UK pensions

[denby45]

39 minutes ago, mommysboy said:

 

The books will need to be balanced, but the scheme can do that, and indeed that is being planned already with the forthcoming increments. For instance, my contribution years went up 5 and I won't receive it until I am 67.

 

It could be that in 40 years time people will have to wait until they are 75, and pay 45 years in to the system.

 

But as for means testing written in to the scheme: I just can't see how that is possible given that it is a pension scheme, and a legal contract.  You can't accept contributions, enter in to a legal agreement, and then choose not to pay because you think someone already has enough money.

 

Remember, Australia only means tested that part which could be means tested. It doesn't means test the basic universal allowance.  There is no part of the UK scheme that is subject to means testing.

 

You have a valid point in as much as the government should morally rather than legally meet their commitments and promises. However as shown by the freezing of pensions that is not the case. They can do whatever they feel is necessary and that ultimately in my opinion include means testing. Is it wrong? Yes. Will that make a difference to the outcome? No. As I said earlier they don't have much wiggle room and means testing would be probably one of the least expensive vote losing methods. Means testing would look like they were doing the right thing and supporting those most in need. 

 

Den

[sandyf]

3 hours ago, denby45 said:

Thanks for that report Sandy. It is commendable that we are trying to do something and I do hope that some of the recommendations will help. However I really got discouraged about the report, which by the way is based solely on assumptions, when I read the statement  “The Office for National Statistics (ONS) currently predicts that life expectancy will continue to increase, although improvements will slow down over the next few decades.”

 

This statement on it’s own skews all of his calculations and following arguments. It could not be more wrong. There is a pipeline of age related cures in the testing system today which will get approval in the near future. People will be astounded by the improvements in both health and longevity. 

I also feel that some of his figures are undercooked, however he is of course more well informed than I so I hope I am wrong on that. 

Overall a good effort at identifying the problems and putting forward a workable solution going forward.

 

Den

Quite a valid perspective, nobody can dispute the UK government's track record on underestimating problems.

[mommysboy]

45 minutes ago, denby45 said:

You have a valid point in as much as the government should morally rather than legally meet their commitments and promises. However as shown by the freezing of pensions that is not the case. They can do whatever they feel is necessary and that ultimately in my opinion include means testing. Is it wrong? Yes. Will that make a difference to the outcome? No. As I said earlier they don't have much wiggle room and means testing would be probably one of the least expensive vote losing methods. Means testing would look like they were doing the right thing and supporting those most in need. 

 

Den

No.  I really don't think they can do what they want!  It would actually be quite a monumental task to switch to a means tested benefit, because it is a pension scheme- see Pensions Act (2014). 

Edited April 17, 2018 by mommysboy

[mommysboy]

5 minutes ago, sandyf said:

Quite a valid perspective, nobody can dispute the UK government's track record on underestimating problems.

So if we are going to live to be 90, we can't draw it until we are 80.  What's the issue here?

[sandyf]

1 hour ago, mommysboy said:

 

The books will need to be balanced, but the scheme can do that, and indeed that is being planned already with the forthcoming increments. For instance, my contribution years went up 5 and I won't receive it until I am 67.

 

It could be that in 40 years time people will have to wait until they are 75, and pay 45 years in to the system.

 

Your comments regarding contribution years are a bit distorted, you omitted to say that when you started work it was 44 years and that was reduced to 30 in 2010.

I have paid 49 years and one incomplete year and still do not get the full pension.

[mommysboy]

14 minutes ago, sandyf said:

Your comments regarding contribution years are a bit distorted, you omitted to say that when you started work it was 44 years and that was reduced to 30 in 2010.

I have paid 49 years and one incomplete year and still do not get the full pension.

My comments are not distorted.

 

The transition period was a mess imo and it is absolutely unfair that someone who has paid that long should not get the full pension.  Had you already retired?

 

I mean you'd already paid the required amount.  

 

This what I mean about the gov really not needing means testing, it has a whole weaponry at its disposal.

Edited April 17, 2018 by mommysboy

[DILLIGAD]

Plus imagine relying on emergency services/Police/general labourers still working until 80!!!
That’s been designed by pen-pushers who are not in touch with reality.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[NoshowJones]

On 15/04/2018 at 10:19 PM, mbamber said:

Got over 35 years contributions, I don't think the State Pension will be 66 in 6 years or exist, it will be classed as a benefit & means tested more you put in the less you get out.

What about the MPs and their pension, will that apply to them too? I don't think so.

[DILLIGAD]

What about the MPs and their pension, will that apply to them too? I don't think so.

They have their own preferential rules, like un-frozen pensions no matter where they live.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[sandyf]

13 hours ago, possum1931 said:

What about the MPs and their pension, will that apply to them too? I don't think so.

You are going in a different direction. MP's pensions are an occupational pension, not a state pension.

Under a means tested arrangement they would be about the first to lose their state pension, something that would go down fairly well with the voters.

The level of government occupational pensions is a different issue altogether, remember the old saying "charity begins at home".

[DILLIGAD]

You are going in a different direction. MP's pensions are an occupational pension, not a state pension.
Under a means tested arrangement they would be about the first to lose their state pension, something that would go down fairly well with the voters.
The level of government occupational pensions is a different issue altogether, remember the old saying "charity begins at home".

This seems to contradict your saying.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Rajab Al Zarahni]

3 hours ago, DILLIGAD said:

This seems to contradict your saying.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I am completely lost in trying to understand the substance of your point ? Please explain.

[sandyf]

23 minutes ago, Rajab Al Zarahni said:

I am completely lost in trying to understand the substance of your point ? Please explain.

Just realised what was being implied but as is quite common, gone out of context and off topic.

[mommysboy]

It's glum to talk about but the average take when someone reaches 66 is about 20 years.

 

But there is quite a high attrition rate up to 65.  And one of the dodgiest periods in life is 50 up.  Just guessing that this is the time when people suffer fatal heart attacks, etc.

 

Gov never mentions the savings it makes when a 60 year old dies- chances are the poor soul was paid up.

[evadgib]

20 hours ago, DILLIGAD said:

They have their own preferential rules, like un-frozen pensions no matter where they live.

Their occupational pensions have no bearing whatsoever to the plight of 'frozen' pensioners 

[evadgib]

1 hour ago, sandyf said:

Just realised what was being implied but as is quite common, gone out of context and off topic.

It's classic 'Sun Reader' syndrome; "They're trying to plunder my taxes!" 

[nong38]

8 hours ago, DILLIGAD said:

This seems to contradict your saying.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

We are giving Thailand 153.3m for what shares in the submarines or VTOL planes? But cannot afford to up rate the frozen pensions shame on you because you have given it to people who over threw a democratically elected government, is someone in Whitehall down the pub when they should be keeping an eye on the taxpayers money!

[evadgib]

 

 

The International Consortium of British Pensioners (ICBP)

10 mins · 

ICBP Director, John Duffy has served a Court summons on Chancellor Philip Hammond claiming redress for pension he has been denied. Good luck and thank you John!

Edited April 18, 2018 by evadgib

[evadgib]

 

 

The International Consortium of British Pensioners (ICBP)added 2 new photos.

10 hrs · 

ICBP Director John Duffy at CHOGM getting our message across

[evadgib]

The International Consortium of British Pensioners (ICBP)

2 hrs · 

Virgin's Chairman, Sir Richard Branson has published this blog, supporting our campaign to unfreeze pensions
https://www.virgin.com/richard-branson/frozen-pensions

VIRGIN.COM

 

Frozen pensions

I was surprised to learn recently that more than half a million British pensioners living overseas are facing tough times as they get older as the government has frozen their State pensions. gettyimages-536776681.jpg Image from Getty Images The policy means almost half of all pensioners living over....

[mommysboy]

3 hours ago, evadgib said:

The International Consortium of British Pensioners (ICBP)

2 hrs · 

Virgin's Chairman, Sir Richard Branson has published this blog, supporting our campaign to unfreeze pensions
https://www.virgin.com/richard-branson/frozen-pensions

VIRGIN.COM

 

Frozen pensions

I was surprised to learn recently that more than half a million British pensioners living overseas are facing tough times as they get older as the government has frozen their State pensions. gettyimages-536776681.jpg Image from Getty Images The policy means almost half of all pensioners living over....

The strange thing is the Pensions overhaul was supposed to make the whole system equal for all, and largely it did just that.  Yet, some folk didn't get the uprate to 150 (as was) even though they had been contributing 45 years or more.  And yes... this absurd discrimination against some expats is just plain illogical.

 

The thing to do, would be to return to Blighty for a couple of years if possible.  I doubt you'd have to spend all your time there, and after a couple of years you could disappear again.

 

Sadly, I don't think the gov will back down- it's purely a case of having to shell out too much in times of austerity.  It's also not a cohort that attracts public sympathy.

Edited April 19, 2018 by mommysboy

[DILLIGAD]

The strange thing is the Pensions overhaul was supposed to make the whole system equal for all, and largely it did just that.  Yet, some folk didn't get the uprate to 150 (as was) even though they had been contributing 45 years or more.  And yes... this absurd discrimination against some expats is just plain illogical.  

The thing to do, would be to return to Blighty for a couple of years if possible.  I doubt you'd have to spend all your time there, and after a couple of years you could disappear again.

 

Sadly, I don't think the gov will back down- it's purely a case of having to shell out too much in times of austerity.  It's also not a cohort that attracts public sympathy.

 

Unfortunetly, for many ‘average’ long term Expats, returning back permanently to UK is a terrible culture shock as you feel like a foreigner in ‘your own country’ and any assistance is also very hard to get, because the little island has taken-on ‘more than it can chew’ with the increased population. There are too many of the indigenous population not wanting to work too. That’s just my personal opinion after returning 6 years ago (probably for the last time).

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[sandyf]

On 4/15/2018 at 3:12 PM, sandyf said:

In the tax year 2014/15, income tax revenue was about 163 billion so about 20 billion was used to prop up the state pension. Again in 2015/16, 12.8% of income tax was taken from the 168 billion of income tax revenue, another 20 or so billion.

Strikes me that whatever is showing in this so called fund is insignificant compared to the annual shortfall in NI.

I think I saw the answer to the puzzling situation regarding the NI fund balance and income tax being used instead in the comments section of evagib's post so thanks for that. How ludicrous is it to maintain a balance in an underfunded fund.

 

Sir Richard, Thank you so much for your support. It is amazing how many people, including pensioners, living in the UK who are totally oblivious to this issue. The State Pension system is a “pay-as-you-go” system. According to the Oxford English Dictionary this means: “A system of meeting costs as they arise or paying for a service before it is used“. The fund that pays the UK State Pension is the National Insurance Fund (NIF), which is managed by the Taxman (HMRC). From a prudence point of view, HMRC have to keep an operating balance of 1/6th of the annual payments from that fund - around £16 Billion. The last time this Fund was audited (March 2017), there was a balance closer to £22 Billion. As your article correctly pointed out - to uprate the pensions for the 550,000 frozen pensioners would cost 0.7% of the overall Pension Budget - this amounts to around £600 million. If the UK government has this operating surplus of close to £6 Billion, why can’t this money be used to uprate our pensions? Many of these older pensioners fought for their country when their country needed them the most. Why are they being treated so shabbily now? More business leaders like yourself need to stand up and support these OAPs who worked for them, and then perhaps the Government will finally do something about it. Thank you again for your support.

[mommysboy]

6 hours ago, sandyf said:

I think I saw the answer to the puzzling situation regarding the NI fund balance and income tax being used instead in the comments section of evagib's post so thanks for that. How ludicrous is it to maintain a balance in an underfunded fund.

 

Sir Richard, Thank you so much for your support. It is amazing how many people, including pensioners, living in the UK who are totally oblivious to this issue. The State Pension system is a “pay-as-you-go” system. According to the Oxford English Dictionary this means: “A system of meeting costs as they arise or paying for a service before it is used“. The fund that pays the UK State Pension is the National Insurance Fund (NIF), which is managed by the Taxman (HMRC). From a prudence point of view, HMRC have to keep an operating balance of 1/6th of the annual payments from that fund - around £16 Billion. The last time this Fund was audited (March 2017), there was a balance closer to £22 Billion. As your article correctly pointed out - to uprate the pensions for the 550,000 frozen pensioners would cost 0.7% of the overall Pension Budget - this amounts to around £600 million. If the UK government has this operating surplus of close to £6 Billion, why can’t this money be used to uprate our pensions? Many of these older pensioners fought for their country when their country needed them the most. Why are they being treated so shabbily now? More business leaders like yourself need to stand up and support these OAPs who worked for them, and then perhaps the Government will finally do something about it. Thank you again for your support.

I just think the worst enemy can be your own kind.  It wouldn't surprise me if most pensioners in Blighty either confuse the issue with plundering the welfare state, etc, or are outright hostile because they assume you are wealthy and having the time of your life.

 

And I wouldn't expect much sympathy from the young. 

 

I reckon someone has figured out they can get away with doing it.  And nothing is going to change. I'm afraid we are the 'Aunt Sally'.

[bert bloggs]

Whenever the adverts in the UK show pensioners living abroad ,its always two "young looking" 60 year olds walking on a beach shoes off and kicking the lovely blue water , its a bit like whenever there is an article about Thailand in the comments section it always has "terrible place ,full of pervs and sex tourists" that has the hundreds of likes . you never see any pictures of really old worn out couples just getting by . and that is why they will not vote to give us more .

[evadgib]

 

https://www.express.co.uk/finance/retirement/948349/retirement-state-pension-overseas-frozen-pensions

[Rimmer]

Some posts have been removed, we are not discussing prisons, holiday camps or insane institutions

[denby45]

37 minutes ago, evadgib said:

 

https://www.express.co.uk/finance/retirement/948349/retirement-state-pension-overseas-frozen-pensions

"Issuing a court summons to Chancellor Philip Hammond to try to reclaim "lost" payments."

This for me is a huge mistake and is definitely a stumbling block. They should concentrate on getting the current system change to up-rating for all as a priority. Yes the backdating of payments is also important especially for some who have lost out over the years but why don't they put that issue away for the time being and resurrect it after the government have changed the current system effectively admitting they made a mistake.

It is surely time to be smart and treat the two issues separately. One step at a time and keep it simple.

 

Den 

[evadgib]

Any publicity is good publicity and I for one am happy at how the Consortium tackled the CHOGM in front of the watching world.

[mommysboy]

1 hour ago, evadgib said:

Any publicity is good publicity and I for one am happy at how the Consortium tackled the CHOGM in front of the watching world.

Go charging at the barn door you often end up flat on your backside.

 

It really is a head scratcher though.