Boost your State Pension by up to £25 a week - oh really?

moneyistooshorttomention

dryhat wrote: »

A voluntary "bail-in" and a promise to pay you back from a bunch of crooks?

No thanks.

"Bail-in" is the exact term I was thinking of for this....and my thoughts are running along the lines of "First they ASK for some of OAP's savings (on the excuse that you will get it back again later on), then they TELL you they are just plain taking some and don't intend to give them back again".

Seems to me that the Government are after a short-term injection of funds and its akin to people taking on debts, without having actually worked out where the money is to come from to pay those debts back again.

Now what is that idea hovering around the edge of my mind of savings lodged with the Government of the time by us some decades back? Wasn't it called "War Bonds", as in it was supposed to be a personal investment by people doing it, but they didn't get that money back again? Correct me if I'm wrong on that one....but I've a vague idea that was a little scheme some decades back for the Government of the day to get a "loan":cool: from its citizens...

EDIT: the Wikipedia article on war bonds makes interesting reading...and I've just got as far as the bit that makes it plain some never did get paid back by the Government.

lvader

MrRee wrote: »

Pay in £25,000 lump sum and gain £1,300 a year taxed? I would have to live a long time to get that back!

That looks competitive compared to annuities.

Thrugelmir

Isn't this too rebalance the fact that people retiring after April 2016 will (potentially) receive the new flat rate pension of £140 per week.

moneyistooshorttomention

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Isn't this too rebalance the fact that people retiring after April 2016 will (potentially) receive the new flat rate pension of £140 per week.

Well that's what they are telling us....:cool:

Frankly, even if they really mean it when they say "You'll get your money back again later on, ie as extra pension" at the time those words come out of their mouth...I still think that, come the time, the money wouldn't be there in the coffers to hand back to us. Reason being...they'll have spent the lot on other things by then..."robbing Peter to pay Paul".

prowla

Pay in £25000, get £25/week = £1300/year.
25000/1300 = 19.
So, you have to live 20 years to see a return on that investment.
Or in other words, at age 85.

chewmylegoff

Linton wrote: »

Looks like cynics cant do arithmetic and know little about the cost of pensions. The proposal, which I guess would only apply to people who have not been able to get the full quota of NI years is much more generous than is available on the market. For £900 you get an extra inflation adjusted pension of £52. That's a 5.7% annuity rate. Commercial rates for an inflation proofed pension are about 3%.

It's not clear whether you'll get any tax relief on that £900 contribution though. If it has already been taxed at 20% and you get no tax relief on the contribution then it's more like 4.5%. If taxed at 40% then more like 3% (at least when you compare to annuity rates relating to untaxed pension pots which you can also take a 25% tax free lump sum from).

System

Would paying in £25,000 count as deprivation of capital?
Would it be a useful way of legally "losing" some excess savings in order to qualify for benefits?

moneyistooshorttomention

Clifford_Pope wrote: »

Would paying in £25,000 count as deprivation of capital?
Would it be a useful way of legally "losing" some excess savings in order to qualify for benefits?

The Law of Unintended Consequences coming into play?

A very valid point.

Whilst I was still working age, I had spells of unemployment. The second I saw my chance to "invest" some spare income I had into ensuring a better pension in the future I took it...and one of the main reasons I did so was in order to have a form of savings that the DWP couldn't take into account should I ever become unemployed again:D;). I never did become unemployed again in the event, but it was most gratifying to know that I had thousands of £s stashed safely to one side that the DWP couldn't get at if I did...(as it was "future pension money"). I am now using that "future pension money" as pension as per the basic plan, but it was nice to know some tens of thousands of £s of my savings was safe in that respect. It wasn't enough money to swop to a better house and I didn't want to spend on it "consumer goodies" I didn't particularly want in order to make sure it was safe that way and that only left "future pension money" as a way to keep it safe.

Tancred

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I really just fail to see the point in this.

OK, I see that it could buy some votes.

But this will help out the people who need help the very least.

Those that need the extra £25 maximum per week won't be those who have up to £25k sloshing around that they can commit to a one off lump sum pension payment.

It's just ridiculous. Helping the wealthy again at the expense of everyone one in society.

I agree that it benefits the better off (not necessarily only the wealthy) but it's still better than nothing! I would like to see the £1,300 added on to the state pension for free and then higher tax on wealthy pensioners but there is no chance that this will happen under the current government.

moneyistooshorttomention

:cool:

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-01-29/ira-confiscation-its-happening

See "IRA confiscation: It's happening" article.

Hmmm...now isn't it any day now that the last "sticking plaster" the US Government stuck on its finances comes off and they have to think again on what next? Well...that's putting it in very simple language....summat to do with that debt ceiling the US Government came up against a couple of months back and there they were telling some of their employees not to bother to come to work because they wouldn't be paid...and then they "stuck another sticking plaster" on it and kicked the situation down the road a bit (think it comes up again in February?).

Wanted Ad in effect = Quick injection of funds wanted and just which age group do we think will have the biggest savings?