Population decline

[BoldonLad]

And she's in the lucky position of having insurance, having a provider who paid out, and being able to afford the copay. Let's hope she doesn't lose the job she's having to work just so she has health coverage eh?

She's just so lucky that her retirement plan involves not retiring.

I missed that bit, where was that said?

 

[icowden]

I missed that bit, where was that said?

It wasn't specifically. I just suggested that the main reason I can see for a US citizen to be working full time at the age of 70 is that work provides health insurance in the good ol' USA. You can't retire unless you are rich or have a very good retirement package.

 

[Mr Celine]

and, if there is such a thing, a private sector inflation proof pension,

What makes you think there isn't?

 

[BoldonLad]

What makes you think there isn't?

To me, that phrase does not mean there are no private sector inflation proof pension, it means, they are not commonplace. 😊

 

[Psamathe]

To me, that phrase does not mean there are no private sector inflation proof pension, it means, they are not commonplace. 😊

I have not yet started on my private pension pots but I do periodically check income levels from buying an annuity and it's always a check box option "Do you want the pension increased for inflation". Say you want inflation increases decreases the monthly amount (which makes sense).

Ian

 

[BoldonLad]

I have not yet started on my private pension pots but I do periodically check income levels from buying an annuity and it's always a check box option "Do you want the pension increased for inflation". Say you want inflation increases decreases the monthly amount (which makes sense).

Ian

Yes, but, I suspect you will find the "inflation increase" is capped.

My "main" works pension has an annual "inflation" increase, but, it is capped at 5%. Not a problem when inflation is (supposedly) running at 3%, but, who knows what future rates may be? The lack of a "guaranteed" inflation increase in the private sector pension market is hardly a surprise, how could they guarantee funding for potential increases, the size of which are completely outside of their control?

The "triple lock" on the State Pension is a time bomb, for the same reason, and, IMHO, it is only a matter of time before it is abandoned. The only question is, "which Party/Government is going to risk the backlash?".

 

[Psamathe]

Yes, but, I suspect you will find the "inflation increase" is capped.

My experience is limited to checking the appropriate box of the getting an estimate. I've only every been doing "finger in the air" looking into what I can get from my pension pots.

The "triple lock" on the State Pension is a time bomb, for the same reason, and, IMHO, it is only a matter of time before it is abandoned. The only question is, "which Party/Government is going to risk the backlash?".

When people talk about reverting to a "Double lock" the double lock is normally increases locked to wage growth of inflation and dropping the 2½%. And IO suspect the 2½% is not so crucial anyway (and probably wouldn't reduce the costs a lot.

Trouble is that (New) State Pension alone is difficult to cope with so effectively reducing its value over time would force a lot of people into poverty.

My guess is that elements of the State pension will become means tested. I think that's probably fairer as it would protect those on lower incomes/lower assets. But I'm unsure how it would be introduced nor what politicians would be up to introducing it.

Ian

 

[BoldonLad]

My experience is limited to checking the appropriate box of the getting an estimate. I've only every been doing "finger in the air" looking into what I can get from my pension pots.

When people talk about reverting to a "Double lock" the double lock is normally increases locked to wage growth of inflation and dropping the 2½%. And IO suspect the 2½% is not so crucial anyway (and probably wouldn't reduce the costs a lot.

Trouble is that (New) State Pension alone is difficult to cope with so effectively reducing its value over time would force a lot of people into poverty.

My guess is that elements of the State pension will become means tested. I think that's probably fairer as it would protect those on lower incomes/lower assets. But I'm unsure how it would be introduced nor what politicians would be up to introducing it.

Ian

No sure who you mean by "people", but, the main discussions I have followed on the subject are IFS, and, they talk of ditching the Inflation bit.

I am "too old" to enjoy(?) the "New" State Pension, I am on the (inferior) "old" State Pension System.

While I am pleased I don't have to exist/live on just the State Pension element of my income, as often happens, there are situations where it is not so bad as it looks, those who are "squeezed" are those with just enough income/assets to just miss out on the means tested additional payments (housing benefit, heating allowance, pension credit etc).

 

[Badger_Boom]

Because it's all about money. The link between buying things, feeling better about yourself for a while, then buying more things when those feelings dwindle. For many, their happiness is linked with their consumerism. True happiness, is not needing more things. A walk in nature is free. Disconnecting your elation from consumerism frees you. Then you only need the basics, food, water, roof over your head. Suddenly a basic pension with loads of free time is quite appealing.

Yes and also no. There are plenty of pensioners out there who struggle to provide the basics with what they have.