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 There is no law that guarantees pensions as that law was revoked in 1993 so government is under no obligation to pay pensions.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

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

Prioritising people in nursing care.

There has been in recent years concern that care in the NHS has not been sufficiently 'patient centred', or responsive to the needs of the patient on a case basis. It has been felt in care that it as been the patient who has had to adapt to the regime of care, rather than the other way around. Putting patients at the centre of care means being responsive to their needs and supporting them through the process of health care delivery.  Patients should not become identikit sausages in a production line. The nurses body, the Nursing and Midwifery Council has responded to this challenge with a revised code of practice reflection get changes in health and social care since the previous code was published in 2008. The Code describes the professional standards of practice and behaviour for nurses and midwives. Four themes describe what nurses and midwives are expected to do: prioritise people practise effectively preserve safety, and promote professionalism and trust. The

When Finance Drives Destruction

Tackling climate change means stopping the funding of rainforest destruction, says a significant study commissioned by the World Wildlife Fund.  The UK's financial services have provided directly over £8.7 billion to 167 different traders, processors, and buyers of forest-risk commodities (cocoa, rubber, timber, soy, beef, palm oil, pulp & paper) from 2013 to 2021.   With direct and indirect investment,  the figure rises to a staggering £200 bn.  Whilst not all that investment is in destructive projects,  the study concludes there is little transparency on the risk.  Finance is the oil in the economic machine.  But it also drives decisions. We all know the importance of money. We borrow to invest. So much depends on it, such as company pensions.  Do we really know what our pension pots are doing? We invest for the future. But what kind of future? Is all investment good?  Much investment is bad. Investment drives the nature of our economy. It drives our decisions as individuals,