2015 - what will it hold?

TheBlueHorse

it would be ok if they taxed the RICH - but they don't. They tax the middle income earners. People on 50k - even 100k in London are NOT RICH. Yes, they may have more than some, but they are not RICH. Rich should mean that you have more than £1m in assets and earn £250k a year - as a starter. Even then, if you have a house worth £1m and a mortgage debt of 900k are you rich? You're just massively in debt.

Tax the rich a bit more than the poor, but make sure they are actually rich and not just "slightly above average".

CLAPTON

Pennywise wrote: »

But our supposed richness and lifestyle is based on debt.

We spend more on debt interest than we do on education. We're lucky that interest rates are so low - a few percentage points higher and we'd be spending more that on the NHS making the current year deficits even worse.

Total govt debt is over a trillion pounds.

It will only get worse as the number of pensioners is forecast to increase greatly.

Our supposed richness is simply a ponzi scheme that will eventually collapse.

You have failed to mention the huge value of our assets that have been funded by our debts.

Maybe some would prefer to live debt free in an African village with no running water and no education or opportunity, than in our country will excellent infrastructure, education, health service etc albeit with debt: I think the majority wouldn't make that choice. The debts don't seem to worry the huge number of people that would like to come and live here.

Whatever is the relation between our annual interest debt payments (made mostly to British people with government savings) and spending on education?

For every £1 trillion in debt there are £1 trillion in savings

fordcapri2000

MrRee wrote: »

So the lazy chav who hasn't paid at all .... gets a bigger Pension than someone who has paid in for 50 years??

Yeah, right, that's fair then!

I am quite shocked, you are actually posting some quite sensible stuff now, and much of what I agree with.
I have quite a substantial pension pot myself, and the minute I hit 55 I am taking control of it.

But is your "pension pot" the property you got your hands on through RTB your pension pot?, serious question.

ukcarper

lisyloo wrote: »

That's a tricky one, because I don't believe it was ever fair for women for retire earlier than men, although I do understand that expectation is very important especially if you've based a lifetimes financial planning on it.
If I was in their situation I would consider how much extra life expectancy I'd e.

I'm not surprised lots of woman are happy, with a couple of years to retirement it's not good being told you have to work another 3 years or more.

lisyloo

with a couple of years to retirement it's not good being told you have to work another 3 years or more

I am sympathetic and I do not agree with drastic sudden changes (did anyone receive the notification you describe at such short notice?)
How does the government expect anyone to plan long term if they keep moving the goalposts? However:

1) You can retire whenever you like.
It's only the date you receive your state pension that's being changed. It's been known for quite some time (35 years by me) that relying solely on the state pension wouold leave you fairly poor and exposed.

2) Whilst some women got used to the idea of early retirement (and who can blame them) that doesn't mean that what they were originally offered was ever equitable.

If I was one of those women I would not be happy.
Having said that I believe that if they've been working (and not on benefits or caring) then they should have made their own arrangements for their own retirement and not left themselves in this position where they are totally dependent on the state pension.
Of course if they are not working through disability or caring then you can't do that, but in that case you're not going to retire from work either.

Blacklight

tkane wrote: »

The lazy chav gets working age benefits, housing benefit, free prescriptions etc. whilst you are out working and paying tax.

Is that fair?

Do you propose to dismantle the welfare state?

Well now you mention it...

ukcarper

lisyloo wrote: »

I am sympathetic and I do not agree with drastic sudden changes (did anyone receive the notification you describe at such short notice?)
How does the government expect anyone to plan long term if they keep moving the goalposts? However:

1) You can retire whenever you like.
It's only the date you receive your state pension that's being changed. It's been known for quite some time (35 years by me) that relying solely on the state pension wouold leave you fairly poor and exposed.

2) Whilst some women got used to the idea of early retirement (and who can blame them) that doesn't mean that what they were originally offered was ever equitable.

If I was one of those women I would not be happy.
Having said that I believe that if they've been working (and not on benefits or caring) then they should have made their own arrangements for their own retirement and not left themselves in this position where they are totally dependent on the state pension.
Of course if they are not working through disability or caring then you can't do that, but in that case you're not going to retire from work either.

A woman born at the beginning of 1953 will receive pension in Nov 2015 a woman born at end of 1953 will get pension in March 2019 this change was announced in 2011.

I can see reason for increase in age easy for me to say as I'm not affected, but I can see why a woman expecting to retire in 2016 would not be happy when in 2011 she is told it will be 2019.

Whether they have other pension arrangements is not relevant as there expected retirement income will £100 a week down.

lisyloo

I can see reason for increase in age easy for me to say as I'm not affected, but I can see why a woman expecting to retire in 2016 would not be happy when in 2011 she is told it will be 2019.

I really don't think it's fair to drop big changes on people at short notice, so fundamentally we agree on that.

Whether they have other pension arrangements is not relevant as there expected retirement income will £100 a week down.

Those with access to another pot can choose to drawdown however they want, so they could choose to work the extra 3 years and see no income drop or they could retire at their original age and take a bit less over a longer period, or some compromise in between.
So I do think it's relevant because providing you can meet your minimum living costs, then you can choose when you want to retire even though I accept that means living on less.
If you are planning to fund about 30 years, then 3 is not very many in the scheme of things.

If I had made specific plans perhaps to co-incide with a partners retirement age then I'd probably go for the original age and take a little more in drawdown for the first 3 years and a little less over the next 27 after that.
Plenty of people have to change their expectations all the time through ill health or redundancy - which doesn't make it ok, but it does happen a lot.
I am expecting my own retirement to be dictated by my own career & health and my partners career & health, plus the success or our investments as well as government policy. A lot of variables.

Those who don't have enough in the pot to do that may not have the choice in which case they have to work the extra 3 years, which I agree is tough, but anyone who has planned not to live on the breadline should have some flexibility over when to retire, whether it's caused by health, career, investments or government.

ukcarper

lisyloo wrote: »

I really don't think it's fair to drop big changes on people at short notice, so fundamentally we agree on that.

Those with access to another pot can choose to drawdown however they want, so they could choose to work the extra 3 years and see no income drop or they could retire at their original age and take a bit less over a longer period, or some compromise in between.
So I do think it's relevant because providing you can meet your minimum living costs, then you can choose when you want to retire even though I accept that means living on less.
If you are planning to fund about 30 years, then 3 is not very many in the scheme of things.

If I had made specific plans perhaps to co-incide with a partners retirement age then I'd probably go for the original age and take a little more in drawdown for the first 3 years and a little less over the next 27 after that.
Plenty of people have to change their expectations all the time through ill health or redundancy - which doesn't make it ok, but it does happen a lot.
I am expecting my own retirement to be dictated by my own career & health and my partners career & health, plus the success or our investments as well as government policy. A lot of variables.

Those who don't have enough in the pot to do that may not have the choice in which case they have to work the extra 3 years, which I agree is tough, but anyone who has planned not to live on the breadline should have some flexibility over when to retire, whether it's caused by health, career, investments or government.

You are in a fortunate position if you can do that, many of these woman will be in low paid jobs and may have had long periods out of work bringing up children that £100 could be a large percentage of there expected income and over 3 years in £15000 which is half the average pension pot.

lisyloo

There should be a man here somewhere :-) it's a biological neccesity (or was back then).
A minority of women will be abandoned, but the majority will have a husband or ex-husband. If he's alive he should be supporting his wife if the decision was for him to work and her to care. If he's dead then she should get his pension fund either as a lump sum or pension and actually will better off financially as he has no living costs. If divorced there should have been a settlement that took into account the fact that she cared and he worked. Women are well catered for in the divorce courts where caring and loss of career is considered of value and taken into account.

There are two scenarios here.
Lack of financial planning for which there are consequences and unfortunate circumstances e.g. Abandonment.

Whilst I sympathise for the minority who fell on reduced corcumstances I don't sympathise those with those couples who failed to plan but decided it was ok not to work for a long period because someone else would pick up the tab.

You appear to be saying anyone who's done well is lucky and I know many who have made active choices to defer gratification.

I'm not a high earner, but I put money into my pension and choose to have an old car. That's not luck, that's planning.
If you want to reduce my efforts to luck, then that's your choice - but you are wrong - it's an active choice.

If you are saying some didn't have any choice, then perhaps they should have reconsidered their family planning or child care arrangements?
The right to family life is a basic right. The right to looads of time off and a luxury pension at everyone else's expense as well is not a God given right.

I have said I don't agree with sudden changes but there does need to be some fairness also to younger women who don't get a pension until 67 & 68 and possibly older.