Skip to main content

It is not 'insulting' to be concerned about pensioner finances

As the analysis of Osborne's budget unfolds there is concern that the changes to pension funds will leave pensioners vulnerable in relation to financial decisions. This has been dismissed by government spokepersons as being 'insulting' to the ability of pensioners to make decisions. This must be one of the most absurd statements of the week. I would not call it insulting. In the light of so much recent legal action on mis-selling of financial products and inappropriate marketing I would call it sensible concern.

Unless the market is regulated and appropriate safeguards put in place the I think we will all be vulnerable. It is clear that this has not been thought through. There will be a host of new and difficult to understand financial products flooding the market. It will be a mess.

Osborne has taken a bold decision but he appears to have taken it without proper regard for the consequences.

Comments

  1. The generation before the 1950s Baby Boomers lived in a different world and that parent generation are too trusting.

    As the old have got poorer, there will be the temptation to take the whole sum and live off it, to pay fuel bills and general survival bills.

    After 2016, a huge chunk of money will be lost to pensioners with the Flat Rate Pension that will end housewife's state pension, pension credit, SERPs, S2P, so the mere 30 per cent who will get the full flat rate, will actually be getting less state pension, with current pensioners left forever on lower state pension. There is no law that guarantees pensions as that law was revoked in 1993 so government is under no obligation to pay pensions. The Category D pension for new claimants turning 80 after 2016 is lost.

    The loss of £3000 of tax allowance at 65 from 2013, will also have reduced substantially pensioners money.

    https://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/state-pension-at-60-now

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The lion and the wildebeest

Birds flock, fish school, bees swarm, but social being is more than simply sticking together.  Social groups enable specialisation and a sharing of abilities, and enhances ability, learning and creating new tricks. The more a group works together, the more effective they become as a team.  Chimpanzees learn from each other how to use stones to crack nuts, or sticks to get termites.  All around us we see cooperation and learning in nature.  Nature is inherently creative.  Pulling together becomes a rallying cry during a crisis.  We have heard it throughout the coronavirus pandemic.  "We are all in this together", a mantra that encourages people to adopt a common strategy. In an era of 'self-interest' and 'survival of the fittest,'  and 'selfish gene', we lose sight of the obvious conclusion from the evidence all around us.   Sticking together is more often the better approach.  This is valid for the lion as it is also for the wildebeest.   We don't

Noise pollution puts nature at risk

 "I just want a bit of peace and quiet!" Let's get away from all the hustle and bustle; the sound of endless traffic on the roads, of the trains on the railway, and the planes in the sky; the incessant drone; the noise. We live in a world of man-made noise; screeching, bellowing, on-and-on in an unmelodious cacophony.  This constant background noise has now become a significant health hazard.   With average background levels of 60 decibels, those who live in cities are often exposed to noise over 85 decibels, enough to cause significant hearing loss over time.  It causes stress, high blood pressure, headache and loss of sleep and poor health and well-being.   In nature, noise has content and significance.  From the roar of the lion, the laughing of a hyena,  communication is essential for life; as the warning of danger, for bonding as a group or a pair, finding a mate, or for establishing a position in a hierarchy - chattering works.  Staying in touch is vital to working

Ian Duncan-Smith says he wants to make those on benefits 'better people'!

By any account, the government's austerity strategy is utilitarian. It justifies its approach by the presumed potential ends. It's objective is to cut the deficit, but it has also adopted another objective which is specifically targeted. It seeks to drive people off benefits and 'back to work'.  The two together are toxic to the poorest in society. Those least able to cope are the most affected by the cuts in benefits and the loss of services. It is the coupling of these two strategic aims that make their policies ethically questionable. For, by combining the two, slashing the value of benefits to make budget savings while also changing the benefits system, the highest burden falls on a specific group, those dependent on benefits. For the greater good of the majority, a minority group, those on benefits, are being sacrificed; sacrificed on the altar of austerity. And they are being sacrificed in part so that others may be spared. Utilitarian ethics considers the ba