Preparedness for when

[Deleted User]

It IS amazing what doesn't get used isn't it, we have such an abundance of wild things here that very few other people even notice although when we do have a particularly good hazelnut year I am aware of folks out picking them up into baskets alongside me. More and more we have folks blackberrying but no one seems to use the wild plums or sloes and the crab apples just fall and rot (if I don't get to them first that is) and no one touches the elderberries or rowan berries they just wither and fall but I guess the birds eat well even if the people don't.

mardatha

All we have up here are rowanberries and elderberries and there isnt a lot you can do with the rowans, as far as I know. Too high for any plums or apples here.

GreyQueen

Afternoon all.

Well, the stuff is in the ground, now all I need is some rain to give it a start. Have planted carrots, leeks, parsley, parsnip. Am onto the last 6 lb of the 2014 spud crop, currently roasting some with the parsnip dug up yesterday.

Re the pension pot at 55 issue, I can see this being a Grade-A fiasco whose ramifications will cause chaos for 20 + years to come. I can kind-of see the point if you know you are terminally ill and either have no partner (or your pension has no benefits accruing to a surviving partner) or it's such a !!!!ant little amount that it'd be about £20/ year. I have seen pensions that pitiful when people come to claim income-based benefits.:(

I think it's motivated by the grubbyment's urge to kick-start a whole load of spending in an economy which is mostly static, due to the flatness or even reversal of people's earnings. The money returned to people from PPI has made a noticable uptick in the economy, as people spend it on holibobs, cars etc. So, I guess they think that the pension pots will achieve the same but better.

Going to be an interesting conundrum if people withdraw and spend their private pension and then this puts them, in their state pension years, into the realm of means-testing. There is already a rule about deprivation of capital, by which people have spent money irresponsibly to bring themselves under the threshold of eligibility. I wouldn't like to be exposed to the possible accusation that your cruise/ Caribean getaway and other non-essential spending was dep of cap.

We shall have to wait and see. Bearing in mind that this is being done by the grubbyment, I'd take it as a given that it'll end in tears for the public.

Frugalsod

GreyQueen wrote: »

Re the pension pot at 55 issue, I can see this being a Grade-A fiasco whose ramifications will cause chaos for 20 + years to come. I can kind-of see the point if you know you are terminally ill and either have no partner (or your pension has no benefits accruing to a surviving partner) or it's such a !!!!ant little amount that it'd be about £20/ year. I have seen pensions that pitiful when people come to claim income-based benefits.:(

I think it's motivated by the grubbyment's urge to kick-start a whole load of spending in an economy which is mostly static, due to the flatness or even reversal of people's earnings. The money returned to people from PPI has made a noticable uptick in the economy, as people spend it on holibobs, cars etc. So, I guess they think that the pension pots will achieve the same but better.

Going to be an interesting conundrum if people withdraw and spend their private pension and then this puts them, in their state pension years, into the realm of means-testing. There is already a rule about deprivation of capital, by which people have spent money irresponsibly to bring themselves under the threshold of eligibility. I wouldn't like to be exposed to the possible accusation that your cruise/ Caribean getaway and other non-essential spending was dep of cap.

We shall have to wait and see. Bearing in mind that this is being done by the grubbyment, I'd take it as a given that it'll end in tears for the public.

It is also crazy that the government calculation of lost income is well out of kilter with reality. Also if you get a lump sum from a pension pot then if you are on benefits you might get a visit from the DWP to see what you spent the money on. Though if you cleared existing debts that might actually be fine.

I agree with you that they might think that they can get a GDP boost like the previous mis-selling scandals. It is also very short termist. Those that mis-spend their money will become dependent on a state pension to cope in their later lives.

Pension reforms are massively overdue but this does nothing to address the real problems.

moneyistooshorttomention

My cynical take is that a large part of reason why the Government has done this pension pot at 55 plus thing is indeed to have a blast of spending hitting the economy and it may not be a coincidence that its just before an Election.

Obviously, as an ex-public sector person I duly spent a huge chunk of my pension lump sum on renovating the house I moved to - so it was all used usefully and certainly not blown. That being the case - I tend to think other people have the same right I had to do exactly that.

My own take on the couple of weeny murmurs I've already heard about the possibility of people being means-tested later on in retirement if they do spend it is I don't know if the Government would do this or no. What I do know is they couldn't "backdate" it and means test on any pension lump sum anyone has already received (via any means) and subsequently spent PRIOR to any means-testing coming in. You cant get back (and nor can they....) money that has already been spent on the basis of how things stood at the time you spent it. Otherwise floodgates would open to the Government looking back 10 years after this event, 20 years after that event, etc and trying to claim back peoples own money from them that they had already spent that 10 years/20 years/etc previously in full knowledge they were entitled to do so.

No personal interest declared on that one, as I'm not eligible for any means-tested benefits now and never will be (unless you count paying a pensioner rate to get into things:rotfl:).

Witless

Frugalsod wrote: »

. Though if you cleared existing debts that might actually be fine.

AFAIK it's only if they're deemed 'priority debts'.

nuatha

moneyistooshorttomention wrote: »

My own take on the couple of weeny murmurs I've already heard about the possibility of people being means-tested later on in retirement if they do spend it is I don't know if the Government would do this or no. What I do know is they couldn't "backdate" it and means test on any pension lump sum anyone has already received (via any means) and subsequently spent PRIOR to any means-testing coming in. You cant get back (and nor can they....) money that has already been spent on the basis of how things stood at the time you spent it. Otherwise floodgates would open to the Government looking back 10 years after this event, 20 years after that event, etc and trying to claim back peoples own money from them that they had already spent that 10 years/20 years/etc previously in full knowledge they were entitled to do so.

It used to be the case that the government could reassess spending that had occurred up to 7 years prior to present, with the intent of assessing whether monies had been spent in order to avoid liability for care costs. Such assessments were measured against current criteria and medical position rather than those which applied at the time of the spend. I know of one case where a fit 66 year old bought an expensive sports car, which was deemed to be avoidance three years later after they had a stroke as it wasn't suitable transportation for someone in a wheelchair.
The one thing that is certain is that the government can change the rules as they see fit or to suit whatever agenda they wish.
Not only does the UK not have a prohibition on retrospective legislation, UK governments have passed legislation which was specifically retrospective and the current chancellor has promised to create future retrospective legislation to tackle tax avoidance and Governments have done so regularly in the past (examples include section 94 of the Finance Act 2006 on notional payments, section 58 of the Finance Act 2008 on double taxation and section 45 of the Finance Act 2010 on the repo rules).

GreyQueen

They write the rules and write them to fall in their favour. Oh, and the word which fell afoul of the sweary filter was p i s s a n t, in case anyone was wondering. I didn't think it was a swear word, but MSE has other ideas......:rotfl:

I thought of you guys when I found this book in a chazzer yesterday for 50p - The Mammoth Book of Apocalyptic SF, ed by Mike Ashley. Got lots of famous SF writers in there like Stephen Baxter, Robert Silverberg etc. Perfect holiday reading for us, hey?

jk0

I was wondering earlier if it was a swearword within another word. What would happen if you refer to S!!!!horpe?

Edit: LOL

nuatha

GreyQueen wrote: »

They write the rules and write them to fall in their favour. Oh, and the word which fell afoul of the sweary filter was p i s s a n t, in case anyone was wondering. I didn't think it was a swear word, but MSE has other ideas......:rotfl:

If the rules don't fall in their favour, they just rewrite them.

I thought of you guys when I found this book in a chazzer yesterday for 50p - The Mammoth Book of Apocalyptic SF, ed by Mike Ashley. Got lots of famous SF writers in there like Stephen Baxter, Robert Silverberg etc. Perfect holiday reading for us, hey?

Looks interesting and for 50p it was a must buy.
I'm currently indulging in light hearted easy reads, current one is tailor made plagues for sale to the highest bidders.

MiL is slowly regaining some use of her left side, we've started planning options for bringing her home. I also need to revist planning for someone in hospital, trying to have someone there every visiting session is a logistic nightmare, exhausting and expensive - fuel and parking are north of £100 per week, way more than I'd budgeted planning wise. I'd also failed to consider such a long (potential) stay - we've had fairly major traumas that didn't necessitate a two week hospital stay, so had failed to consider what may be months.