• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!
Collapse

You are not logged in or you do not have permission to access this page. This could be due to one of several reasons:

  • You are not logged in. If you are already registered, fill in the form below to log in, or follow the "Sign Up" link to register a new account.
  • You may not have sufficient privileges to access this page. Are you trying to edit someone else's post, access administrative features or some other privileged system?
  • If you are trying to post, the administrator may have disabled your account, or it may be awaiting activation.

Previously on "Wealth gap 'widest in 40 years'"

Collapse

  • Sysman
    replied
    Originally posted by TheRightStuff
    but don't you think it's better to work full time now and then when your older take more time off and eventually retire early. I don't want to be strolling into work when I'm 60.
    I had a reality check on that one back in the late 1970s. I knew an MD who could have retired quite comfortably but wanted to carry on working so that his pension pot would fund a very nice retirement, travelling the world etc.

    His wife ended up wheelchair bound before they had chance to do the world trip. It does make you think.

    Leave a comment:


  • Euro-commuter
    replied
    Originally posted by TheRightStuff
    but don't you think it's better to work full time now and then when your older take more time off and eventually retire early. I don't want to be strolling into work when I'm 60.
    That works if you're young. I might be more tempted to laze & spend now, and just go out when I'm busted.

    Leave a comment:


  • TheRightStuff
    replied
    Originally posted by Euro-commuter
    I've thought about tha too. I have taken 2 long gaps from contracting (one 6mth, one 1yr) but that was a while ago. Now when I look at 6mth on/6mth off, I don't see how I can do it. Yet many people live apparently happy lives on half what I earn. I could do that and not work half the year.
    but don't you think it's better to work full time now and then when your older take more time off and eventually retire early. I don't want to be strolling into work when I'm 60.

    Leave a comment:


  • Euro-commuter
    replied
    Originally posted by Troll
    Spot on ... this was going to be a six month work/ six month play thing... kids, big houses & 4x4's put paid to the plan
    I've thought about tha too. I have taken 2 long gaps from contracting (one 6mth, one 1yr) but that was a while ago. Now when I look at 6mth on/6mth off, I don't see how I can do it. Yet many people live apparently happy lives on half what I earn. I could do that and not work half the year.

    Leave a comment:


  • Buffoon
    replied
    I am very poor. I can hardly make ends meet. I can't even afford to pay myself minimum wage out of the profits of my business.

    That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

    Leave a comment:


  • bobhope
    replied
    Originally posted by Troll
    Spot on ... this was going to be a six month work/ six month play thing... kids, big houses & 4x4's put paid to the plan
    Actually, it's more the uncertainty of future earnings / taxation that I work 12 months instead of 6. You just never know what GB is going to do next, or if everything will be offshored.

    Leave a comment:


  • Troll
    replied
    Originally posted by lilelvis2000
    An interesting point. We probably at one time in our lives thought about winning the lottery and retiring. We then start earning large sums of money, probably enough that we only need work six month a year. But, we get used to the lifestyle and need to work the other six months otherwise we'd have to give it up. Affluenza.
    Spot on ... this was going to be a six month work/ six month play thing... kids, big houses & 4x4's put paid to the plan

    Leave a comment:


  • KathyWoolfe
    replied
    Originally posted by andrew_neil_uk
    But, of course, this time its didfferent...
    It's always different this time

    Leave a comment:


  • BrilloPad
    replied
    I do wonder if the wealth gap will lead to a depression like (19)29-33. Best explanation I ever heard for that was disparity between rich and poor.

    But, of course, this time its didfferent...

    Leave a comment:


  • lilelvis2000
    replied
    Originally posted by Troll
    I'd consider myself rich if I didn't have to work
    An interesting point. We probably at one time in our lives thought about winning the lottery and retiring. We then start earning large sums of money, probably enough that we only need work six month a year. But, we get used to the lifestyle and need to work the other six months otherwise we'd have to give it up. Affluenza.

    Leave a comment:


  • gingerjedi
    replied
    I think we may be missing a point, the supposed poor by any standard are not worse off than they were 40 years ago and if they cant feed their kids its usually more to do with how they prioritise their/our money rather than not having any at all, I think the real gap is opening up because there are far more rich people than ever before... and we cant have that can we.

    Leave a comment:


  • Jog On
    replied
    Originally posted by Troll
    I'd consider myself rich if I didn't have to work
    I agree. You can be financially free with passive income that covers your lifestyle.

    To me being rich means not having to trade time for money and having income that keeps coming in even if I decide not to work.

    A book I read recently comes up with a definition of the new rich who enjoy financial freedom - not necessarily masses of money but enough to live comfortably and time to enjoy it.

    Leave a comment:


  • Gibbon
    replied
    Originally posted by Pondlife
    Assumming that your private pension pot is not redistributed in the interest of fairness.

    I don't put my money into pensions, too restrictive. keep it more under your control and it's easier to keep it out of the fairness police. I know you get a tax break on the way in but you get taxed while it's in there and when it pays out.

    Also you have some crook in a suit putting the odds in his favour that you will die before you use your money up.

    Leave a comment:


  • ASB
    replied
    Originally posted by Gibbon
    That's the rub, kids bring benefits lots, of them.

    I've said this before but they will suffer when it comes to pension time as all they will get is the basic amount. Those who have worked and paid enough NI will get the higher amount which is quite a bit more. Also being hard working and sensible you will probably have a reasonable stash and can always release some dosh fro your house.

    You'll be on your patio in a nicer part of the world and they'll be dodging druggies on council estates.
    Currently they'll get at least the minimum income guarantee. 119.05 single instead of 87.30 pension. You have to remember that with any private pension the first £31.75 of it is effectively taxed at 100%.

    Leave a comment:


  • Euro-commuter
    replied
    Originally posted by Pondlife
    Assumming that your private pension pot is not redistributed in the interest of fairness.
    There will be a lot of demand for that. Those who rob Peter to pay Paul can count on Paul's vote.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X