Penalised for putting a 'bit by for your old age' no longer

pqrdef

The trouble with savings is that you can't afford to spend them in case you need them later. People are still going to have to look at what the council will pay for if they haven't any money, but not if they have.

chucky

RenovationMan wrote: »

Finally.

I'll be surprised if they implement this by 2013 but at least it will get them some votes and make them more popular.

CLAPTON

revenue 'neutral' means winners and losers

vivatifosi

macaque wrote: »

.
Dear Mr Vivatifosi

Is there any possibility that you could remove this preachy health message on each of your posts? I come on this website for light relief and if melanomas are going to get me, they are going to have to get in the queue. Its a bit like going to a resaurant and ordering steak only to have the waiter say; "how would you like it cooked sir, and by the way, here is a picture of advanced colonic cancer. Maybe you might prefer the vegetarian dish sir". The bottom line is that I would prefer to enjoy life to full and conk out before I become dependant on the tyrrany of underfunded social services.

Yours sincerely

Macaque

No. If you don't like it, do the same as with everything else round here, don't read it. Better still, stick me on ignore.

coastline

Think people who have paid towards second pensions...serps ..or whatever its called now...will have them scrapped off and get the new basic...
Considering many folk have hardly any savings towards private pensions then benefits will be merged with the new system..
Theres the new tax allowances to consider which look like being frozen until the under 65yo's catch up...so its going to be around £10,000 for a while...
Higher pensions will also mean more tax off private and company pensions...looks like a lot of nibbling here and there from the government...
Load up your cash Isa's I suppose to keep your hard earned cash in your pocket...hopefully this stays in place..

wotsthat

CLAPTON wrote: »

revenue 'neutral' means winners and losers

It doesn't have to. By extending retirement age the higher pension won't need to be paid to people until later in life and a number of people will die before that anyway and get nothing. The grim reaper helps to fund the plan to a certain extent.

Also by deciding what a minimum income is for an adequate lifestyle and paying it to everyone it should drastically reduce admin costs which I'd imagine are substantial.

armour

So those who were 'contracted out' of SERPS/S2P are winners?

coastline

a piece from March..

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/pensions/article-2118206/BUDGET-2012-Current-pensioners-EXCLUDED-new-140-week-state-pension.html

vivatifosi

armour wrote: »

So those who were 'contracted out' of SERPS/S2P are winners?

That's my understanding, though I could be wrong. A couple of years ago though, IIRC people were advised to contract back into SERPS. It's a big fat mess, like most things to do with pensions.

macaque_2

vivatifosi wrote: »

macaque wrote: »

No. If you don't like it, do the same as with everything else round here, don't read it. Better still, stick me on ignore.

Well fair enough and it certainly looks like I'm on my own on this one. But why not mix it up a bit? There's plenty to go for. Perhaps you could have 'Safe use of ladders' for Saturday and don't eat too much on Sunday. Friday will definitely be STD warning night.