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 There is no law that guarantees pensions as that law was revoked in 1993 so government is under no obligation to pay pensions.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

Mr Duncan-Smith offers a disingenuous and divisive comparison

Some time ago, actually it was a long time ago when I was in my early teens, someone close to me bought a table. It was an early flat pack variety. It came with a top and four legs. He followed the instructions to the letter screwing the legs into the top. But when he had completed it the table wobbled. One leg he explained was shorter than the other three; so he sawed a bit from each of the other legs. The table wobbled. One leg, he explained, was longer than the other three. So, he sawed a bit off. The table wobbled. He went on cutting the legs, but the table continued to wobble. Cut, cut, cut! By this time he had convinced himself there was no alternative to it.  He ended up with a very low table indeed, supported by four very stumpy legs and a bit of cardboard placed under one of them to stop it wobbling on the uneven floor.  Mr Duncan-Smith argues that we need a 1% cap on benefits to be 'fair to average earners'. Average  earners have seen their incomes rise by less tha

His way or none? Why I can't vote for Jeremy

There is an assumption that all would be well with the Labour Party if people hadn't expressed their genuine concern with what they consider the inadequacies of Jeremy Corbyn's leadership. If only, it is said, the Parliamentary Labour Party and his Shadow Cabinet had supported him, instead of undermining him, all would have been fine. If they had been quiet and towed the line, then the party would not have been in the mess it is in. So, should they have stayed silent, or speak of their concerns? There comes a point when the cost of staying silent outweighs the cost of speaking out. This is a judgment. Many call it a coup by the PLP. They paint a picture of a right-wing PLP out of touch with the membership.  This is the narrative of the Corbyn camp. But Jeremy Corbyn, over the decades he has been in politics, showed the way.  It was Jeremy Corbyn who opposed almost all Labour leaders and rarely held back from speaking out, or voting time and again against the party line. As