Means testing

Well, on Radio 4 yesterday morning, the 'hot topic' as pensions.
For those that haven't been following it, there's a Report due today about sorting out pensions and making them bigger, better and fairer.

The thing that crossed my mind though, is this:
Is it fair to "means test" a pension?
What about tutition fees/grants/student loans?

You see, if you start 'means testing' these things, surely that's a disincentive to people to actually bother saving - if my 5% of my salary savings is going to get me £5/week more pension, maybe it's better to just not bother, and live it up.

With tuition fees, and grants, the situation is slightly different - that's perhaps a different situation. After all, you don't need a university education to live. But similar arguments apply - if you've a slushfund of £25,000 to finance a uni education, is it really 'fair' to make you use it, when those who haven't saved up, don't need to.

(And regardless of what's said, I still feel that 3 years of university is a notable financial burden, even for the 'upper ends' of means testing)

Where would you stand? Should the person who's been employed for 40 years, paying NI contributions have the same 'pension rights' as the person who's not done so? Should the person who's spent 40 years saving 10% of their income for retirement have to 'share' by losing out on a basic pension entitlement?

Should the student loan/grant/tuition fee be available to everyone? Or should it be denied to those who have an asset they can draw on to cover the cost? (Be it savings, property or just a 'better job')

You see, on one hand, I feel that everyone as a basic minimum entitlement. Sort of baseline living. On the other, I don't feel it's the 'right' thing to do, to encourage people to _not_ provision for the future.

Hols

Well, having discovered I actually have 8 days hols left, I've booked next week off.

Usual situation with everyone wanting time at christmas, and ... well, I've managed for the last 5 years, so I'll be in. (And of course, with a '4 day block' travelling down south to visit the family isn't much of a hardship)

Not quite sure how it happened, but at best guess it's due to various cancellations for the 6 weeks I was off work (2 SINergys, a maelstrom, and ... something else I think).

Which is nice.

Now, aside from Christmas shopping, what to do with it?

Perhaps I shall go for sleeping in, and spending 6 hours bimbling around the various facilities at the gym. Somehow, this doesn't seem especially likely :).

Films sold by their actors

Ya'know, there's a few actors who just their name on the cast list counts as 'good enough' for me to want to go and see the films.

Kevin Spacey is one. (Negotiator, LA confidential, Life of David Gale, American Beauty ... )
Johnny Depp another. (Pirates, Chocolat, erm.. )
Probably Brad Pitt gets on that list too. (Snatch, Fight Club)

Angelina Jolie probably does too, but for slightly different reasons.

Are there any others that you can think of, who are both good, and sufficently choosey that you can be confident any film they're in will be good? That you'd go and see, just because you know that they're in it?