Accessing your pension for the first time? Pension Wise guidance is now a requirement

Albermarle

zagfles said:

Malthusian said:

gm0 said:

IFAs say this is not proper advice tailored to circumstance which is correct but not super relevant as it wasn't meant to be.

[8 year old petty grievance] That's not what George Osborne said when he set it up [/8 year old petty grievance].

It is relevant to the ordinary Jo/e who (like Osborne) doesn't know there is such a thing as a distinction between advice and guidance, and think the Pension Wise assistant is going to tell them what they should do, like their GP does.

I am broadly with the communitarian side. It is a sticking plaster to deter people from cashing in their pensions en masse, blaming the Government for not stopping them and then demanding extra support from the state. It is far too early to say whether it has succeeded, but it seems to be working OK so far. (That's about all the analysis you can do without a few million quid from the Government to conduct an independent inquiry.)

Attitudes in and towards govt do seem to have changed a lot in the last 8 years or so. When the freedoms were announced there was a libertarian attitude - the pensions minister saying he was "relaxed" if people decided to blow their pension on a Lamborghini and live off the state pension https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-26649162

But since the pandemic, furlough, lockdowns etc there seems to be more of an expectation of a "nanny state" who tell you what to do and look after you and make sure you don't do something silly, and if anything goes wrong it's not your fault it's the govt's fault for letting you be silly. You see it on the BBC news practically every night - there's some social issue covered (eg poverty, obesity, debt, alocholism etc) and the implication is it's always the govt's fault for not doing enough, never the affected peoples' fault for making bad decisions.

It is not just the social issues, where the govt is supposed to solve all problems. Many businesses seem to think the same.

Malthusian

zagfles said:

Attitudes in and towards govt do seem to have changed a lot in the last 8 years or so. When the freedoms were announced there was a libertarian attitude - the pensions minister saying he was "relaxed" if people decided to blow their pension on a Lamborghini and live off the state pension https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-26649162

But since the pandemic, furlough, lockdowns etc there seems to be more of an expectation of a "nanny state" who tell you what to do and look after you and make sure you don't do something silly, and if anything goes wrong it's not your fault it's the govt's fault for letting you be silly. You see it on the BBC news practically every night - there's some social issue covered (eg poverty, obesity, debt, alocholism etc) and the implication is it's always the govt's fault for not doing enough, never the affected peoples' fault for making bad decisions.

I'm not convinced that this attitude has become more prevalent since Thatcher's famous "They blame society, and who is society?" comment, or since the "nanny state" term became fashionable in the Blair era. Back when the Government passed a new law every single day trying to abolish poverty, obesity etc etc. T'was ever thus.

The BBC has always seen its job as "holding Government to account" which means sticking a microphone in front of Ministers and saying "Why aren't you magically solving this problem for us?". Whatever colour tie / cravat the Minister is wearing. It's a cryptoservile attitude but it's better than living in a country where state TV sticks a microphone in front of Ministers and asks "Isn't it great that you've solved all our problems and denazified Ukraine, does it ever get hard being so wonderful".

You can still blow your DC fund on a Lamborghini and live off the State Pension if you want, and there's no prospect of reversing that - for now. The abolition of earnings-linked State Pension and its replacement with age-restricted Universal Basic Income + auto-enrolment is another step on the road towards individual responsibility.

The Government has recently rowed back on sugar taxes due to the cost of living crisis. Another blow struck by reality against the nanny state.

There is one financial area where people are definitely more "nannied" than they were ten years ago, which is bank transfers. But that was an essential quid pro quo for sticking liability for frauds and fat-finger errors on the banks. And even with the annoying "Are you sure you want to send this £10 to Bob?" pop ups to click past, it's still much quicker than when you had to get your chequebook out.

Eight years ago the pensions industry was dead against pension freedoms (but the jig was up so it was tough luck). And yet if the Government tried to bring back compulsory annuitisation the pension companies would lobby hard against it. Why? Because what constitutes the pensions industry has changed. Reversing pension freedoms would be disastrous for the pensions industry, as people would stop saving into pensions en masse and spend their money / invest in BTLs instead.

zagfles

Malthusian said:

zagfles said:

Attitudes in and towards govt do seem to have changed a lot in the last 8 years or so. When the freedoms were announced there was a libertarian attitude - the pensions minister saying he was "relaxed" if people decided to blow their pension on a Lamborghini and live off the state pension https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-26649162

But since the pandemic, furlough, lockdowns etc there seems to be more of an expectation of a "nanny state" who tell you what to do and look after you and make sure you don't do something silly, and if anything goes wrong it's not your fault it's the govt's fault for letting you be silly. You see it on the BBC news practically every night - there's some social issue covered (eg poverty, obesity, debt, alocholism etc) and the implication is it's always the govt's fault for not doing enough, never the affected peoples' fault for making bad decisions.

I'm not convinced that this attitude has become more prevalent since Thatcher's famous "They blame society, and who is society?" comment, or since the "nanny state" term became fashionable in the Blair era. Back when the Government passed a new law every single day trying to abolish poverty, obesity etc etc. T'was ever thus.

The BBC has always seen its job as "holding Government to account" which means sticking a microphone in front of Ministers and saying "Why aren't you magically solving this problem for us?". Whatever colour tie / cravat the Minister is wearing. It's a cryptoservile attitude but it's better than living in a country where state TV sticks a microphone in front of Ministers and asks "Isn't it great that you've solved all our problems and denazified Ukraine, does it ever get hard being so wonderful".

The thing that amuses me is when the shout questions across Downing Street. They know they aren't going to get an answer, they never ever do. If they want to genuinely ask questions, do it in a press conference or arrange an interview, rather than shouting at a minister hurrying to a meeting. I quite like the solution suggested here https://www.telegraph.co.uk/columnists/2022/05/28/journalists-should-stop-shouting-boris/ (might be behind a paywall)