RetireJapan

This was in the newspaper, and to be honest I have always believed this would come EVENTUALLY. I believe the first step was to make everyone join a company pension as a default as per Thaylor and Sunstein's theory. While it won't affect us so much now it may have a big compounding effect on us in the future because A) it may be tested, B) our Pension is Frozen C) currency fluctuations. believe it's just another way of pushing in full means testing for the FULL pension in the future. Once people accept the thin edge of the wedge, the gap will be widened. It's not too dissimilar to how we accepted the very super, cheap student loans back in the day and it's not too much of a leap to see any and every government use fiscal drag to widen the people caught up in any cuts

I consider it a matter of making the young save today (who will accept it due to the long timeline and "Optimism Bias)" and eventually pay for it at the other end as they get very little out of a state pension in 45 years. if we look at how Japan has copied the NISA system and the longer lifetime NISA, I can see this coming down the pipeline for future generations. This is something I think some ex-pats may want to think about in the future. Are we going to save too much only to have someone say You' 've saved too much and you get nothing? Who knows? But it might be a bitter pill for some. One thing's for sure: many expats here, won't have even a sniff of a Japanese pension. and with currency exchanges probably not going to be taken into account, this could be a problem for some. Just something to watch! But IMHO i think this will eventually be brought it for the young, who vote less, and wait for the pensioner of today to pass on.cough cough.
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/no-10-refuses ... 17834.html

That article is a bunch of quotes saying that neither party will touch means testing with a bargepole

I will worry about means testing when Japan or the UK actually pass a law about it.

In the meantime I recommend planning as if there were no public pensions, then you'll be okay whatever happens.

It’s inevitable, just a matter of if happens now or in five, ten or twenty years. I expect there will be a long phase-in period too.

RetireJapan wrote: ↑Sat Jan 18, 2025 9:47 am That article is a bunch of quotes saying that neither party will touch means testing with a bargepole

I will worry about means testing when Japan or the UK actually pass a law about it.

In the meantime I recommend planning as if there were no public pensions, then you'll be okay whatever happens.

I generally thought that no government would either but they will clearly look at this just because they’ll be looking alfor a get out as the demographic problem, and NHS problems increase as we age. We probably never even considered that the public would even consider discussing, debating big changes to the NHS system or even considering paying for private care and yet it is being looked at.
Just breaching the wall to “just talk” about is a huge thing in my opinion. Thankfully most of us hear have been are planning but I would certainly worry about my kids and the young peeps on zero hour contracts, heavy uni debts and that’s before we even consider buying a house.

Deep Blue wrote: ↑Sat Jan 18, 2025 11:49 am It’s inevitable, just a matter of if happens now or in five, ten or twenty years. I expect there will be a long phase-in period too.

I have to agree. The public have accepted that rich pensioners don’t need the winter fuel payment so it is inevitable that this will be extended to the well off.
I think they will set a target of 40 years, and as Joe public goes oh yeah,sure, the future governments will lower the target. We see them doing that with the age of retirement, we saw that with uni debt/loans, we see that with fiscal drag. So I see them saying forty years then 35,(saying we need to save money) and then 30. We get the pic. It may not impact us but it might, if brought in have a cumulative impact on us. If we can see compounding working for us with just a few %points on investing it will have an equal effect on eating away at the value of our pensions. (Or younger people in Japan). One thing the tories and Labour can agree on, The triple lock cannot go on forever!

This whole story is a confusing mess, started by what I think is a misunderstanding of what Badenoch said in responding to a question relating to the triple lock by talking about means testing. I don't think she was talking about means testing the triple lock (how would that even work?) but the posted article, along with the majority of the UK media has run with that as a headline.

Badenoch was likely talking about means testing the pension itself, which on the face of it is more concerning than means testing the triple lock (again, whatever that means). However, she has very limited message discipline, comes from the section of the Tory party that has been talking about means testing the pension as well as raising the entitlement age to 75 for ages, and is (IMO) pretty unlikely to ever be Prime Minister, let alone get the moderate wing of her party to support a policy that will piss off their core voters. At the very least they would insist on a lead in time of, say, 25 years, so any current pensioners would mostly be unaffected. All in my opinion of course.

RetireJapan wrote: ↑Sat Jan 18, 2025 9:47 am That article is a bunch of quotes saying that neither party will touch means testing with a bargepole

I will worry about means testing when Japan or the UK actually pass a law about it.

In the meantime I recommend planning as if there were no public pensions, then you'll be okay whatever happens.

It really is political kryptonite whichever way you think about it, and I can't imagine why any party would do it, knowing that any benefits would be way down the line but the political hit would be instant. One of the weaknesses of the democratic system really, there is no incentive to take the wider view.

Beaglehound wrote: ↑Sat Jan 18, 2025 12:19 pm This whole story is a confusing mess, started by what I think is a misunderstanding of what Badenoch said in responding to a question relating to the triple lock by talking about means testing. I don't think she was talking about means testing the triple lock (how would that even work?) but the posted article, along with the majority of the UK media has run with that as a headline.

Badenoch was likely talking about means testing the pension itself, which on the face of it is more concerning than means testing the triple lock (again, whatever that means). However, she has very limited message discipline, comes from the section of the Tory party that has been talking about means testing the pension as well as raising the entitlement age to 75 for ages, and is (IMO) pretty unlikely to ever be Prime Minister, let alone get the moderate wing of her party to support a policy that will piss off their core voters. At the very least they would insist on a lead in time of, say, 25 years, so any current pensioners would mostly be unaffected. All in my opinion of course.

I agree, but for me it has now entered the political and public discourse.and i am sure some voters will run with it thinking it's a great idea so long as it doesnt affect them. Generally, like any tax and service cuts, they never want to say, until they enter government and have control of the levers. It would indeed be political suicide, but if i was a chancellor i would do it this way, If you get more than 40 grand a year from a private pension then they might only give you a minimal increase,E.G below inflation. and the triple lock being given to the poorest.
Personally i think Cameron who introduced it, really set things up to fail somewhere down the line. We have seen womens retirement being pushed up to 65, then they pushed everyone up to 66, and then 67 and I think uper limit is now 68.

Beaglehound wrote: ↑Sat Jan 18, 2025 12:25 pm

RetireJapan wrote: ↑Sat Jan 18, 2025 9:47 am That article is a bunch of quotes saying that neither party will touch means testing with a bargepole

I will worry about means testing when Japan or the UK actually pass a law about it.

In the meantime I recommend planning as if there were no public pensions, then you'll be okay whatever happens.

It really is political kryptonite whichever way you think about it, and I can't imagine why any party would do it, knowing that any benefits would be way down the line but the political hit would be instant. One of the weaknesses of the democratic system really, that there is no incentive to take the wider view.

Oh totally Kryptonite, but I think the demographic mathematicians and economists will be looking at it, just as they looked at pushing back out the pension age. At 68, I can imagine many road construction workers, nurses, farm workers, or people working heavy jobs being rather a tad.....ticked off especially if men, who on average live to 78. So for many, only a few year's worth of pension. if I have 40, million yen in Japan, a small Japanese pension, a small U.K. pension and a couple of days of work. I'll be O.K. but for some.......I think they're pretty much screwed. Unless they get a nice inheritance. Thank god most of us here are on the same page. I certainly don't want to be the ostrich with his head in the sand.

Bubblegun wrote: ↑Sat Jan 18, 2025 2:39 pm

Beaglehound wrote: ↑Sat Jan 18, 2025 12:19 pm This whole story is a confusing mess, started by what I think is a misunderstanding of what Badenoch said in responding to a question relating to the triple lock by talking about means testing. I don't think she was talking about means testing the triple lock (how would that even work?) but the posted article, along with the majority of the UK media has run with that as a headline.

Badenoch was likely talking about means testing the pension itself, which on the face of it is more concerning than means testing the triple lock (again, whatever that means). However, she has very limited message discipline, comes from the section of the Tory party that has been talking about means testing the pension as well as raising the entitlement age to 75 for ages, and is (IMO) pretty unlikely to ever be Prime Minister, let alone get the moderate wing of her party to support a policy that will piss off their core voters. At the very least they would insist on a lead in time of, say, 25 years, so any current pensioners would mostly be unaffected. All in my opinion of course.

I agree, but for me it has now entered the political and public discourse.and i am sure some voters will run with it thinking it's a great idea so long as it doesnt affect them. Generally, like any tax and service cuts, they never want to say, until they enter government and have control of the levers. It would indeed be political suicide, but if i was a chancellor i would do it this way, If you get more than 40 grand a year from a private pension then they might only give you a minimal increase,E.G below inflation. and the triple lock being given to the poorest.
Personally i think Cameron who introduced it, really set things up to fail somewhere down the line. We have seen womens retirement being pushed up to 65, then they pushed everyone up to 66, and then 67 and I think uper limit is now 68.

Beaglehound wrote: ↑Sat Jan 18, 2025 12:25 pm

RetireJapan wrote: ↑Sat Jan 18, 2025 9:47 am That article is a bunch of quotes saying that neither party will touch means testing with a bargepole

I will worry about means testing when Japan or the UK actually pass a law about it.

In the meantime I recommend planning as if there were no public pensions, then you'll be okay whatever happens.

It really is political kryptonite whichever way you think about it, and I can't imagine why any party would do it, knowing that any benefits would be way down the line but the political hit would be instant. One of the weaknesses of the democratic system really, that there is no incentive to take the wider view.

Oh totally Kryptonite, but I think the demographic mathematicians and economists will be looking at it, just as they looked at pushing back out the pension age. At 68, I can imagine many road construction workers, nurses, farm workers, or people working heavy jobs being rather a tad.....ticked off especially if men, who on average live to 78. So for many, only a few year's worth of pension. if I have 40, million yen in Japan, a small Japanese pension, a small U.K. pension and a couple of days of work. I'll be O.K. but for some.......I think they're pretty much screwed. Unless they get a nice inheritance. Thank god most of us here are on the same page. I certainly don't want to be the ostrich with his head in the sand.

Even for the low paid the UK state pension is a good deal at the present state pension when you have to retire at 66 you need the equivalent of a 250,000 pounds annuity to pay for that. As it has been mentioned many times before there is no fund for the UK state pension, it is dependent on your national insurance contributions, which just go into a general taxation pot. If anything the state pension is redistribution taxation on it's most extreme form.

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.

Now don’t get me wrong: In principle, I too believe it would be brought in VERY GRADUALLY, initially affecting only those people who are wealthy with 2 million pound houses (it’s not anyone’s fault if their house rockets in value, but unfortunately farmers are suffering the consequences of that now with IHT), and then with the threshold being brought down gradually.

HOWEVER: If a financial crisis occurs in the UK due to budget and debt issues, then all options may be on the table and changes may come much quicker. One excuse they could make is that the IMF has recommended in the past that they means test the state pension.

Logically speaking, I think any means testing will take account of both income and assets, like happens in Australia. So it could be that expats who want the pension have to make far more disclosures than they anticipated. And in return for what? A pension that is both frozen and means tested!