Gideon's All Singing, All Dancing Budget. 8th July

[ayrmad]

Savers are leaving it until their mid-50s before they boost their savings reserves – just as they close in on retirement – according to latest research by the Halifax.

The average savings balance in the age group 55-64 is £13,516; 46% above the average for all savers in England and Wales at £9,228. Savers aged 45 to 54 have an average balance just over half that at £7,164 - £2,000 lower than the average balance for all savers. Those aged 35 to 44 have an average savings balance of just £3,984.

The older we get the more we save
Savers aged between 65 and 74 have an average balance of £17,405 rising to £21,648 for savers over 75.

Typically the younger section of the adult population tends to have lower savings, with savers in the age group 25 to 44 having an average balance of between £2,700 and £4,000, a third of the national average for all savers.

Livings costs mean that only after reaching their mid-forties do savers start boosting their balances by an average of 89% to £13,516 by the time they reach 64 years of age.

Differences
Richard Fearon, Head of Halifax Savings, says: "This latest research highlights a stark difference in savings between younger savers and those nearing retirement. Whilst we would expect to see balances grow as people get older, the dramatic rise in the last 10 years before retirement indicates that many savers are leaving it too late to boost their retirement income.

"We know that younger families can find it hard to set aside any spare cash with many outgoings already putting a strain on their finances, but saving regularly, whether it is for a specific short-term goal, or more long-term, should always be a priority."

Regional variation
There is a wide variation in average balances between regions for all savers; the highest overall being in East Anglia (£10,350) and the lowest in the north east (£8,255); a difference of 25%.

There is also a north-south divide, with savers in the southern regions on average saving 12% more than those in the northern areas (£9,848 versus £8,779).

However, some of the regional disparity is reversed when average balances are compared to average earnings. Savers in London have an average balance equivalent to 26% of annual average earnings, and in the south east this proportion rises to 33%.

In contrast, average savings balance is equivalent to 38% of earnings in the East Midlands, Yorkshire and the Humber, and the south west.

Largest average savings balances by local area districts
Highest average balances are held by residents in the Mole Valley, Surrey (£15,015), South Buckinghamshire (£14,827) and the Chilterns (£14,517). Of the top 30 local authorities with the largest average savings balances, 26 are in the south of England.

Outside southern England, savers in Derbyshire Dales have the highest average balance of £12,664, followed by Fylde (£12,224) and Hambleton in North Yorkshire (£12,218).
Lowest average savings balances by local area districts

The nation's lowest savers are in London in Newham (£5,215) and Hackney (£5,234). These London boroughs are followed by Manchester (£5,617), Barking and Dagenham (£5,826) and Lewisham (£5,934).

Eight of the 30 local authorities with the lowest average savings balances are in London.

[DeeTillEhDeh]

Savers are leaving it until their mid-50s before they boost their savings reserves – just as they close in on retirement – according to latest research by the Halifax.

The average savings balance in the age group 55-64 is £13,516; 46% above the average for all savers in England and Wales at £9,228. Savers aged 45 to 54 have an average balance just over half that at £7,164 - £2,000 lower than the average balance for all savers. Those aged 35 to 44 have an average savings balance of just £3,984.

The older we get the more we save

Savers aged between 65 and 74 have an average balance of £17,405 rising to £21,648 for savers over 75.

Typically the younger section of the adult population tends to have lower savings, with savers in the age group 25 to 44 having an average balance of between £2,700 and £4,000, a third of the national average for all savers.

Livings costs mean that only after reaching their mid-forties do savers start boosting their balances by an average of 89% to £13,516 by the time they reach 64 years of age.

Differences

Richard Fearon, Head of Halifax Savings, says: "This latest research highlights a stark difference in savings between younger savers and those nearing retirement. Whilst we would expect to see balances grow as people get older, the dramatic rise in the last 10 years before retirement indicates that many savers are leaving it too late to boost their retirement income.

"We know that younger families can find it hard to set aside any spare cash with many outgoings already putting a strain on their finances, but saving regularly, whether it is for a specific short-term goal, or more long-term, should always be a priority."

Regional variation

There is a wide variation in average balances between regions for all savers; the highest overall being in East Anglia (£10,350) and the lowest in the north east (£8,255); a difference of 25%.

There is also a north-south divide, with savers in the southern regions on average saving 12% more than those in the northern areas (£9,848 versus £8,779).

However, some of the regional disparity is reversed when average balances are compared to average earnings. Savers in London have an average balance equivalent to 26% of annual average earnings, and in the south east this proportion rises to 33%.

In contrast, average savings balance is equivalent to 38% of earnings in the East Midlands, Yorkshire and the Humber, and the south west.

Largest average savings balances by local area districts

Highest average balances are held by residents in the Mole Valley, Surrey (£15,015), South Buckinghamshire (£14,827) and the Chilterns (£14,517). Of the top 30 local authorities with the largest average savings balances, 26 are in the south of England.

Outside southern England, savers in Derbyshire Dales have the highest average balance of £12,664, followed by Fylde (£12,224) and Hambleton in North Yorkshire (£12,218).

Lowest average savings balances by local area districts

The nation's lowest savers are in London in Newham (£5,215) and Hackney (£5,234). These London boroughs are followed by Manchester (£5,617), Barking and Dagenham (£5,826) and Lewisham (£5,934).

Eight of the 30 local authorities with the lowest average savings balances are in London.

Keep digging deeper.

I found that article too and, although the figures are for England and Wales it reinforces the view that it is older people who are savers and who have lost out.

Even the lowest average savings in English local authorities is well above the £1,000 figure you were quoting.

So well done for backing my argument that you are a moron.

[Crùbag]

Harriet Harman supporting the benefit cap on kids...

Oh dear, digging a deeper grave for Labour.

[ayrmad]

Keep digging deeper.

I found that article too and, although the figures are for England and Wales it reinforces the view that it is older people who are savers and who have lost out.

Even the lowest average savings in English local authorities is well above the £1,000 figure you were quoting.

So well done for backing my argument that you are a moron.

Yes, we're back full circle where I said they were the lucky ones, I hardly think the equivalent of 2 or 3 month wages as back up for the rest is comparable to pensioners savings.

No doubt the ever desperate H_B will cling to the word most or claim anything above £0 is savings, I'm used to it, it's quite sad when a middle aged guy needs an ego massage on a football forum.

[Wee Bully]

Leaving aside all this bickering...

Harriet Harman seems to have really wound up her party by agreeing that child tax credits should be restricted to the first 2 children.

Back pedalling a bit today, but she was quite clear on Sunday Politics. Interesting to see that people like Malcolm Chisholm are disgusted by the Labour Party's approach. I think that a split from the UK party is getting closer and closer.

[DeeTillEhDeh]

Yes, we're back full circle where I said they were the lucky ones, I hardly think the equivalent of 2 or 3 month wages as back up for the rest is comparable to pensioners savings.

No doubt the ever desperate H_B will cling to the word most or claim anything above £0 is savings, I'm used to it, it's quite sad when a middle aged guy needs an ego massage on a football forum.

We're not back to where we started. We're back to where you like to think we started.

You said that savers were a minority when clearly they are not. I will repeat for you as you do seem slow of thinking - 55% of people in Scotland with savings under £50,000 (so we are ignoring the better-off savers) still have an average savings of £10,200.

[DeeTillEhDeh]

Leaving aside all this bickering...

Harriet Harman seems to have really wound up her party by agreeing that child tax credits should be restricted to the first 2 children.

Back pedalling a bit today, but she was quite clear on Sunday Politics. Interesting to see that people like Malcolm Chisholm are disgusted by the Labour Party's approach. I think that a split from the UK party is getting closer and closer.

I know folk who voted SNP who have no problem with the new policy.

I suppose it's not helped when we see the constant stories of folks with multiple bairns living off benefits. You know the type of story:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-3098136/Benefits-father-FOURTEEN-claims-70-000-year-family-running-says-s-jobless-needs-hand-super-sized-brood.html

[ayrmad]

We're not back to where we started. We're back to where you like to think we started.

You said that savers were a minority when clearly they are not. I will repeat for you as you do seem slow of thinking - 55% of people in Scotland with savings under £50,000 (so we are ignoring the better-off savers) still have an average savings of £10,200.

And the pensioners have more than double the rest who have a few months income as backup.

20% have 1/3 and 80% have 2/3.

[bob the tank]

Leaving aside all this bickering...

Harriet Harman seems to have really wound up her party by agreeing that child tax credits should be restricted to the first 2 children.

Back pedalling a bit today, but she was quite clear on Sunday Politics. Interesting to see that people like Malcolm Chisholm are disgusted by the Labour Party's approach. I think that a split from the UK party is getting closer and closer.

As I posted yesterday, Tristram Hunt was calling for the labour party to break up into separate national parties, so your not wrong

[DeeTillEhDeh]

And the pensioners have more than double the rest who have a few months income as backup.

20% have 1/3 and 80% have 2/3.

Because they worked hard and saved. And they also paid taxes on it.

But you're too fucking thick to understand that.

[ayrmad]

Because they worked hard and saved. And they also paid taxes on it.

But you're too fucking thick to understand that.

And those that are working hard now are being asked to take a loss so the blue rinsers don't lose a penny out the credit crunch, even worse, those that haven't had a say in anything will be asked to work more of their week to ensure the auld codgers don't lose a brown penny, it's time UK PLC took a long hard look at itself and cushioned the kids of today from the tsunami of costs to keep the elderly that's coming their way.

[Alan Stubbs]

Leaving aside all this bickering...

Harriet Harman seems to have really wound up her party by agreeing that child tax credits should be restricted to the first 2 children.

Back pedalling a bit today, but she was quite clear on Sunday Politics. Interesting to see that people like Malcolm Chisholm are disgusted by the Labour Party's approach. I think that a split from the UK party is getting closer and closer.

Up until quite recently, I used to sympathise with folk like Chisholm. "Actually a decent guy" etc etc etc. Assuming Corbyn loses, the person that takes them into the next General Election (and loses) will be leading a party that's been on this path for what, 25 years? How long does that need to go on before there's no excuse anymore and these kind of decisions are everyone in the party's responsibility by association? 50? 100?

Unless Scottish Labor finds some gumption from somewhere and declares Independence from Labour (which would be the funniest thing ever) screw any of their "disgust".

[sparky88]

Making saving less attractive sends out the wrong signals to those in employment. Savers, no matter what age they are, evidently didn't cause the crash in 2008.

[H_B]

Making saving less attractive sends out the wrong signals to those in employment. Savers, no matter what age they are, evidently didn't cause the crash in 2008.

It's a difficult one.

Too much saving prevents money being spent in the economy. But too little means we pick up the bill more in old age.

[DeeTillEhDeh]

Making saving less attractive sends out the wrong signals to those in employment. Savers, no matter what age they are, evidently didn't cause the crash in 2008.

Absolutely.

[ayrmad]

Making saving less attractive sends out the wrong signals to those in employment. Savers, no matter what age they are, evidently didn't cause the crash in 2008.

What sort of signals does taking £20 or £30 a week off them send?

[Mr Bairn]

I know people under-21 forced out of their homes by their parents who rely so heavily on housing benefits so it's nice to know Osborne wants them to suffer.

The parents are at least partly to blame

[strichener]

Making saving less attractive sends out the wrong signals to those in employment. Savers, no matter what age they are, evidently didn't cause the crash in 2008.

No but they sure received excessive returns on their savings.

[sparky88]

What sort of signals does taking £20 or £30 a week off them send?

the wrong ones.I'm not sure savers should be used as a pot of money to be swiped from. Some savers might only make that in a year, if they've been particularly badly advised.