marco88

A good idea would be find a place to rent for while first then look at buying. Then you can take your time and look for a bargain in the area you want to settle in.

However beware that in the South of UK £200,000 will not get you anything large (possibly a 2 bedroom house). Therefore if you are emigrating from Canada you may be for a bit of a shock.

bandrui

I think this place needs a lot of work. And I notice it's a sealed bids sale.


I have decided to delay my return for at least a year. By then I will be receiving pension and I also feel that Europe is in for a really rocky ride over the next 12 months. I'd like to see what's going to happen there.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/n...ys-Moodys.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk:80/politic...00-years-union

Pistolpete2

Hi bandrui, the tough thing for everybody who is financially flexible is to find a safe haven in the West from financial meltdown, unless you fancy moving to the East. The US is in far worse shape than Europe in spite of Greece and the rest of the PIIGS, mostly for political (will) reasons even though (EU) political issues seem to be at the root of the Greece problem resolution at this point. Britain HAS to make the changes that the coalition are trying to push through in order to stand some chance of economic survival in the long run.

The impending strike action is not a pretty picture but I sense that in spite of the bloated public services area the public at large realise that the changes needs to take place. I'm not so sure that the heads within the coalition are strong enough to see this all through to a "satisfactory" conclusion.

You may already be in the safest country but the question is whether everybody will suffer as a result of the turmoil through contagion. A one year delay makes sense, I think.

I'm quiet on here because I'm trying to liquidate something in the UK, not buy, partly because of what your concerns are here but more due to financial rebalancing of my assets to secure some sort of future for myself at pension time.

Gabgoeshome

I love this ,mind you I am very fond of Swanage ...you would love it there ~I know I have told you that many times... lol

chris955

When you say the South do you mean the SE as in the London area ? We are looking at moving to the South or the South West more accurately and £200,000 can easily buy you detached, 4 bedrooms, 2 bathrooms etc.

bandrui

I suppose it is a matter of how strong Unison is as a union. But even if they are ultimately defeated, and I wouldn't want to place any money on that, strikes seem to be the last thing that the UK needs at this moment.

Things seem relatively calm in Canada... unemployment dropped to 7% this month, mainly due to self-employment... and even though the property market is said to be levelling off, the only danger at the moment seems to be its strong ties to South of the border. I'm sure tourism will be down again on this island as many of our tourists and residents are from the US. But I think I need to stay put for now and wait this all out, see where the dust settles, even though that means rolling with the knuckle punches of the new Conservative majority government that have already started.

It's not as if I hate it here. I have the ocean 5 minutes away in any direction, my house and land and beautiful scenery. I am still committed to MBTTUK but am willing to take the risk of waiting all this out.

I'm sure you will have a successful resolution to your financial plan.

bandrui

This is the large area we seem to have been focusing upon (the SW), except for Cheers who seems to have found love in Cerdigion , and prices are very much dependent upon smaller area... Dorset in general is more costly than Somerset, etc.

chris955

The SW is a wonderful area and there are some fantastic properties available for decent money. We are hoping to be looking at around £250,000 so we have a huge choice.

Pistolpete2

Strike action in the private sector would indeed be disastrous but this is the public sector and the majority of the British public "seem" to feel that somehow the public sector has for far too long been immune from the rigours of the Uk's steady economic decline with their gold-plated final salary based pensions and gratuities, early retirements and jobs for life.

There is a sense that the changes that are being implemented against the public sector and their unions do not actually go far enough.

bandrui

Ahaaaa. We are actually in the middle of a postal strike here. Air Canada was on strike but ordered back to work. The main issue... pensions. I would say that there is a fair amount of what you describe for the UK, lack of public support. The postal strike has a huge effect on small businesses that rely on mail.

I think the public in general are fed up with being the ones who always suffer in these strikes, when most people are feeling the pinch themselves. The public is becoming much more careful about how they spend their money.

Pistolpete2

Today's newspapers in the UK are talking of changes to pension arrangements for Government workers, changes in pensionable age for women and changes in tax relief on pension contributions for higher rate tax payers.

Pensions is where the government raiding parties can get the biggest chunk for their coffers.

This last week in the UK, Tesco and Sainsbury's reported disappointing sales figures for food items in particular as shoppers are cutting back, partly due to the high cost of auto fuel.

cheers

As you know Pete the term they use in economic terms is 'entitlements' and as the population gets older that really drags any countries economy down. Think, less people contributing to the retirement funds.

My boss had a pension from the navy, social security and a company pension I'm sure there was another pension in there but I think this needs to be stopped. Ironically when he finally retired I think he only lives about 3 years.

My answer is a pension at retirement age and not multiple pensions and a cap on pensions.

Locally we have a Police Chief who retired with a nice pension and then went to work as a Police Chief in a city 10 miles away and presumably work on another pension. Do governments have that kind of money?

You may know that Members of US Congress retire with a full pension after one four year term. If I have it right that pension is the same as their income while working which is about $200,000 a year.

Conclusion on pensions, lets be fair about them.

Pistolpete2

I think at one time there was presumably a severe recruiting problem in certain areas such as the police, fire service and the military. As a result employment there had perks such as early retirement on a final salary pension.

On top of this, when the public sector pension costs were originally priced they considered a far shorter expectation of life and far higher investment returns on the underlying pension funds invested. Contributions have not changed noticeably so the pension funds are heading towards huge deficits.

Only now are politically able or politically willed governments trying to address the problem before it is too late. The US is neither of these!

I agree with you absolutely that taking a pension and then going into another public sector pensionable position for another one is laughable that it is so ridiculous. Almost as laughable as many public sector salaries, particularly in the UK. Check the BBC and its ranks of management as well as council chief executives. Something has gone very seriously wrong with SOME public sector pay and rewards.

johnh009

It may be best if you just stick to your plans, I don't think the situation in Europe is going to change in the next 12 months. In fact, given the post war boom, I am not sure if this is a recession or just a fundamental change in the way we have to live. Look at what has happened in Japan. This is what happens when you hit a brick wall with an aging population. The Greek problem should be easy to solve for the gutless politicians. All they have to do is get them to start paying their taxes and stop them all retiring at 50 on a pension.

At least you will get a good exchange rate at the moment but this is unlikely to change in the near future.

sallysimmons

I think it's the latter. England is far better off the the US but structurally the problems are the same. In both countries the governments are bashing public employee unions as though cutting their salaries is the answer when our problems go so much deeper than that. (But hey, everyone loves a scapegoat).

I also think the focus on austerity on both sides of the Atlantic is horribly misguided and is just making our problems worse. It reminds me of the way companies cut staff when sales go down instead of focusing on getting sales back up. Eventually they cut themselves into bankruptcy.

When this recession hit, I increased spending on my business as sales went down and sure enough, the additional investment has helped us to thrive while our competitors are going under.

I believe the world governments need to do the same - focus on jump-starting their economies by investing, thereby increasing revenues to cover the increasing costs. Obama tried it here but injected nowhere near enough money and now the slowdown is hitting here too. The notion that we need to cut, cut, cut is ideologically driven and will hurt us all.