Affordable ?

Back on topic. My parents were of the neither a borrower nor lender be generation and a lot of that rubbed off.

The Westy campervan was funded by savings and a bit of flexi-mortgage drawdown (from part redemptions already made). Traded up to a brand new PVC because it was the only one that ticked all the boxes for us. That PVC was part funded by a small inheritance. There's a long story behind that inheritance, involving a tough legal battle - yet more success to add to the CV before retirement.
 
gus-lopez said:
I've always been of the opinion that this should be outlawed ,especially if a pp & retiring under state pension age. If you wish to,or have to, retire early then fair enough live on your pension ,if you can't & need to work then you should not be allowed to draw the pension until you cease work permanently.
Just wrong that you can start receiving a pension & continue to work,so possibly doing someone out of a job or a promotion who could do with it.
Click to expand...

Gus

Not sure quite what situations you are referring to.

What in your post does 'pp' refer to? Private pension?

Does your opinion refer to part-time work, where employers do not want full-timers, e.g. because of seasonal business, and where the part-time work would not sustain a person without other income?

Geoff
 
SpeedyDux said:
Both government and works pensions are deferred remuneration. They should count as part of the overall pay package. The weasels who govern us passed legislation to allow the private sector to welch on that deferred obligation, without adequate compensation to the pension scheme members who lost out when the rules changed. Likewise when pension schemes turned from defined benefit to defined contribution - that permitted change transferred all the financial risk from employers to the workers, whether the workers agreed or not. Guess which side gained and which side lost.
Click to expand...

BA set up what became known as the 'New' Pension scheme. The new scheme soon became a big liability on BA, wheeras the 'Old' scheme was flush with assets.

BA then tried to get the Trustees of the 'Old' Pension scheme, most of which were company-appointed, to agree to merge with the 'New' scheme.

Well the Pilots lead the challenge to this, which went through the courts and, I think finished at the High Court, not the then HoL.

BA lost and the 'Old' scheme still exists with its assets paying out good pensions.

I had already transferred out of the BA scheme into the BAA one when I changed jobs, so was just sitting on the sidelines, but intere4sted for my friends.

If the Daily Mirror employees had taken similar action Maxwell would never have got away with his theft, his sons got into court and bankruptcy and his daughter in custody prison.

"Power corrupts. and absolute.......

Geoff
 
10 years ago we got bored Sun Basking on Beaches in All-Inclusive Hotels all over the world. So we put the £8K a year into a pot for 5 years and then bought Moho. Never would buy 'new' as you'll lose £20K the moment you turn the key!!
Spent the last 5 years modernising Moho to be Mobile Office for my business.

Subscribers  do not see these advertisements

 
SpeedyDux said:
Back on topic. My parents were of the neither a borrower nor lender be generation and a lot of that rubbed off.

The Westy campervan was funded by savings and a bit of flexi-mortgage drawdown (from part redemptions already made). Traded up to a brand new PVC because it was the only one that ticked all the boxes for us. That PVC was part funded by a small inheritance. There's a long story behind that inheritance, involving a tough legal battle - yet more success to add to the CV before retirement.
Click to expand...

Please send me a PM on that - if you wish.

Geoff
 
Well I decided after a couple of decades of tents, trailer tents and a small campervan (bongo) all old and on the cheap ( but still fun) that it was time to reevaluate after the year weve had, both I and the Mrs are NHS Neonatal ICU and we've been looking at when we'll retire, where we'll live etc etc BUT she wont retire for 9 more years and I will likely be another 10 to 15! So I simply decided not to wait for retirement to enjoy so decided a nice new motorhome was the way to go, I don't care about it being on finance over the next 10 years, I dont care that its costing me nearly £600 a month, I do care about using my money so I enjoy my life outside of the hell that is work especially after this pandemic year. We have taken the creed of "work to live, not live to work" very much in earnest and will continue to do so!(y)
 
SpeedyDux said:
Both government and works pensions are deferred remuneration. They should count as part of the overall pay package. The weasels who govern us passed legislation to allow the private sector to welch on that deferred obligation, without adequate compensation to the pension scheme members who lost out when the rules changed. Likewise when pension schemes turned from defined benefit to defined contribution - that permitted change transferred all the financial risk from employers to the workers, whether the workers agreed or not. Guess which side gained and which side lost.
Click to expand...
Our Forefathers had the wisdom to set up defined benefit pensions in an age when social change helped support those who worked a lifetime in x or y industry. the worker paid in to the scheme and the company (or government department) contributed to it as part of an individuals renumeration package.

We have seen CEO's pay ratio go though the roof in comparison to a general worker

Equality Trust analysis also found that FTSE 100 CEOs are now paid:

• 165 times more than a nurse.

• 140 times more than a teacher.

• 132 times more than a police officer

Personally I would like to think that the wisdom of our Forefathers return for the benefit of future generations that come along after ours that have benefitted. For those who have had their own companies generated their own wealth they deserve it as they have often risked everything but equally for all workers I hope they have a retirement that is financially OK.
 
Calamaster said:
Never would buy 'new' as you'll lose £20K the moment you turn the key!!
Click to expand...

That's what we said but bought new anyway due to the layout being what we wanted and the deal.

Last time it went to the dealers for service (at 4 years old) we were offered more than we paid for it should we wish to sell ...... we didn't. As the market is now it would probably be worth about the same as we paid for it 6 years ago.
 
gus-lopez said:
I've always been of the opinion that this should be outlawed ,especially if a pp & retiring under state pension age. If you wish to,or have to, retire early then fair enough live on your pension ,if you can't & need to work then you should not be allowed to draw the pension until you cease work permanently.
Just wrong that you can start receiving a pension & continue to work,so possibly doing someone out of a job or a promotion who could do with it.
Click to expand...
It probably depends on personal circumstances, I know a guy who took his pension and carried on working, he had divorced then started a 2nd family so his pension and wages helped cover costs with the knowledge that over the next 6 year period the youngsters would be getting thier own jobs post Uni. So in his case taking the pension and working helped him and his family situation.
 
The Wino said:
I don't agree on that. I think a lot retire from a fairly well paid job and then either work part-time or in a more basic level. They also can't then contribute more than a very basic amount into a pension tax free.
Click to expand...
Which is what I cannot get my head around? Why retire,if you then want to work again?:unsure:

The Wino said:
I think on the contrary abolishing a set retirement age was a big mistake that had allowed new people to climb up the ladder.
Click to expand...
Yes I fail to understand why they did that? Here once in receipt of a state pension it becomes an offence to work. Even if you own the business there are strict rules about what yo can & can't do in the bsinees ,between the ages of 65 & 70, when you cannot be doing anything at all. ( ages have gone up slightly now retirement ages has)
nicholsong said:
Gus

Not sure quite what situations you are referring to.

What in your post does 'pp' refer to? Private pension?

Does your opinion refer to part-time work, where employers do not want full-timers, e.g. because of seasonal business, and where the part-time work would not sustain a person without other income?

Geoff
Click to expand...
Yes pp = private pension.
& yes I can' treally see why anyone would want to?
I contracted to a company with 1500 employee's for 20 years & in early spring & summer they would require staff for a seasonal product.They used agencies to supply anything from 200 + staff.
 
We lost friends younger and fitter than us so decided to dive in and buy our first moho .Twice out original budget as brother pulled out (. Luckily we now think) best decision we ever made. Have friends who earn three times our salary saving away for retirement you never know what’s around the next corner. Were here for a good time not a long time!
 
Coolcats said:
We have seen CEO's pay ratio go though the roof in comparison to a general worker

Equality Trust analysis also found that FTSE 100 CEOs are now paid:

• 165 times more than a nurse.

• 140 times more than a teacher.

• 132 times more than a police officer
Click to expand...
Yes & completely unacceptable.
Coolcats said:
I know a guy who took his pension and carried on working, he had divorced then started a 2nd family so his pension and wages helped cover costs
Click to expand...
But whose problem is that? Would he have done it if he had to work on?
Coolcats said:
So in his case taking the pension and working helped him and his family situation.
Click to expand...
But he could have continued working possibly without taking the pension?

To me it just seems like greed?

Let me explain . You are in a job where you are able to retire after 25 years but can stay on to 30 years as it enhances the pension by a large sum . Fair enough
Why then do you want to 'retire' taking the 25% lump sum & pension & then find youself another job?
Why not just stay in the one you had?
 
gus-lopez said:
Yes & completely unacceptable.

But whose problem is that? Would he have done it if he had to work on?

But he could have continued working possibly without taking the pension?

To me it just seems like greed?

Let me explain . You are in a job where you are able to retire after 25 years but can stay on to 30 years as it enhances the pension by a large sum . Fair enough
Why then do you want to 'retire' taking the 25% lump sum & pension & then find youself another job?
Why not just stay in the one you had?
Click to expand...
I can see your view point, but the circumstances allowed him to do so, as I say everyones circumstances are different it may be someone has a Divorce after 25/30 years the assets are split and in order to have a semblance of a good retirement or even a home the individual chooses to work on I wonder how many do it just for pure greed? I suspect not many.

Subscribers  do not see these advertisements

 
gus-lopez said:
Yes & completely unacceptable.

But whose problem is that? Would he have done it if he had to work on?

But he could have continued working possibly without taking the pension?

To me it just seems like greed?

Let me explain . You are in a job where you are able to retire after 25 years but can stay on to 30 years as it enhances the pension by a large sum . Fair enough
Why then do you want to 'retire' taking the 25% lump sum & pension & then find youself another job?
Why not just stay in the one you had?
Click to expand...
'taking the 25% lump sum' might have something to do with the decision ... Tax free sum up front as a trade off against a higher monthly pension on which tax will be paid, and where the payment may cease [scheme dependent] if you die shortly after retiring.

Someone may have a mortgage/loan that can be met whilst in current high earning but stressful job. Taking the lump sum and repaying/reducing the loan and then getting a lower paid job, paying less tax, and having less stress and therefore a better quality of life would make a lot of sense. Also non financial reasons such as better relationships with less stress and more time for the loved ones.

Steve
 
We bought an old farmyard nearly 40 years ago. After lots or arguing with the planners it is now 6 houses. We lived in a caravan whilst doing the first conversion. Then we lived in the first one whilst building the second, sold it so we could afford to build the next one…and so on. We both worked full time as well as, and we did most of the building work ourselves. So I think the saying ‘sweat and toil’ bought our Motorhome.
 
gus-lopez said:
Which is what I cannot get my head around? Why retire,if you then want to work again?:unsure:


Yes I fail to understand why they did that? Here once in receipt of a state pension it becomes an offence to work. Even if you own the business there are strict rules about what yo can & can't do in the bsinees ,between the ages of 65 & 70, when you cannot be doing anything at all. ( ages have gone up slightly now retirement ages has)

Yes pp = private pension.
& yes I can' treally see why anyone would want to?
I contracted to a company with 1500 employee's for 20 years & in early spring & summer they would require staff for a seasonal product.They used agencies to supply anything from 200 + staff.
Click to expand...

Abolition of the default retirement age 65 in the UK was because it caused indirect age discrimination. I could be wrong.

The last company I worked for had several manual workers over the age of 65 because the money was good. The work included lifting and installing heavy panels on slippery building sites. This resulted in increasing numbers of compensation claims by some older workers against the company (and its insurers) for work-related back injuries, and them being on sick leave for weeks or months, before returning to work part-time and/or on light duties. The Directors also felt that they had a duty to help prevent these injuries, and wished to encourage the over-65s to retire to allow younger more able and less injury-prone replacements. Unfortunately the default retirement age was gone, so they had to resort to dismissing the stubborn ones on grounds that they lacked capability to carry out the work safely. This process caused a lot of resentment as you can imagine. The old default retirement age was much easier to operate and avoided much antagonism and bad feeling.
 
Calamaster said:
10 years ago we got bored Sun Basking on Beaches in All-Inclusive Hotels all over the world. So we put the £8K a year into a pot for 5 years and then bought Moho. Never would buy 'new' as you'll lose £20K the moment you turn the key!!
Spent the last 5 years modernising Moho to be Mobile Office for my business.
Click to expand...
My van is 4 years old now and I reckon probably worth the same as I paid for it.
 
"How do people afford to buy new/nearly new motorhomes"
Money comes from every conceivable situation, not really the platform to debate the morals of where it actually does come from.
But for me at least, it started a Loooong time ago when i had less than nothing and being on the dole with a wife and 3 kids.
We made our own luck, because we had nothing to loose and worked my arse off for 35 years.
My golden rule was Never take money to work, i go to work to earn it Not spend it.
My wife had every last penny i earned and we lived on what we used to get when on the dole, we knew no different.
Now we can buy any motorhome they can make.
Lucky, no, only i can say that, no one else.
But the wealth you need comes when you least need it, we should be born old and get younger.

Subscribers  do not see these advertisements

 
gus-lopez said:
Yes & completely unacceptable.

But whose problem is that? Would he have done it if he had to work on?

But he could have continued working possibly without taking the pension?

To me it just seems like greed?

Let me explain . You are in a job where you are able to retire after 25 years but can stay on to 30 years as it enhances the pension by a large sum . Fair enough
Why then do you want to 'retire' taking the 25% lump sum & pension & then find youself another job?
Why not just stay in the one you had?
Click to expand...
Still not got my head round this.
Why should folk be working flat out one day and not the next. People can change to less stressful jobs with better hours. Why should the State have any say in when you retire (it limits drawing pensions to 10 years before state pension age) and whether you want to do further work, work part time or take on unpaid work. In what way is drawing a pension and continuing to work greed?
There is a shortage of labour at this time in the UK. We stopped off at a small town in the Highlands this week and there were at least 3 shops we visited with adverts in the window wanting staff - this when university students are still at home, lorry drivers are being given £5k bonuses and we are on £100 if we introduce workers (£500 for HGV drivers).
 
gus-lopez said:
Yes & completely unacceptable.

But whose problem is that? Would he have done it if he had to work on?

But he could have continued working possibly without taking the pension?

To me it just seems like greed?

Let me explain . You are in a job where you are able to retire after 25 years but can stay on to 30 years as it enhances the pension by a large sum . Fair enough
Why then do you want to 'retire' taking the 25% lump sum & pension & then find youself another job?
Why not just stay in the one you had?
Click to expand...
When I retire (hopefully in 5 years at 60) if anyone sees me working after that please give me a good kicking!!😁😁
 
gus-lopez said:
Then there should be zero unemployment?
Click to expand...
Zero unemployment is not desirable. 5% is about where it should be.
"Zero unemployment is possible only in theory. It is neither ideal nor desired for economic growth. If there is no unemployed labor in the economy, the production units of the economy cannot expand anymore, halting economic growth. Increase in aggregate demand only gives rise to wage-price inflation."
 
Camdoon said:
Zero unemployment is not desirable. 5% is about where it should be.
"Zero unemployment is possible only in theory. It is neither ideal nor desired for economic growth. If there is no unemployed labor in the economy, the production units of the economy cannot expand anymore, halting economic growth. Increase in aggregate demand only gives rise to wage-price inflation."
Click to expand...
Trouble with that is that there’s more than 5% that won’t get off their arse and do a days work, that’s the problem!!

Subscribers  do not see these advertisements

 

Join us or log in to post a reply.

To join in you must be a member of MotorhomeFun

Join MotorhomeFun

Join us, it quick and easy!

Join us

Log in

Already a member? Log in here.

Latest journal entries

Back
Top