How many are there in your relationship? Call me conventional, but I'm guessing it's just you and your partner. But maybe there are times when you feel that other issues - things you don't want to talk about - make their presence felt in an almost tangible way.
Christmas can be a difficult time both for your relationship and your finances. There are so many expectations - from the time you spend together (when doing what you normally do for the rest of the year doesn't seem enough) to how much you'll spend (in general, on yourself and on each other) - that it's not surprising it can all feel like a bit of a let-down.
Minor rows about spending and cash can easily become magnified. And if you're worried about debts that you haven't told your partner about, it will only make things worse.
There's no shortcut to non-stop peace and goodwill, but it's important to acknowledge that people who are close to you may have different ideas about money. If your partner was influenced by how he (or she) saw money being managed by their parents, they may not even question why they view money in the way they do.
It's not often that you get together with someone who has the same views about life as you do. In fact, if you do, it can be a bit dull. And you certainly don't have the same ideas about money for your relationship or your finances to thrive.
But it's important that you're able to deal with your differences and that means that you have to be able to talk about them. It's the only way you can work out what's important to each of you financially and what you need to do - together and separately - to reach keep your finances on track while keeping disagreements to a minimum. Just make sure you don't start a conversation about your financial future following an afternoon of working your way through a bottle of Baileys...
Tuesday 8 December 2009
Wednesday 21 October 2009
The long arm of the law
Have you been convicted of a crime? Well, if you haven't, someone you know probably has. The word 'crime' probably makes you think of the serious stuff like armed robbery or GBH, but there are around 7 million people in the UK with an unspent conviction, many of them for minor offences. But even if it is minor and it happened some time ago, your insurance company will want to know about it. The only time you don't have to tell insurers about convictions is once they become 'spent'. Failure to declare a conviction could mean your cover is invalid.
Insurers say they make it clear that they want to know about previous convictions, but I'm not convinced they do. I can understand why they would want to know about someone who has a fondness for arson before they offer to insure their home (likewise fraud). But I do believe that a number of insurers don't spell out clearly what information they require.
Whizzing around a few household insurers' websites this week, some listed a number of 'assumptions' on screen that they make about someone (for example, that you wouldn't leave the house empty for more than 30 days a year, didn't run a business from your home and didn't have any convictions), others asked you to click on a box to find out what those assumptions were. Is that clear? Hmm, I'm not sure it is.
If you renew your insurance every year with the same company, you won't even be asked about this issue specifically. Instead, there will be a 'catch-all' question about whether your circumstances have changed. Well, yes, probably many things in my life have changed in the last 12 months. Do you want me to list them all?
Then there's the lack of consistency. I rang around a few insurers to find out which convictions they'd want to know about and which they'd ignore. The official line sounds quite reasonable; many minor convictions may result in higher premiums to reflect the increased risk, although convictions for more serious - or relevant - offences (such as arson if it's household insurance and dangerous driving if it's car insurance) could mean you won't be insured.
But, when you talk to brokers, a slightly different picture emerges; it seems some insurers have a 'no convictions' rule. So it doesn't matter what the conviction is for or how long ago it took place (as long as it's unspent), the insurer may refuse to cover you or - and this is where it gets worrying - declare your cover void.
The fact is that insurers have the right to decide how risky they think someone is and whether or not they want to take on that risk and, clearly, insurers can't put everything that's important in bold type. But, bearing in mind that millions of people have unspent convictions (not just a few thousand), you'd think this would be something that insurers would make sure they explain so clearly that no-one's in any doubt about what they're supposed to do. Doutbless, some people do deliberately withhold information when they take out insurance, but far more are likely to be innocent victims of rules they don't understand.
Insurers say they make it clear that they want to know about previous convictions, but I'm not convinced they do. I can understand why they would want to know about someone who has a fondness for arson before they offer to insure their home (likewise fraud). But I do believe that a number of insurers don't spell out clearly what information they require.
Whizzing around a few household insurers' websites this week, some listed a number of 'assumptions' on screen that they make about someone (for example, that you wouldn't leave the house empty for more than 30 days a year, didn't run a business from your home and didn't have any convictions), others asked you to click on a box to find out what those assumptions were. Is that clear? Hmm, I'm not sure it is.
If you renew your insurance every year with the same company, you won't even be asked about this issue specifically. Instead, there will be a 'catch-all' question about whether your circumstances have changed. Well, yes, probably many things in my life have changed in the last 12 months. Do you want me to list them all?
Then there's the lack of consistency. I rang around a few insurers to find out which convictions they'd want to know about and which they'd ignore. The official line sounds quite reasonable; many minor convictions may result in higher premiums to reflect the increased risk, although convictions for more serious - or relevant - offences (such as arson if it's household insurance and dangerous driving if it's car insurance) could mean you won't be insured.
But, when you talk to brokers, a slightly different picture emerges; it seems some insurers have a 'no convictions' rule. So it doesn't matter what the conviction is for or how long ago it took place (as long as it's unspent), the insurer may refuse to cover you or - and this is where it gets worrying - declare your cover void.
The fact is that insurers have the right to decide how risky they think someone is and whether or not they want to take on that risk and, clearly, insurers can't put everything that's important in bold type. But, bearing in mind that millions of people have unspent convictions (not just a few thousand), you'd think this would be something that insurers would make sure they explain so clearly that no-one's in any doubt about what they're supposed to do. Doutbless, some people do deliberately withhold information when they take out insurance, but far more are likely to be innocent victims of rules they don't understand.
Tuesday 13 October 2009
When I retire I want to...
Last weekend I was on BBC Breakfast, talking about state pensions and - in particular - about women who won't have built up an entitlement to a state pension, even though they may have had one or more jobs. I've also written about this on SavvyWoman http://www.savvywoman.co.uk/c7-pages/c7s0.php?art_id=108. There's a lot of research that shows we're not saving enough for our retirement and women generally retire on far less than men. The state pension isn't a lot of money (approx £95 a week for a single pensioner), but for many people, especially women, it's the bedrock of their retirement income.
A new report by Scottish Widows shows that only 47% of women are saving enough for their retirement, compared to almost 60% of men. Well, you might expect a pensions company to say that we should all be saving more. But the fact is, retirement could last for 20 years or more, and unless you plan on working into your 70s or 80s, the money will have to come from somewhere.
I find it frustrating that the state pension system is so complicated that - even after a major shake-up next April - only 75% of women will qualify for a full basic state pension. That means one in every four women will lose out. The complex benefits system means that for some people who can't save much, it's actually not worth taking out a private pension; but who knows whether the same benefits will be there when they retire?
Add into the mix the fact that the pensions industry hasn't had a great track record of putting customers first, which means few people trust pensions providers. On top of that, women tend to be more wary than men of locking their money away for a long time; something you have to do when you take out a pension. It all means that women, who currently retire on less than men, are likely to do so for some years to come.
I don't know what your retirement plans are and - for you - retirement may be a long way off. But whatever you see yourself doing once you retire, you'll have to find a way of paying for it. I'm not about the bang the drum for pensions companies, but I do believe that we all have to think about what we'll live on when we stop working. As many women are discovering as they approach retirement, you really can't assume that you'll be looked after financially once your working life is over.
A new report by Scottish Widows shows that only 47% of women are saving enough for their retirement, compared to almost 60% of men. Well, you might expect a pensions company to say that we should all be saving more. But the fact is, retirement could last for 20 years or more, and unless you plan on working into your 70s or 80s, the money will have to come from somewhere.
I find it frustrating that the state pension system is so complicated that - even after a major shake-up next April - only 75% of women will qualify for a full basic state pension. That means one in every four women will lose out. The complex benefits system means that for some people who can't save much, it's actually not worth taking out a private pension; but who knows whether the same benefits will be there when they retire?
Add into the mix the fact that the pensions industry hasn't had a great track record of putting customers first, which means few people trust pensions providers. On top of that, women tend to be more wary than men of locking their money away for a long time; something you have to do when you take out a pension. It all means that women, who currently retire on less than men, are likely to do so for some years to come.
I don't know what your retirement plans are and - for you - retirement may be a long way off. But whatever you see yourself doing once you retire, you'll have to find a way of paying for it. I'm not about the bang the drum for pensions companies, but I do believe that we all have to think about what we'll live on when we stop working. As many women are discovering as they approach retirement, you really can't assume that you'll be looked after financially once your working life is over.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
.jpg)