keitha
Member of DD Central
2024, hopefully the year I get out of P2P
Posts: 3,889
Likes: 2,321
|
Post by keitha on Oct 11, 2022 16:54:05 GMT
I have a friend who has suggested that both the Conservatives and labour are looking at the state pension.
Apparently the Labour suggestion is that the state pension is increased to £15,000, but anyone with a personal pension will be hit
with a £10,000 personal pension you would get a state pension of £10,000 With a £20,000 personal pension you would get a state pension of £5,000 with a £30,000 personal pension you would get a state pension of £0
to me that feels unfair, someone on £50,000 a year pays a lot more NI than someone on £12,000, yet this proposal would reward those that don't save at the expense of those who do.
Feels like another WASPI or equivalent campaign would result
Apparently the conservatives are looking at state pension age and how many years you pay in to get a full pension, again from a personal view when I took my pension 4 years ago I worked out that I would comfortably reach my state pension age (in 28 months) with savings etc left and that the state pension would enable me to continue to live a comfortable lifestyle.
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 9,045
Likes: 4,841
Member is Online
|
Post by adrianc on Oct 12, 2022 8:06:48 GMT
I have no issue at all with the state pension being means tested. It's a HUGE part of the government budget, and a large swathe of pensioners really don't need that money. This may be the place to ask for gathered thoughts on something that has nagged at me for a while, and which now becomes ever more apparent... Why are state pensions seemingly not viewed as part of the welfare system?Fine demonstration... www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-63125506Truss is reluctant to increase benefits with inflation. YET the pension triple-lock is inviolable. The state pension increases with the highest of 2.5%, inflation, average wages. I mean, there's one obvious answer as to why Conservative governments view them separately, but it would be monumentally cynical to suggest it's a deliberate bribe to their core electorate...
|
|
|
Post by bernythedolt on Oct 12, 2022 10:13:24 GMT
This may be the place to ask for gathered thoughts on something that has nagged at me for a while, and which now becomes ever more apparent... Why are state pensions seemingly not viewed as part of the welfare system? I would proffer it's because we've paid into them for all those years? 45 full years of NI contributions in my case. You only qualify for the new state pension if you have contributed for 10 years plus. Other welfare benefits don't require this level of prior contribution (at least, I don't think they do). It's also a lifetime contract... pay your stamp for all these forthcoming years and this will be the benefit you accrue by age 66. Yes, we know it's an awful long way off and a sizeable deduction from your pay packet, but that's the deal and you will really appreciate it when you get there. It wouldn't be right to diminish that contract, in my opinion, not without giving several years of notice which allow the person to make alternative arrangements in good time.
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 9,045
Likes: 4,841
Member is Online
|
Post by adrianc on Oct 12, 2022 10:36:22 GMT
This may be the place to ask for gathered thoughts on something that has nagged at me for a while, and which now becomes ever more apparent... Why are state pensions seemingly not viewed as part of the welfare system? I would proffer it's because we've paid into them for all those years? Yes, retired people have paid into the state welfare system. And? No other benefit is as straightforward as pay-in-pay-out, whether it's needed or not. Whether you need it or not. (BTW, 67 for me, 68 for those a few years younger than me.) Feels like another WASPI or equivalent campaign would result Yes, very similar. A change that would actually be increasing more equality - but those who benefit from the status quo of inequality want to deny that so they can feel outraged. Despite the claims, plenty of notice was given to those affected by the "WASPI" changes - 1991 announcement of intent, 1993 white paper, 1995 legislation. Nobody over 45 in 1995 affected, while those affected fully (65 retirement age) were all under 40 at the time. The irony there is that pension age was equal until 1940, at 65 - at which time, life expectancy for women was around 67, for men around 62. It's now 83 and 79.
|
|
|
Post by bernythedolt on Oct 12, 2022 10:36:28 GMT
The state pension increases with the highest of 2.5%, inflation, average wages. I mean, there's one obvious answer as to why Conservative governments view them separately, but it would be monumentally cynical to suggest it's a deliberate bribe to their core electorate... It was Labour, in 1974, who first linked state pension to average earnings and prices. Successive governments of all colours then tinkered with the idea, always with cross-party support, until it became Lib Dem policy in 2010 to introduce 2.5% minimum and the triple lock. ALL parties have supported this.
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 9,045
Likes: 4,841
Member is Online
|
Post by adrianc on Oct 12, 2022 10:37:22 GMT
The state pension increases with the highest of 2.5%, inflation, average wages. I mean, there's one obvious answer as to why Conservative governments view them separately, but it would be monumentally cynical to suggest it's a deliberate bribe to their core electorate... It was Labour, in 1974, who first linked state pension to average earnings and prices. Successive governments of all colours then tinkered with the idea, always with cross-party support, until it became Lib Dem policy in 2010 to introduce 2.5% minimum and the triple lock. ALL parties have supported this. Lovely. The question was why it only applies to a small subset of the benefits system, not all.
|
|
registerme
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,233
Likes: 6,038
|
Post by registerme on Oct 12, 2022 10:41:17 GMT
Genuine question - do we actually "pay in" or contribute to the state pension? I thought they were paid out of general taxation?
|
|
|
Post by bernythedolt on Oct 12, 2022 10:48:25 GMT
I would proffer it's because we've paid into them for all those years? Yes, retired people have paid into the state welfare system. And? No other benefit is as straightforward as pay-in-pay-out, whether it's needed or not. Whether you need it or not.[...] A change that would actually be increasing more equality - but those who benefit from the status quo of inequality want to deny that so they can feel outraged. If course, those fortunate enough to enjoy the income off a couple of let properties, like adrianc, will feel cushioned and insulated. People in that position are not obliged to claim their state pension.
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 9,045
Likes: 4,841
Member is Online
|
Post by adrianc on Oct 12, 2022 10:52:49 GMT
Genuine question - do we actually "pay in" or contribute to the state pension? I thought they were paid out of general taxation? General taxation. NI brings <10% of the cost of state pension into the exchequer. The main functional difference between NI and taxation on income is that a record of paying NI gives qualification for various state benefits - including JSA, SSP, ESA as well as state pension.
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 9,045
Likes: 4,841
Member is Online
|
Post by adrianc on Oct 12, 2022 10:54:18 GMT
Yes, retired people have paid into the state welfare system. And? No other benefit is as straightforward as pay-in-pay-out, whether it's needed or not. Whether you need it or not.[...] A change that would actually be increasing more equality - but those who benefit from the status quo of inequality want to deny that so they can feel outraged. If course, those fortunate enough to enjoy the income off a couple of let properties, like adrianc , will feel cushioned and insulated. People in that position are not obliged to claim their state pension. Indeed. I am fortunate enough that I almost certainly won't need the state pension. It shouldn't be my choice whether to be given rapidly-increasing free money I don't need, at a time when others are being told that they have to sink deeper into poverty.
|
|
keitha
Member of DD Central
2024, hopefully the year I get out of P2P
Posts: 3,889
Likes: 2,321
|
Post by keitha on Oct 12, 2022 11:09:36 GMT
Feels like another WASPI or equivalent campaign would result Yes, very similar. A change that would actually be increasing more equality - but those who benefit from the status quo of inequality want to deny that so they can feel outraged. Despite the claims, plenty of notice was given to those affected by the "WASPI" changes - 1991 announcement of intent, 1993 white paper, 1995 legislation. Nobody over 45 in 1995 affected, while those affected fully (65 retirement age) were all under 40 at the time. The irony there is that pension age was equal until 1940, at 65 - at which time, life expectancy for women was around 67, for men around 62. It's now 83 and 79. the inequality in the graph is obvious if women retire at 60 and men at 65, and in reality it was worse than that, I have a female friend who was able to delay taking her state pension to 70. she stopped paying NI at 60 as that was retirement age when she reached 60, she gets a state pension of nearly double the standard amount. Another female colleague stopped paying NI at 60, again because it was her pension age, and worked to 65 despite putting nothing extra in she received a 50% higher pension than a man would have at 65 ! a woman will draw a state pension for 3 years longer than a man so either they should contribute more or take less out
|
|
|
Post by Badly Drawn Stickman on Oct 12, 2022 11:09:45 GMT
If course, those fortunate enough to enjoy the income off a couple of let properties, like adrianc , will feel cushioned and insulated. People in that position are not obliged to claim their state pension. Indeed. I am fortunate enough that I almost certainly won't need the state pension. It shouldn't be my choice whether to be given rapidly-increasing free money I don't need, at a time when others are being told that they have to sink deeper into poverty. Where is McCarthy when you have work for him.
|
|
benaj
Member of DD Central
Posts: 4,911
Likes: 1,612
|
Post by benaj on Oct 12, 2022 12:20:42 GMT
|
|
mrk
Posts: 807
Likes: 753
|
Post by mrk on Oct 12, 2022 12:48:32 GMT
A system where pensions are paid through general taxation effectively means young people in work are paying old people who are retired. This was fine when the population pyramid looked like in 1966, but it's quickly becoming unsustainable as the percentage of the population of pension age keeps increasing due to demographic change(Source: Living longer: is age 70 the new age 65?) Is it fair that young people have to see more and more of their taxes allocated to paying for pensions, when they themselves cannot even be sure there will still be a state pension for them by the time they're old?
|
|
agent69
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,641
Likes: 4,213
|
Post by agent69 on Oct 12, 2022 13:00:20 GMT
Genuine question - do we actually "pay in" or contribute to the state pension? I thought they were paid out of general taxation? - My DB pension is effectively paid from the returns on investments that were funded by the contributions that my former employer and myself made over a number of years into the pension scheme
- My SIPP is funded by a pot of money my former employer and myself paid into over a number of years
- There is no pot of money reserved for state pensions, it's paid for by current taxation.
One of the great cons of government economics is that debt figures don't include the liability to make future pension payments.
As somebody who gets his first government pension payment in about 2 weeks time (along with me bus pass), I'm not too keen on it suddenly being means tested. Unfortunately, the government has a difficult task in trying to decide who they should help in society. Just consider help with fuel bills. I have dual tariff electricity with storage heaters and in the winter use about 4 times as much during the night as daytime. Fortunately, my recent quote saw the night time rate go down by 20 %, so:
- monthly payments 24 months ago were about £100
- monthly payments are currently about £140
- based on historic winter use (and the reduced night time rate) my bill for the next 6 months will be about £136 / month minus the £66 / month government rebate = £70 a month. That's the lowest monthly rate for about 5 years.
Should I be getting the £400 rebate - probably not, am I going to send it back - no.
|
|