Before replying I’d best givee my own position. I’m 63, my wife 61. Mortgageless we have two small pensions and savings which provide a good life.
We are NOT wealthy just ordinary people who made provisions for the future as we felt the opportunities later life offered worth saving for. We also know we are extraordinarily lucky to come from the golden generations of the 60s - we had so much.
The OP asks a very important question which only one post attempts to answer. Personally I’m very interested in this question but can’t find an answer anywhere. The truth is the current “renting generation” are a time bomb which will explode in 30-40 years. Without having paid off my mortgage I would still be working or would be forced to sell up, move away from my friends and neighbours to buy a smaller, cheaper property. Just at a time when I want them as close as possible.
Last week we gave two of our three children 50% of the deposit needed for mortgages. This is to get them out of renting. I’ve made it very clear they should not look at their parents and think retiring at 60 will be easy for their generation or even happen. I’ve encouraged both to meet my financial advisor and put a proper structured plan in place now. I truly believe it’s their only hope of avoiding working in to their mid 70s
I have a third son. For all those who believe “the state will look after you” let me tell you what this means in 2018. Then ask yourself if this is how you’d like to live in retirement, if you think it’s either adequate or acceptable.
My lad is 30, Downs Syndrome, dispraxic and SLD. He has a wonderful life and we’ve been fortunate to win many major battles to get him there. He currently shares a house with three other young men who require 24 hour care. This is care in the community and it works.
BUT
My son’s expectations and needs are different from most. He receives a variety of state benefits for housing etc. Any surplus from these benefits is used to contribute to his own care costs - YES read that again disabled people have to repay part of their benefits to cover care costs! Lancashire County Council take back 100% of any surplus above life’s basics to pay for his care. I don’t blame LCC but that’s another discussion.
After covering the very basics of life my son has £27.14 per week. This has to cover everything you can imagine aside from staying alive. Let’s consider what £27 pw has to buy, for example clothes, shoes, soap, deodorant, trip to cinema, mobile phone, toothpaste, newspaper, TV license, football season ticket, bus fares. Everything you might consider a basic is NOT covered by the state.
We buy his clothes, pay for holidays etc. If he wants to go on holiday with a carer he has to pay for all the carer’s costs PLUS £15 per hour for that care. The care element of one week’s holiday is £2520!! Needless to say he doesn’t go on holiday unless a family member can take him.
This is how we as a country chose to behave, today in 2018. This is what “the state will look after you means.” Today the state pension is +/- £8000 and I guess is adequate for today’s needs. If you believe in 30-40 years the state will look after you then act accordingly but if you prefer not to risk living off the equivalent of £27 per week then take action now.
For me the only thing retirees can rely on in 30 years time is their own efforts made today. There will not be any money for the “state to look after you.” The state will keep you alive but won’t look after you.
I realise some of this reads like a rant. It’s not meant to be, it’s reality. The truth is today the state, that’s you and me, treat the elderly, disabled and disadvantaged very poorly. If you think it will get better I wish you luck - I wouldn’t take the risk though.
The only reason governments haven’t hit the state pension so far is they’re scared. The time will come though as there will soon be nothing else left to cut.
