RetireJapan

IloveJapan wrote: ↑Sun Jan 19, 2025 3:51 am Wow, what a sudden surprise this political debate is…and the fact that it is happening at all raises the likelihood of means testing in future. There are now elements in both major political parties advocating means testing. It’s out in the open, and no longer a taboo subject!

Looking at the current government, they have already annoyed many groups of people that you would have thought they would want to keep on side! Examples are the farmers (IHT) and the elderly (heating bills?). So maybe they don’t mind introducing means testing either, even though it would have previously been considered political suicide.

I agree. But things we thought that were political suicide didn’t even cause a blip on the electoral map in the past.
I remember when you got old , we never had to sell our homes to fund our nursing care. Once that was in, it was never gonna be taken away and we have accepted it. Even though many families were very angry because the adult kids thought it was their inheritance. Sadly I remember we had to take some to court. So our care is now means tested.
We have accepted a lot of means testing and some we never thought would be touched, have been.

Universal Credit, Pension Credit, Housing Benefit, Council Tax Support, Income-based Jobseeker's Allowance, Income-related Employment and Support Allowance, and Child Tax Credit/Working Tax Credit

We are seeing the NHS being pushed into huge reforms, and many are forking out thousands and thousands for a private operation.we have basically accepted that rich people pensioners don’t need a winter fuel payment, and if we keep the waiting list long enough those who can afford to go private will go private.(very stealthy)
The people I would feel sorry for, are people who work hard , save hard,forego family holidays, family trips, outings and struggle to save for their future financial security only for the government to say (after paying the same tax/NI as the person who blew all their money, had a great time, smoking, drinking partying, and saved nothing and they get the 100% full state pension) only for the sensible, har worker to get £100 a week. It’s those on the cutting border point that I worry about.They might be very angry and I know I would be. For those who have saved a ton, those doctors, lawyers financial guys, bankers, they won’t give a&¥@?£€$.
For me the government have blamed/stigmatized the unemployed, the teenage mothers/ single mothers(remember that old rabbit) the disabled, absent fathers, immigrants for the countries ills and some of the sun, daily mail readers went along with it.
Sadly I think those very same papers will probably support a means tested pension, especially if it means keeping the NHS free at the point of delivery. Ironically it’s the pensioner who use the NHS more than the young.
I guess they’ll say the millionaires shouldn’t get a pension, and we’ll all support that , but then the door is open
To lowering the threshold, over 20,30 years as each government changes.
One last thing. As we march on to 67/68 to retirement how many will have the health to enjoy their pension/wealth!

Some further thoughts and questions…

Curious to know..in the housing/care context, who was taken to court by whom, and for what reason?
What are the huge reforms the NHS is undergoing?

Another thing that struck me about this whole pension debate, is that the “triple lock” tends to be referred to as if it is sacrosanct. Which makes me think that means testing is a more likely future policy as a way to tackle burgeoning expenses.

The other thing is my impression of the difference in work ethics between the two countries (I may be wrong here, though!):
Japan has many healthy elderly people that would like to continue working as long as it does not decrease their state pension. So policy direction here tends to focus on ensuring that continuing to work does not impact the pension.
In the UK, however, if people have enough income to get by, they may prefer to stop working. The government, facing worker shortages, might see means testing (= decreasing their income) as a way to bring people back into the job market.

Food for thought…

The Institute of Fiscal Studies has produced a report entitled The Future of the State Pension in 2023:
https://ifs.org.uk/publications/future-state-pension

An excerpt is below:

[...] Our view is that the state pension is not in need of wholesale change. Indeed, its structure has much to commend it. Given where we are, we think we should retain a flat-rate state pension that is neither earnings-related (which would mean higher state pensions for people with higher earnings over their lifetime) nor means-tested (which would mean lower state pensions for pensioners with higher private incomes). Although the state pension is higher than in the past, given its current level we think it should continue to be accessible from a single universal state pension age, rather than being made available from an earlier age at a permanently reduced amount.

However, improvements are needed to address the key challenges set out above, in order to build on the strengths of the current system and provide a sustainable long-term future for the state pension.

We suggest a new ‘four-point pension guarantee’ to achieve this:

1 There will be a government target level for the new state pension, expressed as a share of median full-time earnings. Increases in the state pension will in the long run keep pace with growth in average earnings, which ensures that pensioners benefit when living standards rise.

2 Both before and after the target level is reached, the state pension will continue to increase at least in line with inflation every year.

3 The state pension will not be means-tested.

4 The state pension age will only rise as longevity at older ages increases, and never by the full amount of that longevity increase. To increase confidence and understanding, the government will write to people around their 50th birthday stating what their state pension age is expected to be. Their state pension age would then be fully guaranteed 10 years before they reach it.

IloveJapan wrote: ↑Sun Jan 19, 2025 2:11 pm Some further thoughts and questions…

Curious to know..in the housing/care context, who was taken to court by whom, and for what reason?
What are the huge reforms the NHS is undergoing

The housing question. Previously nobody sold their homes to get care as we got old. The NHS basically provided it. However as changes occurred and hospitals and beds were removed due to “the care in the community act”,patients were moved to nursing homes.
After the law was implemented people needing care were forced to sell their homes to pay for their hursing home. At that time relatives, believing they could keep the house and any inheritance didn’t want to sell their parents home. So the NHS/social work departments would have to go to court.
There maybe one or two exceptions. But it’s not relevant here. NHS reforms: increasing use of the private sector and increasing waiting lists are pushing people to “pay privately”. Some new drugs are expensive, and can’t be funded or could be widely prescribed but would take valuable resources from other areas. Nurses are continually taking on “doctors roles” and to ease up on GPs, pharmacies will be encouraged to take on a larger role. NHS services are increasingly harder to get, so people are being pushed to eg, private physio, private podiatrist, private dentists.
Btw this is not meant to be political but explanation of how the NHS has changed over the decades and how this can have an impact on “our”finances as we prepare for retirement.(if we ever return to the U.K)

kuma wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2025 1:51 am The Institute of Fiscal Studies has produced a report entitled The Future of the State Pension in 2023:
https://ifs.org.uk/publications/future-state-pension

An excerpt is below:

[...] Our view is that the state pension is not in need of wholesale change. Indeed, its structure has much to commend it. Given where we are, we think we should retain a flat-rate state pension that is neither earnings-related (which would mean higher state pensions for people with higher earnings over their lifetime) nor means-tested (which would mean lower state pensions for pensioners with higher private incomes). Although the state pension is higher than in the past, given its current level we think it should continue to be accessible from a single universal state pension age, rather than being made available from an earlier age at a permanently reduced amount.

However, improvements are needed to address the key challenges set out above, in order to build on the strengths of the current system and provide a sustainable long-term future for the state pension.

We suggest a new ‘four-point pension guarantee’ to achieve this:

1 There will be a government target level for the new state pension, expressed as a share of median full-time earnings. Increases in the state pension will in the long run keep pace with growth in average earnings, which ensures that pensioners benefit when living standards rise.

2 Both before and after the target level is reached, the state pension will continue to increase at least in line with inflation every year.

3 The state pension will not be means-tested.

4 The state pension age will only rise as longevity at older ages increases, and never by the full amount of that longevity increase. To increase confidence and understanding, the government will write to people around their 50th birthday stating what their state pension age is expected to be. Their state pension age would then be fully guaranteed 10 years before they reach it.

That’s an interesting read.
I hope that nothing is touched but I I think the triple lock will be changed and return to something else.
We have already returned to the system before the war and there was a point we didn’t get a pension until we hit 70.
The U.K pension was linked to the average salary back in the 70s, and it was based on average earnings, then it was removed, which hurt a lot of pensioners.
This is the main reason I highlighted this article because it does have long term financial implications for the future generations especially for the next young dude from the U.K who comes to live in Japan. Thankfully most of here have planned or are planning for the future and won’t affect t us. Or we’re just toooooo old. lol .
This article points out something we maybe caught up in as our u.k state pension starts and that is, we might cross the tax threshold in a few years, and will need to be addressed.
Here we can see the changes to our pension through the decades. Btw this isn’t meant to be political but to highlight it is being brought up. For some the tripple lock gives them some quality of life, for other it’s needless, for others a fiscal headache.Maybe we can introduce the red dot from Logan’s run. lol. But I doubt I’d go along with it.
So apologies if anyone thought this was political I saw this as more about financial planning for my kids future.
Sorry if anyone was offended.. It was not my intention to.

https://www.charles-stanley.co.uk/insig ... te-pension

Bubblegun wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2025 3:40 am
Maybe we can introduce the red dot from Logan’s run. lol. But I doubt I’d go along with it.

This is silly. There is no way they’d implant some artificial device to alert when people have served their useful purpose and need to make space.. Not when we can simply use varicose veins..

I used to think “going private” meant using completely different hospitals. Like private schools.
Now I realise it’s just as likely to be queue jumping. Which I suppose is actually well aligned with sending kids to private schools and what happens to them after…

Another way the class divides are narrowing is staying close to elderly parents(and grandparents) to get some of that juicy property inheritance..
No longer a reserve of the middle and upper classes obliged to sit in a cold drawing room with the empress dowager hoping she looks kindly upon you. Now it’s taking nan down the bingo on Thursdays cos that end terrace in zone 2 is worth a million..

Also. It can’t be long until the uk has those US style retirement firms that declare someone incompetent and quietly drain their savings accounts whilst withholding access from family members.
Speaking as someone that has always been declared incompetent whilst having my bank account drained, it’s just the losing access to my family that I’m missing out on..

(I am aware that whilst I haven’t flouted the AI created content rule I’m flying close to the others. Rest assured, my next contribution will be heavy with factoids.)

There seems to be news coming out concerning the UK looking to Australia for state pension ideas. But I don’t know if the source, GB News, is considered a reliable one or not.

There is an awful lot of speculation contained in this thread.
Did everyone actually read the article and what the politicians have said?

Of course there is a possibility that policy will change in the future.
We could also get hit by the proverbial bus as well.

IloveJapan wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2025 11:26 pm There seems to be news coming out concerning the UK looking to Australia for state pension ideas. But I don’t know if the source, GB News, is considered a reliable one or not.

Maybe post a link so we can judge for ourselves?

Well I am sure many of us might agree with means testing.
Personally I am in the middle. Because the bar is always set very high or very low for the general public to accept it. Psychologically once it’s accepted it’s very hard to remove, but the bars get lowered so more and more are caught out but the system.
Here is the leader talking about means testing the pension on LBC.

https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/tories-means ... -badenoch/

https://youtu.be/R5HdwUYLFjY?si=v9She8IerYQtVd1T

https://news.sky.com/story/amp/tories-w ... s-13290398


This is the GBnews article.
https://youtu.be/AgAkM3eRDC0?si=phU_iQ9sdEAlvFYV

I believe that some of the excuses to introduce means testing is just smoke and mirrors, it makes no sense to cut rich pensioners pensions to help people get on the “property market”. Even if you redistribute it to poor pensioners it would be peanuts to the ones who’d receive it.
For us expats, especially the younger ones, this may have implications because not only would it be means tested but it is “Frozen”. Well actually if I think about it , nothing would happen, it wouldn’t go up or down but get chewed away like gum by inflation in the UK and Japan.it loses its flavor over time. lol. But the discourse is there. But how would we define a millionaire?
“Oh
Sorry sir, your house is now so valuable you gotta sell up to fund your pension and move down.”

While this is rather implausible, we did see the very same thing happen to the elderly to “fund their nursing care”. They still paid their national insurance and taxes too. So politics aside (which we can’t really do when we talk about our state pension) It seemed ok for a student loans at 2000 pounds a year, way back, but now you graduate with eye watering debt.started of easy, affordable and acceptable until we look back! So for these reasons I am pretty much against means testing.and I agree with the old guy on the vid, but the devil is always in the details.So I’m Kinda on the fence!