Retirement.

Vita nova

I think one of the best ways of boosting a retirement pot especially if you live in an area with high property prices because of employment opportunities is to sell your house and move to a cheaper house in a different part of the country.

You could get a similar house on the north west Atlantic coast for less that half the price of the east coast and being retired means employment isn't an issue. The equity released could be used to buy an annuity or just to have a lump sum in the bank.

CelticRambler

Vita nova wrote: »

I think one of the best ways of boosting a retirement pot especially if you live in an area with high property prices because of employment opportunities is to sell your house and move to a cheaper house in a different part of the country.

That's pretty much exactly what I did, although not for the same reasons. Sold an impractically small house in the south of England just before the crash and bought a (very) decent sized family home elsewhere. Out of the proceeds, 1/3rd paid off the mortgage, 1/3rd paid for the new house in cash, and 1/3rd was put to work. Some of that "put to work" went back into the new house to help triple its value (on paper, at least - the plan is for this house to stay in the family for at least another hundred years, so it's real value is only as potential collateral for some other investment).

Now if Elon Musk would get a move on and sort out production of his solar roof tiles, the house itself could be generating a nice little income.

salonfire

salonfire wrote: »

Doesn't matter what the amounts are .. the point I was making is that an increasing State Pension age reduces the value of the contributions you made to your pension while working............

An increasing state pension age has no effect on the value of your private pension. There is no correlation between them.

An increasing state pension age means that you pay PRSI for longer and so the value of your state pension is less as you claim it for fewer years after paying into it for longer. That's using your "logic" btw, not mine

The levee on private pensions was quite small to be fair......... in % terms. The likes of IrishLife etc take multiples more for doing close to SFA and folk don't mind but when the state takes some folk reckon it suggests they shouldn't bother paying into one at all, loony attitude but each to their own.

sbsquarepants

As i said i've recently bought a house, but i also have an apartment (i say have, there's still a decade to go on the mortgage) That's what i'm viewing as my "real" pension. My plan is get the apartment mortgage cleared by renting it out and once that's paid, use the rent as an over payment on the house mortgage. Once that's done, a year or two of saving and then sell the apartment and retire, maybe even somewhere warm who knows (or possibly continue to rent it out for an income, but at the moment i'm all about that lump:D)

It's a good plan i think, but time is against me - i haven't done the sums but it's in the region of twenty years and i'm mid 40's as it is.

Greyfox

Stop moaning ffs wrote: »

Just recently realised I’ll never be able to afford my own home, despite a decent education qualifications and wage. I’m permanently stuck on the rental market and my landlord could decide to sell at any time and I’m screwed.

There’s another thread somewhere about how many homeless pensioners were going to have in a few years. Scared but have to admit I’ll be among them.

Yep, lots and lots of people in the same club as us. Saving money and renting a home don't really go together. I've accepted I'll have to be working part time and get the state pension and if I cant get a good part time job im fooked

Hopefully we will still have a generous social welfare system in 35/40 years but there will be too many pensioners by then

BrokenArrows

I fully plan on having a large private pension pot by the time i can retire at 57. So about 23 years left. Ideally I'll be able to retire earlier if I manage to buy a 2nd or 3rd property and live off the rental income.

I'm earning well now, so starting to pump money into the pension, I've purchased a house a few years ago so that's a nice gaining asset. Dont plan on staying here, but it's good to be accumulating equity in a property.

tjhook

Augeo wrote: »

The levee on private pensions was quite small to be fair......... in % terms. The likes of IrishLife etc take multiples more for doing close to SFA and folk don't mind but when the state takes some folk reckon it suggests they shouldn't bother paying into one at all, loony attitude but each to their own.

The difference though is that the fees taken by the pension company are agreed in advance, and if you don't like them you can decide not to take out a pension with them. Even though the fees are agreed, if you change your mind later, it's generally possible to move the fund elsewhere. But with a few exceptions, there's no moving the funds away from the state's talons.

I think people would be a little upset if a pension company decided "you know what, I don't think we made enough out of these pensions in previous years. Let's now take an extra lump out of each fund."

Can we be certain the state will never again dip into private pension funds? I'm not. It was a so-called right-wing party that did that, imagine what a left-wing party would do if in power. And who knows who will be in power over the coming decades.

CelticRambler

tjhook wrote: »

I think people would be a little upset if a pension company decided "you know what, I don't think we made enough out of these pensions in previous years. Let's now take an extra lump out of each fund."

Not upset enough! Faced with a looming deficit, many (?most) pension providers are doing exactly that - offloading their (your) pension fund onto another investment company and expecting you to take the hit in due course.

US private pensions, for example, have (across the board) only 82% of the funds necessary to meet their liabilities. That equates to a US$3 trillion shortfall. Given the importance of the US economy and its financial markets to the global financial structure, this should not be taken lightly. The UK pension industry is in no better position. Its overall funding level was only 67.7% in March 2017, equivalent to a £736.2 billion deficit.

source

A question for Srameen: when you retired at 54, was that on a defined benefit pension, or a defined contribution pension? Because it makes a hell of a difference to those still in the system today.

Tigerandahalf

I do wonder if the tax relief will be reclaimed in future times. In many ways it is welfare for the wealthy or well to do who are in secure jobs and homes.

Many of these people could perfectly afford a pension without tax relief.

We would be much better off giving this tax relief to young people so they can own their own homes.

You do have to wonder where many of these pension funds will end up. Banks are already beginning to charge negative interest on deposits so this money is going to chase other areas like housing, shares and government bonds in order to provide a return on pension funds.

Western countries all have record debt with its repayment based around continued growth that is no longer happening. So how secure are these bonds. Shares are way overvalued especially tech shares who have no real assets.

A previous poster retired at 54. That person could be drawing a pension for 50 years (30 for the state pension). It is completely unsustainable but what politician will force change in this area. Their only solution is to punish the younger worker by extending out their retirement age.

monkeysnapper

I know so many people in their 70s happily working and have no doubt I'll be one of them.

I live a simple life , all my hobbies are simple , I like older cheaper cars ,,, they add more excitement when you,re not sure if you'll get there.

It beggars belief to me that people u know who are at breadline borrow huge amounts of money for a tin can on wheels . And huge houses that you can take a sh1t in a different bathroom for a whole week.

Just smell the flowers man and live comfortably .

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

Tigerandahalf wrote: »

I do wonder if the tax relief will be reclaimed in future times. In many ways it is welfare for the wealthy or well to do who are in secure jobs and homes.

Many of these people could perfectly afford a pension without tax relief.

We would be much better off giving this tax relief to young people so they can own their own homes.

You do have to wonder where many of these pension funds will end up. Banks are already beginning to charge negative interest on deposits so this money is going to chase other areas like housing, shares and government bonds in order to provide a return on pension funds.

Western countries all have record debt with its repayment based around continued growth that is no longer happening. So how secure are these bonds. Shares are way overvalued especially tech shares who have no real assets.

A previous poster retired at 54. That person could be drawing a pension for 50 years (30 for the state pension). It is completely unsustainable but what politician will force change in this area. Their only solution is to punish the younger worker by extending out their retirement age.

Firstly, pension income is taxable, hence to avoid double taxation the contributions are tax free.

As for how the funds will end up, comparison to bank interest rates is pointless. Look at the investment returns pension funds are accruing annually and over the past 5 years and 10 years.

Yes, I retired at 54 and have been drawing on my private pension for over 20 years while hoping to do so for many years to come. That fund is not only sound but delivering a minimum annual increase of CPU plus 2%. It is perfectly sustainable. I do not, by the way, draw anything from the state pension - even if somebody does have the state pension as well, their having a private pension does not impact on the resources needed to fund the state pension, indeed they will be paying tax on the state pension which somebody without a private pension will not be doing.

tjhook

CelticRambler wrote: »

A question for Srameen: when you retired at 54, was that on a defined benefit pension, or a defined contribution pension? Because it makes a hell of a difference to those still in the system today.

I'm not sure it does make a big difference, assuming I understand your point. Apologies in advance to Srameen, I'm going to make some assumptions for the sake of discussion.

If he retired with a defined benefit pension at 54, the employer would not be paying his weekly pension payment until he dies. The employer would pay a once-off fee to another company (e.g. an annuity company) who will make a monthly payment to him. So the risk is offloaded from the other members of the scheme at that point.

Had Srameen instead hung around and retired at 66, then he would presumably receive a pension for a shorter number of years. But he would be entitled to a larger weekly amount, due to a longer service period. In effect, he would have accumulated a larger set of pension entitlements that the employer would then need to offload from the scheme, at a higher cost to the scheme.

Assuming Srameen is younger than 66, he is living off the proceeds of his own saving/investing. It should have no impact on anybody else's situation in the system. Once he hits 66 (/67/68), he may receive the state pension, the same as everybody else.

Squall Leonhart

Srameen is in his mid-70s

CelticRambler

Dominik Important Busboy wrote: »

Yes, I retired at 54 and have been drawing on my private pension for over 20 years while hoping to do so for many years to come. That fund is not only sound but delivering a minimum annual increase of CPU plus 2%. It is perfectly sustainable.

Hence my earlier question: was it a defined benefits pension?

In any case, your pension fund was built up during a period of financial growth that came to a very sudden stop. At about the time you were drawing the first payments from that fund, I was explaining to the woman who would become my wife that her endownment mortgage was a time bomb for exactly the same reason: anyone who cashed in in the early nineties got a great deal; anyone who started paying in (to either a pension fund or an endowment mortgage) based on historic performance ended up with a fistful of letters telling them their fund value had been revised downwards. In the case of endowment mortgages, this value was frequently less than the value of the property; in the case of pensions ... well, we'll be seeing how much they're really worth over the next decade - but I will be surprised if the fears expressed on this thread don't make the news sooner rather than later.

CelticRambler

tjhook wrote: »

I'm not sure it does make a big difference, assuming I understand your point.

It makes all the difference in the world: a defined benefit pension gives the pension holder a guaranteed income, so they can choose the best time in their career to retire. It's great for the employee, but very costly for the employer (who has to factor in future growth potential and global economic trends). Which is why almost no company offers it any more, instead offering a defined contribution pension, which effectively transfers all of the risk to someone else. If you're paying into a pension fund on that basis, you literally have no idea how much your fund will be worth when you retire. Your statement might say that there's 75000€ in it today, forecast to provide a lumpsum of 500,000€ in 20 years time. Maybe it will, but it's entirely possible that whatever figure appears on the statement will be worth just 50,000€ in real terms when that day comes.

tjhook

tjhook wrote: »

I'm not sure it does make a big difference, assuming I understand your point. Apologies in advance to Srameen, I'm going to make some assumptions for the sake of discussion.

If he retired with a defined benefit pension at 54, the employer would not be paying his weekly pension payment until he dies. The employer would pay a once-off fee to another company (e.g. an annuity company) who will make a monthly payment to him. So the risk is offloaded from the other members of the scheme at that point.

Had Srameen instead hung around and retired at 66, then he would presumably receive a pension for a shorter number of years. But he would be entitled to a larger weekly amount, due to a longer service period. In effect, he would have accumulated a larger set of pension entitlements that the employer would then need to offload from the scheme, at a higher cost to the scheme.

Assuming Srameen is younger than 66, he is living off the proceeds of his own saving/investing. It should have no impact on anybody else's situation in the system. Once he hits 66 (/67/68), he may receive the state pension, the same as everybody else.

if a scheme isn't super well funded, the lump sum used to buy the annuity can be a drain on the fund left over to the existing members. they will hope to make it up with investment returns before anyone else retires, but it can have an impact

sdraobs

Dominik Important Busboy wrote: »

Firstly, pension income is taxable, hence to avoid double taxation the contributions are tax free.

.

Its not taxable if you leave ireland when you retire. Some countries wont tax retirement income like Thailand. Surprised alot more retirees havent emigrated to avoid tax on their pension. For which i am planning to do, not to Thailand, im not planning on being a dirty old man.

tayto lover

sdraobs wrote: »

Its not taxable if you leave ireland when you retire. Some countries wont tax retirement income like Thailand. Surprised alot more retirees havent emigrated to avoid tax on their pension. For which i am planning to do, not to Thailand, im not planning on being a dirty old man.

Taxed at source surely??

sdraobs

tayto lover wrote: »

Taxed at source surely??

https://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/money_and_tax/personal_finance/pensions/taxation_of_pensions.html

This suggests that if you live abroad you pay the tax rate of the other country. Irish coffers get nothing. some countries dont have income tax on pensions. so tax free. though i am open to correction or elaboration.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

sdraobs wrote: »

Its not taxable if you leave ireland when you retire. Some countries wont tax retirement income like Thailand. Surprised alot more retirees havent emigrated to avoid tax on their pension. For which i am planning to do, not to Thailand, im not planning on being a dirty old man.

:rolleyes: In fairness, we are talking about pensions primarily from an Irish perspective and pensions are most certainly taxed here.

If the other country does not have a Double Taxation Agreement with Ireland then you pay tax here on it. You'd want to brush up on these factors.

anewme

bluewolf wrote: »

if a scheme isn't super well funded, the lump sum used to buy the annuity can be a drain on the fund left over to the existing members. they will hope to make it up with investment returns before anyone else retires, but it can have an impact

There's not many DB Pensions left, for reasons outlined above. I only know of one person now with a DB pension.

I know someone who went from a DB of €80K (guaranteed income) a year to a DC of €20K per year!

Stovepipe

If I had my time over again, I'd get a mortgage as soon as humanly possible after entering the workforce, graft as hard as I could to pay the thing off early and make it my business to retire earlier than 65/6/7/8. I know a few people who bought with their family members and paid them off later; they helped each other with deposits to get started. I made stupid decisions about money that meant that I didnt get a mortgage until well into my thirties, so I'm stuck with it until retirement. When you look at how farmers do it, they invariably build for cash on their own site, employ direct labour and live mortage free afterwards, just paying off a loan. Now, that's not always an option available to non-farmers, and it's not helped by the planning laws in this country but it is doable. Getting to the state of being mortgage free is the same as earning an extra income.

tayto lover

Stovepipe wrote: »

If I had my time over again, I'd get a mortgage as soon as humanly possible after entering the workforce, graft as hard as I could to pay the thing off early and make it my business to retire earlier than 65/6/7/8. I know a few people who bought with their family members and paid them off later; they helped each other with deposits to get started. I made stupid decisions about money that meant that I didnt get a mortgage until well into my thirties, so I'm stuck with it until retirement. When you look at how farmers do it, they invariably build for cash on their own site, employ direct labour and live mortage free afterwards, just paying off a loan. Now, that's not always an option available to non-farmers, and it's not helped by the planning laws in this country but it is doable. Getting to the state of being mortgage free is the same as earning an extra income.

That’s exactly why I suggested to younger people to buy a second house and let it out. The rent pays the mortgage and you then have your pension by selling or continued letting when you are retirement age. Best pension plan of all imo.

riclad

Its ideal to get a mortgage as soon as possible, pay it off early,
its not easy for most people to do this,
prices have gone up and down and up again since 2000.
So its a maths problem can you buy a house, or a apartment , near where you work
for reasonable price,
Is this within the range of 3- 3.5 times your salary.Also save up a large deposit while paying high rent every month .
Say someone leaves school at 19, goes to college, it could be another 3 years before they start working ,
The price of house,s depends on the economy, interest rate,s , regulators,
planners, builders , the price of land etc
And of course no one knows how brexit will effect the economy.
most people will have to pay off the mortgage before they retire ,
Most people do not have land where they can build a house
and get planning permission to do so.

tayto lover

tayto lover wrote: »

That’s exactly why I suggested to younger people to buy a second house and let it out. The rent pays the mortgage and you then have your pension by selling or continued letting when you are retirement age. Best pension plan of all imo.

Conceptually......borrowing to invest is lunacy for private individuals.

You are buying an 'asset' of fluctuating value that is quite illiquid relative to other investments and likely borrowing 80% of the purchase price and repaying it over decades.

Landlords have alarmingly limited rights should they encounter a problem tenant.....theres many reasons why so many are exiting the market.

tayto lover

Augeo wrote: »

Conceptually......borrowing to invest is lunacy for private individuals.

You are buying an 'asset' of fluctuating value that is quite illiquid relative to other investments and likely borrowing 80% of the purchase price and repaying it over decades.

Landlords have alarmingly limited rights should they encounter a problem tenant.....theres many reasons why so many are exiting the market.

I know a lad who has two houses that have two families in them and the rent is
paid by the HSE. Seems like easy enough money.

tayto lover

tayto lover wrote: »

I know a lad who has two houses that have two families in them and the rent is
paid by the HSE. Seems like easy enough money.

Do you know any lads with morgages on investment properties where tenants have stopped paying rent?
It's not so easy then.

CelticRambler

Augeo wrote: »

Conceptually......borrowing to invest is lunacy for private individuals.

Straightforward borrowing, maybe, but getting a mortgage is a form of leveraging which is good investment practice - for individuals as well as corporations. Even better if you can get some kind of tax incentive (e.g. mortgage interest relief) which puts it into the same category as making contributions to a pension.

There are limits, however, and when the material value of the property is way below is market price - as is the case with property in Ireland - there is considerable risk that the market will undergo some kind of drastic correction.

Well we are talking about retirement in Ireland.
Apparently most can't afford to buy their own home, not to mention an 'investment' property.

Squall Leonhart

Augeo wrote: »

Well we are talking about retirement in Ireland.
Apparently most can't afford to buy their own home, not to mention an 'investment' property.

I also don't believe it's "most" who can't buy their own home. It seems most who want to can, and have bought or will be buying.

Yes there is a certain section of society who are in employment, actively making genuine efforts to save while renting and it may genuinely be unattainable. And that is a bitter pill for those in this bracket and I so feel for them.

But I have heard far too many crib and cry that they can't afford a home or will never be able to afford while they are taking foreign holidays, or buying high end cars, or going out for pints or meals frequently, smoking 70eur a week, paying 60 a month on mobile phone contracts, etc.

Some people don't like the reality that they have not been prudent, they have overspent, they have been too busy enjoying life, they have started considering their finances later in life.

Yes we all need to live a little, it's important for our mental health even, but sacrifices need to be made at times and that's just the way it is.

It's not just younger people either. I work with a guy who is 25, and has saved prudently since about 18 and is ready to purchase a nice house and actively looking. I work with another man, married with no kids, in his 50s and listen to him moaning about how he can't afford this or that or the other, while he's out for pints a few times a week, smokes 20 a day, has constant car loans for top end cars, yet somehow its everybody else's fault he's renting.

Holly13

CelticRambler wrote: »

Straightforward borrowing, maybe, but getting a mortgage is a form of leveraging which is good investment practice - for individuals as well as corporations. Even better if you can get some kind of tax incentive (e.g. mortgage interest relief) which puts it into the same category as making contributions to a pension.

There are limits, however, and when the material value of the property is way below is market price - as is the case with property in Ireland - there is considerable risk that the market will undergo some kind of drastic correction.

Hi,
What do you mean by “the material value of the property” being below the market value

Squall Leonhart

Holly13 wrote: »

Hi,
What do you mean by “the material value of the property” being below the market value

I think he's saying "when houses are overpriced, as at present, there's always the possibility that they'll snap back to what they're actually worth and some people will be left high and dry paying a mortgage on a house that will never sell for as much as they are paying on it"

Holly13

Holly13 wrote: »

Hi,
What do you mean by “the material value of the property” being below the market value

House built on land & sold for 250k being 'worth' 400k a few years later.

CelticRambler

Holly13 wrote: »

What do you mean by “the material value of the property” being below the market value

Pretty much as Augeo has said above! What I mean by "material value" is the actual, real cost of building the house - walls, floors, roof, insulation, wiring, plumbing, etc. A huge portion of the "value" of houses in Ireland these days - especially in Dublin - is nothing more than double-income parents mortgaged to the max competing against each other to push the price as high as possible.

As far as an investment goes, there's nothing wrong with exploiting that kind of craziness to get a great and quick return if you have the cash available, but it's risky in the long-term if you're using borrowed money yourself.

Greentopia

Graces7 wrote: »

Much the same here. except always worked craftwise for good for others. Never have retired even at nearly 80 now and intend to be buried with work in my hands. Much abed now and it is littered with yarns and knitting work.

Retirement is not an event but a state of mind and one I never managed to reach

I like your way of thinking Grace.

Knitting is good for more than practical purposes too, especially as we age- lowers heart rate, blood pressure and the stress hormone cortisol, puts our brains into a meditative like state and research has shown knitting and crocheting lessens the chance of developing mild cognitive impairment and memory loss.

"Retirement is not an event but a state of mind and one I never managed to reach." Love that. You're a wise woman.

Greentopia

I see pensions were discussed here too. Will have the state pension and a small (8 year) work pension from Sweden.
My by then husband will either have a pension from his native Germany or here, and income from whatever work he will be doing here-he'll be self employed same as myself. That will be more than adequate for us as I own my own home outright.

knockers84

Should be able to semi-retire by the time I’m 40, no mortgage,no kids. I’ll probably just take on contract IT roles for six months and take six months off.

Materialistic things don’t matter to me, only travelling

sbsquarepants

Squall Leonhart wrote: »

But I have heard far too many crib and cry that they can't afford a home or will never be able to afford while they are taking foreign holidays, or buying high end cars, or going out for pints or meals frequently, smoking 70eur a week, paying 60 a month on mobile phone contracts, etc.

.

This is it in a nutshell really. I only really wised up financially around 30 years of age, since then i've bought an apartment, lived in it while saving the deposit for a house and then bought the house and held on to the apartment, all on fairly average earnings. In those 15 years however i've been on i think 4 or maybe 5 holidays, my car is 12 years old and i'll probably be driving it for at least another 3 or 4 years, i couldn't tell you the last time i seen the inside of a pub.

It's down to priorities - i want security, to know i don't need to depend on handouts when i'm not capable of working, to know i have somewhere to live untill the day i die regardless of anything else and to have something half decent to hand to my kids when i do, so that they don't need to hustle and struggle like i did. I can live without a suntan (although i'm actually brown as a berry at the moment because i tan like crazy at the slightest sign of sun:D) and i can certainly get from a to b without leaving myself or my kids destitute for a shiny box on wheels!

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

Greentopia wrote: »

.

"Retirement is not an event but a state of mind and one I never managed to reach." Love that. You're a wise woman.

But retirement is an event. Retirement in the proper sense is ending paid work. You may as well say getting your first job was not an event in your life. This talk of 'I'll never retire as I have my charity work/crafts/grandchildren' is just words: that is retirement. Life doesn't end at retirement, indeed living sometimes really begins. I've never been as occupied but I'm retired. Mrs S knits for charities and friends but she is retired. Neither is it something to be feared or regretted. It's not a slowing down or beginning of the end. It's another stage of life and an absolutely marvellous one with endless possibilities and opportunities.

Squall Leonhart

Dominik Important Busboy wrote: »

But retirement is an event. Retirement in the proper sense is ending paid work. You may as well say getting your first job was not an event in your life. This talk of 'I'll never retire as I have my charity work/crafts/grandchildren' is just words: that is retirement. Life doesn't end at retirement, indeed living sometimes really begins. I've never been as occupied but I'm retired. Mrs S knits for charities and friends but she is retired. Neither is it something to be feared or regretted. It's not a slowing down or beginning of the end. It's another stage of life and an absolutely marvellous one with endless possibilities and opportunities.

This would be my attitude. But it makes a tremendous difference being retired in your mid 50s as opposed to late 60s or beyond.

My father retired a couple of years ago at 58 and I am delighted for the man. After being worn out working hard for 41 years, he now has the energy, funds for his modest needs and lust for life to really enjoy his retirement. Its been brilliant for his mental health and he seems younger now then a decade ago.

tayto lover

Augeo wrote: »

Do you know any lads with morgages on investment properties where tenants have stopped paying rent?
It's not so easy then.

Is that not a case of bad management?
Surely in any business there are people who are owed money. The way to manage that is to not give to much credit or time.

The people I’m talking about know their clients and always endeavor to make wise decisions and have back-up plans.

CelticRambler

Dominik Important Busboy wrote: »

But retirement is an event. Retirement in the proper sense is ending paid work.

But that in itself is re-defining retirement for a now obsolete concept! In the 1950s, few people were simply "retired" - they were a retired teacher, a retired doctor, a retired accountant, a retired shop assistant. Retirement was inherently linked with the job-for-life that had been the mainstay of that person's life for four decades.

Your definition could be rephrased as progressing to "living off unearned income" - in which case, there are plenty of twenty-somethings in Ireland (and elsewhere) that have already retired. In this 21st century, there are more people than ever before who - voluntarily or otherwise - do not have "paid work" in the old-fashioned sense of a permanent (pensionable) job. So strictly speaking, they can never retire, can they?

CelticRambler

tayto lover wrote: »

Is that not a case of bad management?
...
The people I’m talking about know their clients and always endeavor to make wise decisions and have back-up plans.

Sometimes a wisely made decision is comprehensively undermined by a change in government policy. Or the impact of global socio-economic change. There are only so many far-away butterflies you can keep an eye on!

sbsquarepants

I think a lot more of how our lives turn out is down to blind luck than we care to admit.

"Successful" people will always argue that their success is down to hard work. It certainly plays a very large part, but if you look hard enough you'll also find they were fortunate enough to know someone who gave them a leg up, or to be born into a family that could afford a good education, or who owned a business they were favoured in or some such. Genuine rags to riches stories are extremely rare, certainly not impossible but very rare.

In my own case i was fortunate enough to know someone who could loan me the shortfall between the mortgage i could get and the cost of the house i was buying. Now it was a loan, so i could argue that "my hard work paid for that damn house" and probably will at some stage, but the fact remains without that help i couldn't have bought it. I would have gotten a different house, just not the one i did, or maybe i'd have gotten it a few years later or something like that. But at the end of the day i was just lucky to know that person.

Trigger Happy

sbsquarepants wrote: »

I think a lot more of how our lives turn out is down to blind luck than we care to admit.

"Successful" people will always argue that their success is down to hard work. It certainly plays a very large part, but if you look hard enough you'll also find they were fortunate enough to know someone who gave them a leg up, or to be born into a family that could afford a good education, or who owned a business they were favoured in or some such. Genuine rags to riches stories are extremely rare, certainly not impossible but very rare.

In fairness though you could argue that been born with a brain that is slightly better than yerman next door is also luck!
But you are right. Success is down to hard work, having the right aptitude, attitude, ambition, skill and luck.

sbsquarepants

Which it is i suppose!

CelticRambler

Trigger Happy wrote: »

Success is down to hard work, having the right aptitude, attitude, ambition, skill and luck.

How do you define "success" ?

sbsquarepants

CelticRambler wrote: »

How do you define "success" ?

That's why i put it in inverted commas in my own post. It really means wildly different things to different people!

ive a half an idea about getting out at 55-60 depending on how im finding the daily grind at that stage, and whatever i need to make ends meet at that stage ill provide by working mornings in a library or something

panic merchants would wear you down about never owning a home, dying penniless, the world doomed by that stage anyway.

I'll carry on, thanks. working out fine so far

Planet X

Ten minutes and you can list your monthly outgoings on a database or whatever.

If you're a homeowner it'll be the likes of,
Property Tax, Motor tax, household insurance, utilities, Virgin Media/Sky, Motor insurance, Health Care Insurance, Bank charges, phone bills...yada yada yada.
Total this up. You should see how you're fixed when you pull the plug.

Oh.....food, holidays, clothes....yada yada yada.

Yeah.....I know some people don't drink, drive, take holidays, watch TV and possibly do patch the elbows on their cardigans .