Having a private pension is NOT a good idea.

dunstonh

dunstonh, old boy, what on earth are you thinking?

I was waiting for the OP to come back and tell us how much the pension is before making judgement. Hence why i ended my post with that question.

i.e. are we talking about £100pm pension income or £1000pm pension income or whatever.

margaretclare

bendix wrote: »

Oh stop your whiney bleeding heart liberalism. If I have 'plenty of money' it's because I worked for it, and I sacrifice today to build savings for myself in the future.

The fact of the matter for the OP's mum is very simple. She has done the right thing and saved for her future. She took personal responsibility. That she has enough to support herself and reduce her dependency on benefits is a good thing, yet the tone of this thread is that she should, instead, have not bothered saving so she can be at the total mercy of the state going forward.

I dunno if you've been living in a cave recently, but the golden age of welfare dependancy is being abolished. And good job too. Anyone giving advice to not save for their own future and isntead rely on state support is doing every other poster a grave disservice.

Not the OP's mum, but the OP's sister-in-law. Some of what the OP wrote is inaccurate:

If she has reached pension age she will be entitled to a free eye check every year and she will also get free prescriptions. Also a free bus pass (as long as these still exist). And winter fuel payment.

I know which I prefer: having made private provision as well as state pension OR being dependent on means-tested benefits. I would NOT like the latter, no matter how advantageous it seems to be at first glance.

bendix

Precisely margaretclare - the idea that it's best to do nothing and give yourself up to the vagaries of state support is palpable nonsense. We are human beings; the only race on earth with some semblance of free will and control over out destiny. That we would voluntarily hand that over is ridiculous.

If the OP's sister-in-law or whatever is going to lose benefits she should congratulate herself on her ability to take care of herself in her old age, rather than regretting that she's done so well she will lose benefits which are - after all - meant to be a safety net for those less capable.

bendix

dunstonh wrote: »

I was waiting for the OP to come back and tell us how much the pension is before making judgement. .

You see, mate, that's where you go wrong. I belong to the great 18th century wit, the Reverent Sydney Smith, school of thought, who admitted that he never read a book before reviewing it on the grounds it might prejudice him.

I have the same theory - why let silly minutae such as facts get in the way of a bloody good opinion?

Baz_2

bendix wrote: »

Oh stop your whiney bleeding heart liberalism. If I have 'plenty of money' it's because I worked for it, and I sacrifice today to build savings for myself in the future.

The fact of the matter for the OP's mum is very simple. She has done the right thing and saved for her future. She took personal responsibility. That she has enough to support herself and reduce her dependency on benefits is a good thing, yet the tone of this thread is that she should, instead, have not bothered saving so she can be at the total mercy of the state going forward.

I dunno if you've been living in a cave recently, but the golden age of welfare dependancy is being abolished. And good job too. Anyone giving advice to not save for their own future and isntead rely on state support is doing every other poster a grave disservice.

Its a crappy system and crappy outcome yet all you can do is say tough luck and get on with it. Nice attitude, but of course that's the whole point isn't it, I'm alright son, now lets go take the mick out of the less fortunate. Its obviously how you get you kicks on here but its a cowardly thing to do IMO. Let the OP have a rant man for goodness sake without having to put up with the internet moral crusaders that seem to lurk on here.

bendix

Who is the less fortunate? What a patronising tone you take.

Fact: She has saved for her personal pension. Good. Well done lady. Full of admiration for you.

But to complain that you lose benefits because you have saved enough to take care of yourself is outrageous. Benefits are there to support those who CAN'T take care of themselves. This lady can. She did. Well done.

You can't have both, though.

I don't know what you're moaning about, precisely. There is no crappy outcome - she is supporting herself. That she loses some money is a damning indictment of there being far too many benefits for peoples' own good. That her relative (the OP) is complaining is a damning indictment that some people think it is far better to let other people take care of you, rather than taking responsibility for doing it oneself.

bendix

And for the record, my scorn is not directed to the sister in law, who has done the right thing to save for her retirement and ween herself off the benefit culture.

My scorn is for those who suggest that such anomalies are 'proof' that you shouldn't bother to save for retirement because it will affect your welfare entitlements.

Such an attitude is cynical, bitter, cruel and potentially very damaging to those starting out with their retirement plans who - frankly - will not be able to rely on the same kind of benefits that Gordon and his boys put in place for all the wrong reasons.

Velcro_Hotdog

Correct me if I'm wrong but if I get £X in benefits then fall back on a pension and state pension which is lower than the £X i was getting as benefits then the benefit payment were to high? Seems odd that these benefits should allow people to live a life style that means losing the benefits makes you worse of?

Thats my view on the subject but I do not think that implying that one should not put money aside for the future as the state will pay a more generous income is wrong.

seven-day-weekend

margaretclare wrote: »

Not the OP's mum, but the OP's sister-in-law. Some of what the OP wrote is inaccurate:

If she has reached pension age she will be entitled to a free eye check every year and she will also get free prescriptions. Also a free bus pass (as long as these still exist). And winter fuel payment.

I know which I prefer: having made private provision as well as state pension OR being dependent on means-tested benefits. I would NOT like the latter, no matter how advantageous it seems to be at first glance.

I too agree with Margaret Clare. Why put your future and your hard-earned retirement at the peril of means-tested benefits that may be taken away? Why have to account to the Benefits Agency for your income/savings? Why have to report changes in circumstances? In short, why put yourself through the hassle of bring accountable to anyone as to what and how you spend your money on - make your own provision and make/spend your money as you like and not tun the risk of having it taken away.

I draw a State Pension and have a small Local Government Pension to come.

jamesd

purch wrote: »

Is this piece of "advice" meant to be taken seriously.

By everyone who wants to be living on means tested benefits for the last 25 plus years of their life. Not my first choice of ways to live for that long.