Neil Lovatt: Act of faith provides few answers for our universal benefits questions

Now we have had the comprehensive spending review and the distance the state will be rolled back is becoming clear. I've been following these changes not only as a member of the financial community but also as a parent with a young family.

I've been struck by the pattern that skews the most obvious changes (Child Benefit, Child Trust Funds, tuition fees) towards younger people. More subtly, the recent decisions and consultations on pensions have extended this pattern. Pension tax relief - an area of prime importance to those building towards retirement - will be sharply reduced while a "citizen pension" is proposed, extending universal provision to today's elderly.

While those with young families will see the end of universality, benefits for the elderly middle class are intact. If we are ending universality, why does it only apply to the young?

On a recent edition of the BBC's Any Questions, discussion of the Child Benefit cuts was heard in silence. However, a few minutes later, David Starkey, historian and commentator, was howled down when he suggested that benefits be cut for elderly higher rate taxpayers.

A You Gov poll shortly afterwards gave a more scientific basis to the point that benefits cuts are fine as long as they do not affect those polled.

Perhaps then, the elderly are immune due to their electoral strength? I would not count on it, and the earlier-than-anticipated changes to the retirement age announced on 20 October show the folly of that argument.

The point of principle sought by the government is that universality as a concept is flawed. Once established, it is the thin end of the wedge. Can anyone think of a Labour opposition pledging to reintroduce benefits for higher rate taxpayers?

How long will it be before the fairness argument is employed against elderly higher rate taxpayers, and accepted in silence by the pre-retirement generation?

Yet surely the government is in a bind over universal benefits for the elderly? Cast your mind back to the pre-election leadership debates. In a heated exchange, David Cameron said: "A Conservative government would keep the winter fuel allowance, would keep the free television licence, would keep the extra money for pensioners."

Surely the government's hands are tied? You only need to listen to the Liberal Democrats' gymnastics over tuition fees to see that in this environment, politicians have little problem reneging on pre-election promises.

The concept of paying taxes to the government now and being provided with a pre-defined level of benefits in the future requires faith that few people would have in a politician.It is this reason that control of your finances is important.

Taking control does not simply mean employing an independent financial adviser - although that is something to think about if you can afford it - it is a liberating experience.

Money sections in newspapers are more important than before. By reading this section of The Scotsman you are making a great start.

Get involved and take control, surely it is better than trusting the government of 2030 with your financial future.

l Neil Lovatt is sales and marketing director at Scottish Friendly Assurance.