitable, which I did through remortgaging to the grand total of £35k.

That house is now also worth ten times what I paid. I couldn't afford it now on an average local salary.

But again, in those days, it wasn't possible to rent somewhere nice. So swings and roundabouts, really.

Yes, it needs to be a long-term change in order to be fair.

I don't think that it's about greed, though. Things like this are about what is fair. Lots of women did not know about the changes (regardless of whether or not you did) and have had their lives ruined.

Asking for the pension that was always expected at 60 (for 50s born women who were discriminated against for much of their working lives) is not unreasonable or greedy, IMO. It is a claim based on the expectation of being able to trust in a system that the vast majority of the women concerned had believed in and complied with for decades.

I agree with your points about change Doodledog. That's why I don't think there should be a kneejerk reaction. It needs to be phased in long-term - perhaps 30 or so years.

Doodledog The rules changed in 1995. I did know about them, but couldn't do anything about them. I just accepted that I would have to work until I was 65. The only change I really object to, because it really was too late, was the one in 2011(?), which affected both men and women and added an extra year at less than 10 years' notice. If the WASPI women hadn't been so greedy, they might have got somewhere and the people over 60 who are really in hardship might have received something. The people who would have benefitted most from Labour's promise would have been women who aren't already in the position of having to claim benefits.

Not really oldgimmer. I bought a property when the interest rate was 16% with a 100% mortgage. I paid three times my salary as a newly qualified teacher. It was tough for the first couple of years, but it was doable. That flat is now worth about ten times the salary of a newly qualified teacher and I wouldn't be able to afford it.

Nice thought to be able to buy properties at those prices but the property market doesn't work like that, sadly.

Low interest rates = high prices; high interest rates = lower prices.

Perhaps we need more regulation, but I can't see that happening any time soon. Not with Boris in charge, at least. So we're stuck for at least 5 years.

I think that the 'WASPI' case is also that the rules changed when it was too late for millions of women to do anything about it. This is also true of the various other groups who are fighting for restitution - WASPI is just one of them.

I feel that the state pension should be 'earned', in the sense that people would get a pension if they paid NI. I think that there should be no difference made between those who paid in a lot of NI and those who earned less and consequently paid in less - it should be the same payment for all, dependent only on the number (as opposed to the monetary value) of contributions made.

I also think that those who did not pay NI because they were ill, or unable to get work (millions in the 1970s and 80s) should get credited contributions, but not people who 'chose' not to work but could have. If people were willing to live on their partner's salary when they could have been paying in, they should live on their partner's pension - it's only fair.

However. Whatever the rights and wrongs as I see them, I think that it is grossly unfair to tell older people now that what they expected to happen, and the basis on which they made plans for retirement, no longer exist, and that they will now be significantly worse off than they were led to believe would be the case. If the system needs an overhaul, it should happen much more gradually, so that everyone has a chance to plan accordingly, and this should apply across the board.

The non-working partner could have contributed to society with voluntary work from running play groups without pay (there were not many nurseries years ago) to PTA and other voluntary organisations, raising money for charity, caring for elderly parents etc etc.

Mind you, it doesn't mean that the working partner could ever become that wealthy however hard they worked.

If they enable the working partner to pay more tax, they have contributed to society though, just not directly paid NI

Actually, I think those buying a property now would be happy to pay high interest rates if they were able to buy properties at the same price as they were in the 60s or 70s.

oldgimmer No, the state pension isn't "earned" in the same way as a private or occupational pension, although there is a very imperfect correlation with the number of NIC contributions and the eventual payment. I currently pay voluntary Class 2 contributions because I will get an extra £4 a week for each extra year of contributions. I can never get a full state pension because I paid into occupational pensions and I'm pretty miffed that the rules changed when it was too late for me to do anything about it.

I also feel miffed that I have paid thousands into the NIC pot, but was made to feel like a scrounger, when I needed help. It's especially galling when I know some people have paid in virtually nothing, will receive proportionally more and still have the nerve to complain about people claiming benefits.

I agree with you that the state pension isn't earned, which is why I don't agree with the WASPI claims, which keep on about paying their money and being owed a payout.

The state pension is actually a mess and I think there should be a cross-party discussion about it. Maybe we should go to a contributory system with a safety net for those who would face destitution. I honestly don't know.

Perhaps if the non working partner took care of all the domestic issues, leaving the working partner free to succeed and become wealthy enough to pay plenty of tax, then yes, the non working partner has contributed.

The non-working partner has contributed to the household, but not to society as a whole, and certainly not to the NI fund, which is what pays pensions.

That seems sensible enough, Jennifer.

Hard to believe now that rates went up to 17% (very briefly).

Can you imagine what the younguns would say about that?

We had two mortgages because for a time, the rent didn’t completely cover it as interest rates rose to 15 and then I think, 17% . It seems impossible to believe now doesn’t it? Ours would be horrified if theirs went up to 5% let alone 15!

It didn’t seem fair to raise the rent especially as we had good tenants who looked after the house, so we had to pay it ourselves.

We didn’t mind as we knew we were in it for the long term.

growstuff you don't "earn" a state pension though, do you? It's not like an occupational or personal pension where what you put in is commensurate with what you get out (although many on here seem to think that's the case).

And for those who haven't put much in/made sufficient contributions to qualify for the full SP, many will qualify for Pension Credit to top it up to the SP rate anyway.

So I suppose it's fair enough to wonder - why bother?

Ilovecheese
Perhaps if the non working partner took care of all the domestic issues, leaving the working partner free to succeed and become wealthy enough to pay plenty of tax, then yes, the non working partner has contributed.

I don't disagree with you.

But what if the non-working partner doesn't take care of many domestic issues, with paid help (paid for by the working partner, obviously) taking responsibility for those things?
I have known a couple of very judgemental people who have lived this way, yet if you examine their lives, it seems that they have lived off their partner's earnings and not contributed one penny themselves to either society or our economy, while condemning others for taking more than they (on the face of it) deserve.

… or benefits, when they need a helping hand. :-(

Yes, I agree. Plus, possibly, people who draw a pension despite not having paid much in, while some of us have paid for years and won't actually get a pension.

GagaJo I don't have a problem with people owning property and renting it out. I do have a problem with people lecturing others about claiming benefits, when they haven't worked for years and earn money from rental income.

But has the non-working partner earned a state pension in his/her own right? Legally, in the UK, there are a number of reasons people can earn pension credits, including bringing up children and being a carer.

In other countries, the person would also have to pay for his/her own healthcare because no contribution has been made.

Nowadays, National Insurance Contributions can be almost as high as income tax, so it's an efficient way of escaping taxation.

growstuff, I own a flat that I rent out for a VERY low rent, because I'm more interested in the quality of tenant than I am making the biggest profit.

I left school with no qualifications and gradually educated myself through evening classes I worked 2 1/2 days a week while I did my degree and worked THREE jobs (one a night job stacking shelves in a supermarket) while I was doing my MA.

I've been a teacher now for getting on 20 years, but don't have a teachers pension, because for most of my teaching, I was a single parent and couldn't afford the pension contribution. I do have a house with a mortgage, mainly because I live in the NE and they are much cheaper here . I saved the money for the flat I own (also in the cheap NE) while I was working overseas.

My flat is kept in good condition. I painted the living room myself this summer while my tenant was away on holiday. I'll paint the hall the same way next summer.

The income from the Let flat will be part of the income I use to survive on from 60 onwards because it would be impossible to be a teacher past 60 IF you were lucky enough to find a UK school to employ you.

Not everyone with a 2nd property is like JE or your landlord, although to be honest, I think most are. I know the man who owns the flat downstairs from mine is AND he takes much less care of his rental property than I do mine.