Gazing into how we will fund the retirement lifestyle we all dreamed of once upon a time is never likely to be a recipe for good cheer and is normally best done after a few glasses of Scotch when you're too far gone to care about what it reveals.

This week, though, the future of the pensions landscape became slightly clearer, and it’s not all bad news for the hard-working majority who fear being forced to exist on little more than fresh air when they are no longer able to work.

First off – this is the depressing bit – a report by the National Association of Pension Funds revealed that the decline of the final salary pension scheme is picking up pace, with the number of companies closing such schemes to existing, as well as new, members increasing from 7% in 2009 to 17% last year.

New members, of course, have been persona non grata for some time – with just 21% of schemes still open to them, compared to 88% a decade ago – and the NAPF warns the overall decline is now “shifting to a new gear”.

Public sector pensions also came firmly back into the spotlight with the publication of Lord Hutton’s report, which – as expected – recommended these should no longer be linked to final salaries but to a career average; something that is likely to come into force by 2015.

Of more interest to the majority of people for whom final salary was never more than a utopian vision, however, is the proposal outlined this week by the government, which is planned to come into effect in 2016.

The scheme is at an early stage but envisages paying – in today’s terms – a flat rate of £140 for every pensioner, regardless of their income or the amount of national insurance they have paid.

Normally the words “benefit reform” and “Iain Duncan Smith” appearing in the same sentence is enough to strike terror into anyone who may one day be dependent on the state but, while the prospect of multi-millionaires receiving the same amount as those who cleaned their offices will stick in the throat of many, it should mean that almost every pensioner will be at least slightly better off and is particularly welcome news for women who have taken time out of work to bring up children.

The political argument behind it is to encourage people to save extra money on top of what they will get from the state by removing the current anomaly whereby those who were able to save only a modest amount but one that is enough to deprive them of the additional pension credit would have been better off had they frittered their money away down the ale-house or bingo hall.

A survey by Aviva, meanwhile, brings us back to reality somewhat; warning that one in seven people retiring today believe they will die in debt. The typical profile of someone aged over 55 today has a monthly income of £1,236, the poll found; some 4% down on the figure of £1,284 a year ago.

Driven to the brink

If there’s anything likely to get people’s goat at the moment is the issue of the spiralling price of fuel and the impact this is having on our daily lives (and it’s all the more galling when it’s money that’s often paid to get to work rather than swanning off on a jolly).

According to the protest group Fair Fuel UK, which admittedly might be slightly biased on this debate, some people now spend more filling up their cars each month than they do on their mortgage.

The average price of unleaded petrol is now 130.9p a litre, with diesel averaging 136.38p; enough, the body claims, to send the UK headlong back into recession.

This may or may not turn out to be the case but, short of drastically reducing the number of journeys we make, there’s very little anyone of us mere mortals can do at present.

Perhaps the answer lies in some kind of hybrid combination of mortgages and cars; we could all drive around in environmentally friendly super-vehicles which also double as houses, and take out a mortgage to cover the cost of fuel.

Act now on child vouchers

The cost of childcare is one of the banes of any modern parent’s life but higher-rate taxpayers who have yet to take advantage of their employer’s salary sacrifice scheme need to act now to ensure they don’t lose out in the future.

Employee benefits company Edenred is warning those who earn more than the new higher-rate threshold of £42,475 – which is coming down from £43,875 in 2010-11 – and have not signed up to their company scheme by April 6 that they will only be able to receive vouchers worth £124 a month tax-free, rather than the current limit of £243, potentially costing users up to £910 a year.

The government’s logic – other than the over-riding aim of reducing the country’s deficit – is that higher-rate taxpayers should not receive proportionately more benefit than those on lower incomes, and instead all individuals will receive tax relief of up to £11 a week on vouchers they purchase through their employer.

The scheme is open to anyone whose child is born on or before April 5 this year – so includes those with babies who are currently on maternity leave but will require childcare in the future – and extends to children up to the age of 15. After which, presumably, it’s perfectly acceptable to leave them on their own and let them roam the streets to their heart’s content.

Don’t do nothing

It’s always tempting when your annual telecoms or utility renewal drops through the letterbox to take at face value the friendly advice offered by the company in question that you need do nothing.

But not only does this mean you’re almost certainly not going to be getting the best deal, it could also lock you into a long-term contract from which it can prove rather costly to exit.

Telecoms regulator Ofcom has effectively declared war on the practice – which it claims affects 15% of phone and broadband customers – and Consumer Focus has called on the energy body Ofgem to do likewise.

Those most at risk are people who have previously signed up to long-term fixed-rate deals which are now coming to an end. In the case of the energy companies in particular, the new contracts are often at much higher rates and charge hefty termination fees.

The answer, of course, is to make sure you actually read the correspondence when it does arrive – although I’m sure they’re designed to send you to sleep before you reach the important bit – and make sure you know when your existing deal is about to expire.

And if you do decide to do nothing, at least make it a conscious decision rather than one taken because you can’t be bothered to read the letter.

Don’t bank on Mum and Dad

They say love conquers all but it seems being blind to a partner’s faults may not run in the family. Research by financial planning firm Rensburg Sheppards suggests one in three older people would think twice about leaving inheritance to their children – or even helping out financially with other expenses – due to concerns that this could one day feature in a rather messy divorce.

Almost one in three (27%) said they were not confident their son or daughter’s marriage would last and the majority wanted a pre-nuptial agreement to be legally binding.

Aside from the implications for family harmony – there’s nothing quite like a vote of confidence from the in-laws –Rensburg Sheppards is warning that this kind of attitude could also see older parents delay retirement planning and more of their estate end up in the hands of the taxman.

Although, given the results of this poll, perhaps some people would prefer that to their obnoxious, soon to be ex-son-in-law getting his grubby mitts on their hard-earned cash, as well as their daughter.