On 28 Jan 2015 at 3:36pm bastian wrote:
I have just found out that the pensionlaws are about to chnage in a drastic way. If you thought you were paying a private or top up pension to compliment your state pension come that glorious day when you can retire-think again, becasue as of April 2017 every penny form the amount you pay into your workplace or private pension is going to be taken off your state pension on retirement.
It is, of course privitisation through theback door as usual. You will also have to work another 5 years to qualify for the state pension in NI contributions (that's 35 years not 30 that it has been since 1997)-and of course we are all living longer and will be healthy enough to push supermarket trollies around for £6.50 at the age of 95, won't we?
Most people in Britain can't afford to pay a private pension as it is let alone have enough to look after them selves in 40 years time.
The people who are going to miss out the most in all this will be the ladies again, who are still picking up the pieces of the last batch of elderlies who couldn't quite afford their old age and have to fall back on relatives to care for them, this means that the ladies can't pay a full stamp---and so on and so on.
On 28 Jan 2015 at 4:11pm pensioner to be wrote:
Many who claim they cannot (or have not been able to) afford to put any money into a private or top-up pension seem able to buy beer and ciggies, or run a sky subscription, fund keeping a pet, or get their hair and nails "done" regularly.... so maybe its a question of personal priorities too?
Or would you rather those still in workforce after your retirement have to pay even higher taxes/NI to fund the ever increasing pension bill? Unfortunately, even taxing the top 20% of earners at a crippling rate of tax (say 70%) will never bring in enough cash to cover the increasing pension bill.
UK population is ageing, and generally population health is better for longer, so raising the retirement age, and also the NI contribution period needed to gain a full pension, seems a sensible way of spreading the pension-bill pain. If people are genuinely unable to work come their latter years, then they may be able to claim welfare of some form or other...
If you don't want to put cash into a private top-up pension because that route would erode your state pension entitlement, then you can always save it in some other way that does not directly affect pension eligibility - ISAs, investments, shoebox under the bed etc...
Unfortunately, the changing demographics with the population mean the past aproach to Pensions is no longer affordable to UK plc.
And is working for 35 years such a major problem for most..? Even those that come out of uni but end up in low paid jobs could potentially have clocked up enough NI-years to be eligible for a full pension by age of maybe 60. Someone who leaves school at 18, and pays NI (or is creditted NI via job seekers or Child Benefit for some period) might still have earned enough NI years by the age of 53 or 54...
Most women now pay (or are creditted) full-stamp from the time they enter the paid worforce, or are eligible for job seekers allowance (IIRC), and also are creditted with NI stamps while in receipt of child benefit, so are better catered for than in past, when the reduced stamp system left many of them ineligible for full state pension.
As ever though the problem is those that are caught in the change-over period, some of them may well suffer, or find they have to gain/buy a few more NI-years to qualify, having previously thought they were fully "paid up".
But I do agree there has been little to make it clear that the (higher) State pension promised may be reduced if the pensioner concerned has also put money into private to-up pensions funds too. But then Goverments of all shades are not averse to "burying" such details in the fine print, or changing the rules mid way through the game, and/or of having not realised their "wonderful new plans" may leave a few unlucky people worse off :-( .
On 28 Jan 2015 at 4:31pm Bill Beverage wrote:
The problem is that the state pensions are paid out of the workers taxes- less workers/more pensioners and we're heading for the banana skin - mind you we're one bar above a Banana Republic anyway.
On 28 Jan 2015 at 4:36pm David wrote:
The first paragraph of 'pensioner to be's post makes me feel both sick and sad.
First it's an echo of the same old sanctimonious knocking of the 'profligate poor' that our present government has so persistently and cleverly indulged in.
Secondly 'reason not the need' - Shakespeare I think; The things listed, keeping a pet, getting nails 'done ' do not seem terribly extravagant to me - just life enhancing for some.
This kind of attitude is playing right into the global capitalist's hands - and it appalls me! We should be proud to support a decent lifestyle for everyone in this country. Look at the life styles of bankers, royalty, and the establishment generally, before creating a life sapping moralistic list of don'ts for those at the bottom. GRRR.
On 28 Jan 2015 at 4:40pm Bill B wrote:
Well said David !
On 28 Jan 2015 at 5:39pm Old Bloke wrote:
The Old Age Pension is a miserable and tight fisted sum. Yet didn't Gordon the Boss Eyed Gurner once trumpet our ten pence rise or something similar ( possibly at the same time he claimed the miserly minimum wage as a triumph)
Pensioners for the most part have paid in all their lives and deserve a decent deal (as promised) rather than being shafted by whatever government that comes along that wants to blame the elderly for everything else into the bargain. The pension is not something for nothing as they so like to pretend but receipt of money paid back after being paid in. But pensioners and the elderly in general are the easy scapegoat - clogging up hospitals A & E etc.
What a load of b****llocks.
Take out a private pension by all means if you can afford it you know it makes sense for a slightly more comfortable old age.
Doesn't alter the fact that people that have worked all their lives and paid their NI and taxes deserve a decent pension. Those that were unable to work through no fault of their own or women that chose to raise families deserve the same.
All the lazy t**ssers that chose/choosend their entire life sat on their ar*e living on benefits can starve for all I care.
Dunno why I said all that - just fancied a rant before I cook the dinner
On 28 Jan 2015 at 5:41pm bastian wrote:
Indeed David, it sickens me to to see someone who acnnot ever put themselves into the situation others are born into or find themselves in by chance (eg, being a woman and not having half the choices of her male counterpart).
It saddens me that our honerable females are always the hardest hit by this stuff and that the above poster couldn't for a minute imagine what it's like to be lumbered with a relative to care for, not out of choice but out of love/duty and to the detriment of their own financial security-most of us have seen that in our famillies. It just perpetuates the problem.
and yes, put the bl**dy taxes up and NI if that's what is needed to spread the burden. And get the masses of tax that is owed to this country out of the dicks who want to live life to the full and dump their cash off shore-I loathe them more than anyone else.
Not everyone is going to live to be 85, ATOS did a job of killing off an embarressing number of clients in the first year of buisiness-is this how we should be treating people? I think not. ALL MEN ARE BORN EQUAL BUT ALL AROUND ME HE IS IN CHAINS.
The kind of state we ahve now is born of removing humanity and psychology from the game in order to make all the boxes fit together in a tidy row...unfortunatley life just isn't that tidy.
On 28 Jan 2015 at 5:54pm bastian wrote:
Impact on women
The government likes to claim that the new deal will be good for women – but this is bunkum. Women have long been able to claim NI credits for looking after children, and now they have to work to accrue an additional five years' NI record. Furthermore, as this is such a complicated area, and so few understand it, the government has been able to introduce some swingeing cuts without anyone raising an eyebrow.
The most damaging change for women is that, as state pensions in future will depend on the individual's own contribution record, women won't be allowed to 'inherit' benefits earned by their husbands after 2016.
How to review your pension
Currently, married women with an incomplete record of NI contributions (NICs) are entitled to a basic pension of 60% of their husband's entitlement, and divorcees can use their former husband's NI record, for the duration of the marriage, if it is better than their own.
Furthermore, a widow can inherit her husband's basic pension, plus half of his entitlement to top-ups such as S2P and Serps, if her own NICs would provide less. Annex 3 to the government's White Paper does promise transitional arrangements but even the experts are having difficulty deciphering them.
We think that most benefits that are accumulated, or inherited, before 2016 are protected but no such benefits will be allowed after the new regime's start date.
This is particularly important for a small number of women who paid lower NI rates in the 1960s and 1970s, known as the 'married woman's stamp'. The reduced stamp was abolished in 1977, so this now affects only a small number of women, and the government is making provision for this group and will pay them a pension equivalent to what they would be entitled to under the current system.
The other big change is that some people with an insufficient NI record will not be entitled to any state pension whatsoever, but the government hasn't yet decided whether the cut-off period will be less than seven or less than 10 years.
cut and paste from an online money magazine.
On 28 Jan 2015 at 11:03pm Mavis wrote:
Does none take responsibility for themselves anymore ??
On 29 Jan 2015 at 8:20am Annette Curtin-Twitcher wrote:
The changes are being brought in too quickly to enable older workers to make alternative provision.
The same happened with the raising of pension ages: I was already over 50 when it was announced that I would have to wait an extra 6 years before getting my state pension. Had I had that information 20 years earlier, I would not have changed careers and would have had a far larger occupational pension, which is payable from the age of 60. It also offers protection in the event of ill-health forcing an early retirement, and it seems increasingly unlikely that I'll be well enough to keep working till I'm 66.
These changes need much longer lead times, so that people can make informed choices.
On 29 Jan 2015 at 9:23am Country Boy wrote:
Surely a private / top up pension would only reduce your new state pension if you had paid lower NI contributions as a result?
On 29 Jan 2015 at 12:24pm Pension Boy wrote:
Bastian, going back to the initial post, it's not as bad as your State Pension being reduced by you private/company pension.
You will NOT get lower than under the State Pension old system and, if there is a reduction in the 'Starting Amount' calculation because you have been contracted out (and, therefore, paid less NIC through your working career) this can easily be made up with qualifying years after April 2016.
Any reduction in the new State Pension is only like not receiving the Additional State Pension in the current scheme, so you're not really losing out if you are contracted out.
People retiring after around 2030 will not be affected and those already retired will not be affected. There will be a few years where the 'slack' between the two State Pensions overlaps but NOBODY WILL RECEIVE A LOWER STATE PENSION than they would have done.
On 29 Jan 2015 at 3:12pm bastian wrote:
Pension boy, that is not how it is addressed in the many articles I have read on the subject. If you have put enough into the workplace pension scheme over many years from a salary of about £30,000, you could very well find that you have surpassed the state level (not just of todays standard but also the new flat rate pension) and though you have also paid NI contributios all your life, not find yourself entitled to the state pension at all. They will take away state pension money from what you are paid out of your SERPS or private pension.
It has also been stated that the system is to run in tandom over a vast period of time and that aprts of it are so complicated that no one, even the implimemntors know how it is going to work.
This is still going to leave alot of Women out of pocket as they have spent precious time on families and the elderly, thinking they would benefit from theri husbands NI pension, only to find they will now (as of April 2017) not be entitled to a penny, not only of his state pension but his top up pension either. And it's too late for some in their early fifties to gain enough NI to make up the short fall, and most cannot just pluck that money out of the air to fill their NI gap either.
On 29 Jan 2015 at 4:30pm Country Boy wrote:
Bastian, I hope you are not correct in what you say. I am in a final sslary scheme and my Company's Pension Advisor has assured me, only today that under the current law, I will still be entitled to my new state pension when I reach the age at which it becomes payable. In fact, I can take my pension early at an enhanced rate which will then reduce when the new state pension kicks in.
On 29 Jan 2015 at 5:20pm bastian wrote:
it may depend on what age you are now-but it has been pointed out that it is final salary pensions that are at risk from what I have read. If your company advisor actually understand the new flat rate pension scheme he is unusal. Some payments that have already been made have been protected but payments into the scheme after 2017 will not be.
On 29 Jan 2015 at 5:46pm Country Boy wrote:
Well, I have 38 years unbroken NI contributions - maybe that helps.
On 29 Jan 2015 at 6:40pm Rosiecheeks wrote:
What happens to those who do not/have not worked, live on benefits, live in council house, basically live off the state. How are they looked after. Shall I sell up, give my kids the money and plead poverty?
On 30 Jan 2015 at 8:07am ducatipete wrote:
My ball and chain was going to get her pension at 60, she now has to work until she is 66. In the cold light of day that has cost £35,000.
On 30 Jan 2015 at 8:30am bastian wrote:
Rosie cheeks, your post is offensive.
Poeple who live in council houses do work to and pay into schemes like the above stated one.
Under the new rules if you have not paid 35 years of full NI you will not get anything.
Those on Job seekers allowence have thei stamp paid at the lower rate (that's not the full amount).
however you can be a hard workign female, looking after a relative and be working part time in a job and still not get a penny.
On 30 Jan 2015 at 9:32am Pension Boy wrote:
"Under the new rules if you have not paid 35 years of full NI you will not get anything" - that is just totally wrong. 10 years will get you a partial State Pension.
Reduction to Starting Pension will not reduce below current Basic State Pension limits.
You need to ear (current rates) £5,772 pa to qualify for Pension and you get a full State Pension after 35 years.
Who says people don't know these things? I see you don't, but please stop spreading these lies and trying to scaremonger (sorry if that sounds rude, but causing panic by spreading lies is worse IMHO). The only uncertainties are that some amounts for rates etc have not been set yet, due to be announced in Autumn 2015.
An official carer can get NIC credits, so someone looking after their dear old mum will not suffer. Job seekers get a full contribution service for when they are out of work.
It's all explained in the link.
Check it out here »
On 30 Jan 2015 at 9:34am Pension Boy wrote:
To clarify - you get a full State Pension at State Pension Age after 35 years qualifying employment or credits. You wont get it after 35 years of working!
On 30 Jan 2015 at 11:06am Belladonna wrote:
Pension Boy - your last statement has confused me. If you need to pay 35 years of NI contributions to get state pension, surely 35 years of working means you have paid your 'stamp' ? Or do you just mean you can't draw the state pension after 35 years of working, but have to wait until retirement age ?
On 30 Jan 2015 at 11:40am Pension Boy wrote:
If, by your State Retirement Age, you have achieved 35 years worth of contributions (ie your salary has been over £5,772pa at current rate) or equivalent credits then you will receive full State Pension from your State Pension Age.
You still have to pay NIC (ie your stamp) on earnings up to your State Retirement Age and you do not get to start you State Pension until your State Retirement age.
You can start work at age 16 and your State Retirement Age could be 68 (at the present time) so you could pay NIC for 52 years, but you'd only get the same State Pension as someone who has paid NIC (or got appropriate credits) for 35 years.
Does that make sense?
On 30 Jan 2015 at 1:06pm big jane wrote:
vote for u k I p
On 30 Jan 2015 at 1:31pm Big John wrote:
On 30 Jan 2015 at 3:49pm bastian wrote:
So tyou can pay over the ods but you can't claim your pension until you are 68, so it isn';t woth paying your atmp until you reach about, hmm, 20 yaers old.
You still haven'ytpointed out the thing I keep talking baout-there is going to be a raft of women in the ir late fifties, who will not be able to make up missing contributions, who did not take advantage of attendance allowance in order to save the government money at the time, so have no stamp paid for that period and have not got time or the money to pay the missing stamps and when widowed, will no longer be entitled to their husbands NIC pension, or his S2P. How are they going to live? It isn't going to be just a few, it will be quite a few, and this aslo included housewives who's records may included only child benefit years.
Would you like to comment-I am not spreading lies, it is actually useful to raise these issues so that someone who says they actually work in it and know it off by heart can inform everyone else-many of whom do not realise it's about to change.
Would you also like to comment on how the proportion of peopel who had paid into SERPS at £35,000 are now going to be a little worse off through paying higher rate NIC, and recieving less than expected in Pension post 2016.
On 30 Jan 2015 at 4:25pm Pension Boy wrote:
Bastian, please read that link I posted earlier.
But to summarise:
NOBODY will be worse off. If they are not entitled to a full State Pension after 2016, they would not have been entitled to the full current State Pension - point 3 of that link.
The old scheme worked that you paid NIC until your State Retirement Age (or the 5th April prior to it if we are getting technical) regardless of how many years you had, so there is no new "pay over the odds".
Old scheme needed 30 years to get full pension, now 35 years. BUT, the woman's retirement age has been put back by 5 years, so they will still get it (if entitled to it under old scheme), so they wont be worse off.
You get pension credits if you claim Child Benefit for a child under 12 (or under 16 before 2010), get Jobseeker’s allowance or Employment and Support Allowance or get Carer’s Allowance. So women who had a career break for children and those long term ill and/or unemployed will not be affected, so they wont be worse off.
Pension is transferable to widow (and widower if applicable) - point 6 of that link, so widows wont be worse off.
Your starting pot calculation in the new State Pension will include any SERPS you have accrued, so you wont lose it - Point 3 of that link - so you wont be worse off.
SERPS is stopping, but the State Pension is increasing from £113 pw to (estimated at the moment) £148 pw. You will actually be better off in contribution to payout terms (not worse off).
Nobody will receive less under the new system (think I said that before, it's in the link too).
If people cant make up contributions, they wouldn't have had a full pension under current rule (you see, nobody will be worse off).
As to paying "over the odds", NIC covers more than your State Pension. Or you could look at it as someone earning £5772 per annum will get the same State Pension benefit as someone earning £100k pa, but neither will be worse off.
I think your scenario of what would happen to the widow wont happen in reality. OK, if the widow remarries, never claimed disabled, employment or child benefits and never worked will end up with no pension, but then again they wouldn't have had much under current rules. Then again, there are always other benefits they can receive.
On 30 Jan 2015 at 4:33pm Non Comprehendi wrote:
B -astian I tried , but just couldn't get through your convoluted prose and punctuation . Still never mind I'm drawing my private pension and have but four and a half years to wait for my State one .
On 30 Jan 2015 at 6:45pm bastian wrote:
You are one of the lucky ones then Non...
I thought that pension boy might be helpful, but it seems not as helpful as I thought. In that, there will be losers in the ew system, many will be our fairer sex and they are not just a statistc on a balance sheet in reallity.
It is not Ok to have been issued with pesion statements for the last ten yaers or more stating that you will recieve X amount, only to find that you won't or that in your demise, your spouse will notbe catered for and tough luck.
That's reallity, and that is what this new system means.
I understand that the old system is complex, but don't rush through/bring forward a new system that is not yet sorted out.
On 2 Feb 2015 at 12:01pm Pension Boy wrote:
Bastian, where are you getting your (mis)information from?
On 2 Feb 2015 at 2:17pm bastian wrote:
This money, and the Telegraph.
On 2 Feb 2015 at 5:12pm Country Boy wrote:
bastian - Any chance of providing a link or some extracts please?
On 3 Feb 2015 at 11:08am Pension Boy wrote:
Bastian - from one of your sources, talking about women who have not worked and would have relied on husband's NIC:
"The Government has put in place a temporary safety net for people like her. She will be entitled to receive 60 per cent of your pension under the new system."
"Women who stopped work to look after a child under 16 or under 12 since 2010 are credited with a year of National Insurance for each year they have done so."
Check it out here »
On 3 Feb 2015 at 5:21pm Rent boy wrote:
I can't afford a mortgage let alone pension plan