Executive Sadman Posted March 28, 2015 Share Posted March 28, 2015 In daily mail land = redistibutive benefits to anyone over 65 is good, regardless of how wealthy they are, redistributive benefits to anyone under 65 is bad, regardless of how poor they are. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
council dweller Posted March 28, 2015 Share Posted March 28, 2015 55 innit? They`ve got an election to win. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dorkins Posted March 28, 2015 Share Posted March 28, 2015 I genuinely hope those 55 and over fight hard to hang onto the wealth they have accrued. I don't. Let them lose it all, maybe then they will have some sympathy with younger people who have no realistic chance of gaining that kind of wealth in the first place. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wish I could afford one Posted March 28, 2015 Share Posted March 28, 2015 I don't. Let them lose it all, maybe then they will have some sympathy with younger people who have no realistic chance of gaining that kind of wealth in the first place. So your hoping that charlatans and shysters succeed in ripping others off? Nice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b w Posted March 28, 2015 Share Posted March 28, 2015 Yes (bw) I`m going to the Citizens advice on Monday to check on the rules, I`m only spending about £600 a month extra. Hi council dweller, would be interested to hear what you find out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
council dweller Posted March 28, 2015 Share Posted March 28, 2015 Okay (bw) I go to the Citizens Advice as a matter of course....once every 6 months. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olliegog Posted March 28, 2015 Share Posted March 28, 2015 I expect that the only way to handle pension is for the state to hand out a set amount per person. No means test, no bus pass, no winter fuel, no widows payment. Any extra you get from a personal or company (any?) you get. Sounds so simple + doable esp. after Gordon Browns 'vote for me' payouts. isn't that what already happens. there is the basic state pension (£113 PW) which is not means tested but is available to all those who have paid enough |NI years how much is a bus pass worth unless you live in London and get a 'freedom pass' the winter fuel payment as I have stated repeatedly is £200 per annum per household (£4 p.w. per couple then) any extra like a personal/company pension is not affected but is taxable (unless you have chosen to cash in said pension at 55 - of your own volition) IN WHICH CASE YOU WILL NOT HAVE ANY EXTRA INCOME TO PLAY WITH - tough you should have realised that money spent is not there any more - mis-selling anyone?) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
winkie Posted March 28, 2015 Share Posted March 28, 2015 Why are they making all the medical advances to prolong life when nobody will be able to afford being old? The government should be encouraging people to smoke and drink so that they have a good life, die young and don't have to worry about how they afford old age. We should have all learnt that most things now are designed to be short-term and expensive.....medical advances mean to prolong life three to six months? Individual responsibility.....want to live well, and for longer no good depending on others to do it for you, unless you are rich. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dorkins Posted March 28, 2015 Share Posted March 28, 2015 So your hoping that charlatans and shysters succeed in ripping others off? Nice. "Ripping off" is a loaded term. Younger people learn every day that they have to be hard and smart with their resources if they want any semblance of economic comfort. If older people can't be bothered to be just as hard and smart let them suffer the consequences. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wish I could afford one Posted March 28, 2015 Share Posted March 28, 2015 "Ripping off" is a loaded term. Younger people learn every day that they have to be hard and smart with their resources if they want any semblance of economic comfort. If older people can't be bothered to be just as hard and smart let them suffer the consequences. Fair enough we're all different. Personally I think excessive fees, charges and taxes on one's investments are wrong no matter whether you're 25 or 75 years of age. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R K Posted March 28, 2015 Share Posted March 28, 2015 Sure, the professional scammers are already circling, but...the biggest raid on pensioner's newly-released wealth will be from inside the family... "Mum - now you've got all this cash will you help me with house deposit/pay off credit cards/university fees/boob job/decent car to get to new job/move up to a three-bedder now your new grandchild is arriving/old student debt/ help us fund this brilliant new business idea we've got etc... After all, you said you'd leave it to me when you died anyway..." Those pressures are going to be very hard to resist.... Infinately more sensible than handin it over to a care home landlord/City insurance company Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
long time lurking Posted March 28, 2015 Share Posted March 28, 2015 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
long time lurking Posted March 28, 2015 Share Posted March 28, 2015 That's exactly why people saved up in pensions and were encouraged to do so - before it became evident it they were just pools of money for the pension fund crooks and government to help themselves to. Now they're going to penalise them for spending the money that the government is releasing to enable them to do that. What do they expect people to do take it out of the pension fund and lock it away in an instant access account buy a BTL Crazy people crazy policies. Thats more like it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
long time lurking Posted March 28, 2015 Share Posted March 28, 2015 I'd like to see the specific rules they are talking about using to prevent exercising the freedoms they've just been granted. I don't think there is a rule. Unless there is something extremely vague which leads to the unsatisfactory position of the state exercising pure subjectivity in whether to grant benefits or not. I would guess if so, that would probably contravene some human right to be able to predict the use of laws. These rules already exist they are called depletion of assets and yes they are based on pure subjectivity Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bloo Loo Posted March 28, 2015 Share Posted March 28, 2015 at what point do they consider the capital as if it was there?..current year?, last year, 10 years before? I think the quote was what they would like to do, not what the regulations say. Of course, if you have a pension and spend the capital current year, you are going to lose some benefits. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
winkie Posted March 28, 2015 Share Posted March 28, 2015 These rules already exist they are called depletion of assets and yes they are based on pure subjectivity Repaying of debt such as mortgage debt should not be counted as depletion of assets.......although I don't see much call for people doing that. Most will end up drawing down their homes as a pension income I would have thought. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billybong Posted March 28, 2015 Share Posted March 28, 2015 Thats more like it Valid point (perhaps as an addition rather than a sustitution but not quibbling) and I understand/appreciate the acid humour but it's also fair to say that isn't always a preference for everyone with a pension fund. For sure it seems to be the government's preference. They should make it law and that would please the DWP as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChumpusRex Posted March 28, 2015 Share Posted March 28, 2015 This is a vague statement with little real law to back it up, certainly nothing objective. The way I would have done it is to require the pension manager to produce a certificate with any pension lump sum withdrawal which would show a "notional annuity value" of the cash sum withdrawn. This would be sent to DWP who would treat the notional annuity value as income for benefits purposes. Draw down £250k in cash, and that would be treated as having a £10k cash income each year for life for the purposes of calculating benefit entitlement. Some care would be needed for the computing the notional value, as obviously you don't want to double count money which is invested for income outside of an annuity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Solitaire Posted March 28, 2015 Share Posted March 28, 2015 (edited) That's exactly why people saved up in pensions and were encouraged to do so - before it became evident it they were just pools of money for the pension fund crooks and government to help themselves to. Now they're going to penalise them for spending the money that the government is releasing to enable them to do that. What do they expect people to do take it out of the pension fund and lock it away in an instant access account to be further thieved away by the government through inflation - or put it in say equities to invest in a company/companies (give it to the directors) that dilute it overnight, go bust etc etc etc. Crazy people crazy policies. I'd like to see the specific rules they are talking about using to prevent exercising the freedoms they've just been granted. I don't think there is a rule. Unless there is something extremely vague which leads to the unsatisfactory position of the state exercising pure subjectivity in whether to grant benefits or not. I would guess if so, that would probably contravene some human right to be able to predict the use of laws. I think what's going on is that the DWP will effectively have access to your pension pot if you haven't bought an annuity. So if you become unwell or incapacitated, when the 12 month contributions phase of Employment and Support Allowance is up you'll get no benefit at all if you have over (I think) £16k. You will have to use your pension pot to support yourself. This may also come into play if you are made redundant/lose your job (I don't know but I suspect it will) This is why they would be able to look at deprivation of capital in deciding if you were eligible for benefits. Even if you have an annuity they will deduct £ for £ if you apply for income based benefits and you're only allowed to keep £85pw (I think) of the annuity if you're on contribution based. Something like that anyway, it's very confusing. If you might be affected DYOR as I've only superficially looked into it for a friend and it's a lot more detailed than what I've said. Edited March 28, 2015 by Solitaire Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FedupTeddiBear Posted March 28, 2015 Share Posted March 28, 2015 Yes but they will never leave old dears dying in the street. They will help them no matter what. Have you ever been to Russia? Lots of old people begging on the street because their pensions became worthless. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
long time lurking Posted March 28, 2015 Share Posted March 28, 2015 Ahh right. This statement refers almost specifically to care home provision. Do you mean 'deprivation of assets'? Is it the same thing or something different? http://www.ageuk.org.uk/home-and-care/care-homes/deprivation-of-assets-in-the-means-test-for-care-home-provision/ Probably I was refused benefits in the late 90s early 20s due to means testing,i thought bollock$ to this and went out and bought a jet ski thinking i was clever, went to sign on clutching my depleted bank balance /statement ,they said no can do due to the above depletion/deprivation rules (can`t remember wich) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
long time lurking Posted March 28, 2015 Share Posted March 28, 2015 (edited) I think what's going on is that the DWP will effectively have access to your pension pot if you haven't bought an annuity. So if you become unwell or incapacitated, when the 12 month contributions phase of Employment and Support Allowance is up you'll get no benefit at all if you have over (I think) £16k. You will have to use your pension pot to support yourself. This may also come into play if you are made redundant/lose your job (I don't know but I suspect it will) This is why they would be able to look at deprivation of capital in deciding if you were eligible for benefits. Even if you have an annuity they will deduct £ for £ if you apply for income based benefits and you're only allowed to keep £85pw (I think) of the annuity if you're on contribution based. Something like that anyway, it's very confusing. If you might be affected DYOR as I've only superficially looked into it for a friend and it's a lot more detailed than what I've said. This would be my guess as it is now ,if you are 55 and made redundant and have a large pension pot it`s ring fenced when it comes to means testing Now with this rule i think it will open the door to include 25% of the pot into the means testing calculations, as there will be no penalty for withdrawing the first 25% This is just a guess Edited March 28, 2015 by long time lurking Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
long time lurking Posted March 28, 2015 Share Posted March 28, 2015 Valid point (perhaps as an addition rather than a sustitution but not quibbling) and I understand/appreciate the acid humour but it's also fair to say that isn't always a preference for everyone with a pension fund. For sure it seems to be the government's preference. They should make it law and that would please the DWP as well. Would not argue with any of that ,but i fear there may be an even more cynical motive for this statement and the change in the rules concerning pensions £12 bn of welfare savings might have something to do with it but who knows only time will tell Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billybong Posted March 28, 2015 Share Posted March 28, 2015 (edited) Would not argue with any of that ,but i fear there may be an even more cynical motive for this statement and the change in the rules concerning pensions £12 bn of welfare savings might have something to do with it but who knows only time will tell +1 Another possibility (which doesn't contradict the welfare savings/BTLs points) is that it's emptying/freeing up pension funds in advance of some sort of eu harmonisation of pension savings in due course. If so they would of course be assuming that the UK will be remaining in the eu - but if the UK leaves they still get the welfare/BTL "advantages" (advantages for them). Edited March 28, 2015 by billybong Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
council dweller Posted March 28, 2015 Share Posted March 28, 2015 A jetski? I think a second hand car or motorbike would be more appropriate for getting to work on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.