2015 - what will it hold?

ukcarper

I think you don't understand what I'm saying as I've said I can see why pension age needs to be increased but I feel the notice given wasn't sufficient. £15000 is difficult to find and will be a large proportion of the pension fund and 3 or 4 years isn't long enough to make up the difference.

These woman may have planned but the state pension will have been taken into account and 4 years is not enough time to readjust most woman just work the extra years and moan.

MrRee_2

So, how's everyone's predictions doing?

We are now sixth of the way through the year ..... zero inflation looks likely.

lisyloo

but I feel the notice given wasn't sufficient
These woman may have planned but the state pension will have been taken into account and 4 years is not enough time to readjust most woman just work the extra years and moan.

The points for us to learn from this (because afterall that's what's important):

1) If you expect all government policies to stay constant then there's a chance you'll be dissapointed and a chance you might not get a lot of notice as well. There is a lot of precedent for change and we know there are stresses in the system.so over the medium/long term it's a racing certainty one might even say mathematical certainty.

2) You need contingency in your financial planning for things that might be forseeable - for me that would be a means tested state pension, withdrawal of higher rate tax relief, further rising of state pension age, changes in tax rates etc.

3) You need contingency in your financial planning for things you can't forsee. For me an example is parity with men on annuity rates - actually that one worked in my favour but mostly it's useful to assume any changes won't work in your favour.

MrRee_2

Means Tested State Pension?

So all those people who made private provisions for their old age instead of pi55ing it all up in Benidorm should have their State promise removed from them so that the losers can win?

I don't think so!

And if that's a runner - which it may be from 2050 onwards - so people can plan now and everyone must have private pensions.

And why should those who are the best at what they do be slammed with higher taxes?

We live with people who want to reward losers, sorry - that's not what rewards are used for.

lisyloo

I totally agree with your sentiment MrRee, but if we want a welfare state then the better off HAVE to subsidise the less well off. There isn't an alternative.
If you go without a welfare state then not only will the poor be on the streets but so will ordinary people like you and me if they genuinely fall on hard times - like being unable to work due to cancer.
I do believe the majority of people are good and the majority of benefit claimants are genuine. Yes there are a few scrounges and that really grates, but they are not the majority.

I'm not predicting all the things I mentioned will happen but I will take responsibility and build contingency into my financial planning anyway so I don't end up a miserable moaning old woman (not attractive).

I do think state pension means testing is inevitable, it's just a matter of timing. Perhaps it will be phased for those of us who have already paid in.

MrRee_2

You make some heartfelt points and you are quite correct that the better off should assist with those who genuinely struggle with life, that's fair and just in a good society.

The problem I have, and most people have, is that what is considered by those claiming assistance as essentials are not in my opinion. A smartphone? Not essential. A 50" TV? Not essential. Foreign holidays? Not essential.

And to think that some people on benefits are receiving more than those who are working (and paying for the benefits).

The problem with the benefit state is that those working for £15000 a year are paying for those who are on benefits receiving £28000!

It's not right ....

lisyloo

I agree wholeheartedly.
On a practical level I will still plan for the real world where policies may not always be entirely fair. Those who plan for an unfair world will be better off if we don't have a perfectly fair government in future.
If we do then they will still be better off because they can spend and enjoy their contingency if they don't need it.
I built a contingency in my pension for being female, now I don't need it, but I still have the extra to enjoy.

Fight for fairness, but it makes sense to ensure you can manage if it doesn't happen.

Blacklight

Blacklight wrote: »

Cameron forms a coalition with Farage called 'Con-U'
Miliband and Balls resign.
George Bush Senior, Raul Castro and Mikhail Gorbachev don't see it out.
USA and Cuba become friends again.
8% HPI, practically zero in London but around 20% elsewhere.
GDP 4% overall.
Interest rates 0.75% by Christmas.

Not too far off the mark, still a few weeks left.

mayonnaise

shortchanged wrote: »

New Zealand will retain the rugby world cup.

Well done shorty.
At last, you got something right. :T