UK pensions

[Maximus33]

True but not true. Divorce laws always included the right of the spouse to claim half of all the joint assets including ancillary benefits such as pension. The pension laws were changed to allow splitting of pensions as otherwise the other assets often needed to be split unfairly. For example, you have a £100K pension and £100K house, then you had to keep the pension, partner had to keep the house. With the changes, you could get half the money now and half at retirement. What the changes did was give the courts much more flexibility in how they split assets and so allowing some leeway in ensuring divorcees on both sides had equal current and future assets. 

[evadgib]

From the new chairman of ICBP to all members and supporters:

Quote

Dear ICBP Supporter,

Having recently been elected chairman of the International Consortium of British Pensioners and not having used MailChimp for some ten years, I thought it was about time I had a go at the technology and made contact with all ICBP supporters.

I only became part of ICBP last year when I discovered that my pension was frozen and, like most pensioners, whether living in the U.K., frozen countries or non-frozen countries, no-one told me my pension would be frozen if I moved to certain countries not even when, eight years before my retirement age, I negotiated with the Dept. of Work & Pensions to continue paying my contributions.

Like almost everyone who discovers this reprehensible practice, I was horrified to discover that the U.K. Government treats some of its pensioners in this underhand manner.  Having been a particularly active member of the Conservative Party, a party I always understood to be one of equality and fairness, I was particularly upset to discover that they are the only party still opposing any change to the current practise of freezing pensions.

Sheila Telford's recent retirement letter advised of what ICBP has been doing in the recent past, some of which we will continue to do in the future but there are a few things the new Board would like to add to existing programmes.

Firstly, we would like to make contact with all overseas British pensioner associations and have regular communication together with joint assaults on the U.K. Government. We would also like to make contact with any U.K. pensioner associations who may be able to assist us in our cause. The internet is only partially effective in tracking some of these down so, if you have any contacts, please let me know. I have set up an e-mail address solely for ICBP communications which is john.duffy (at) icbp.info

Another important plank in our programme is a petition.  There is no point is starting a petition unless we can get 100,000 signatures so we need as many contacts as possible - more of that later.

As you are aware, we campaigned at the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (GHOGM) in London in April. A bit disappointing mainly because the whole debate programme was decided months in advance but it was a worthwhile experience and we have already approached the CHOGM organisers requesting a debate on the subject for 2020 in Rwanda.

Legal action is a possibility but very costly.  Brexit is likely to substantially assist our case for being included in any up-rating and we have already commenced proceeding in the County Courts but they are unlikely to go further without a substantial improvement in our income and the best source of income is an increase in membership.

Although ICBP does not have a membership of its own and almost all funding comes from the two main associations in Canada and Australia, with a frozen pension population of 520,000, it should be able to substantially increase the membership of these associations if we can get the word out.  Also, the Board will be considering some form of associate membership for individuals and groups who do not live in Australia or Canada although there is nothing to prevent them from joining either the Canada or Australian associations.

This has turned out to be a lot longer than I intended and there is more I could say but this probably enough.

Please get the word out to as many people as possible that we will be doing a petition but that there's no point without 100,000 signatures.

I am yet to discover how to add my own signature to MailChimp.  Maybe by the next update.

Regards

John J Duffy

 

[ianh68]

On 7/13/2018 at 9:44 PM, evadgib said:

From the new chairman of ICBP to all members and supporters:

 

I can also recommend the Australian offshoot which is particularly active and helpful and covers SE Asia.

 

https://www.bpia.org.au/

[evadgib]

On 6/17/2018 at 4:59 PM, evadgib said:

#Me too. I'm waiting a little longer to allow HMG time to collate the data they sought prior to last weeks cut off date.

 

Softly, softly...

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/windrush-compensation-scheme-consultation-launched

[OJAS]

On 7/13/2018 at 9:44 PM, evadgib said:

"Having been a particularly active member of the Conservative Party, a party I always understood to be one of equality and fairness, I was particularly upset to discover that they are the only party still opposing any change to the current practise of freezing pensions."

As I recall all parties have expressed opposition to frozen pensions while not in government. But, unfortunately for those of us who feel penalised in this way, those who then go on to win a General Election always seem to change their minds on this particular issue - presumably after their DWP ministerial appointees have had their ears bent by whomever is DWP's Sir Humphrey at the time.

[nontabury]

14 hours ago, OJAS said:

As I recall all parties have expressed opposition to frozen pensions while not in government. But, unfortunately for those of us who feel penalised in this way, those who then go on to win a General Election always seem to change their minds on this particular issue - presumably after their DWP ministerial appointees have had their ears bent by whomever is DWP's Sir Humphrey at the time.

Correct, these self serving civil servants are there to look after themselves, as we are now seeing in there biased anti Brexit reports.

[partington]

3 hours ago, nontabury said:

Correct, these self serving civil servants are there to look after themselves, as we are now seeing in there biased anti Brexit reports.

This is just silly. Governments make policy not civil servants. This was an Act of Parliament introduced by the Conservative Party, and voted through by  their MPs.

 

What a shame that those 600 MPs couldn't change what this civil servant decreed.

 

 

http://www.web40571.clarahost.co.uk/statepensionage/SPA_history.htm

 

"2011 - Pensions Bill sets out the planned changes
In February 2011 the detailed timetable for change was announced in the Pensions Bill 2011. Women's state pension age would rise to 65 by November 2018 and then men and women's pension age would rise together to reach 66 by 5 April 2020. Five million men and women would face a later state pension date. But while men would have to wait at most another year, 500,000 women would have to wait longer than a year. The wait for 300,000 would be 18 months or more and 33,000 would have to wait for two years. 

Widespread protests and rebellions in Parliament - which the Government defeated - led to promises by the Secretary of State Iain Duncan-Smith to introduce some 'transitional' changes to help the most severely affected women. But the Pensions Bill went through almost all its stages in Parliament with no details of what the Government would actually do. 

On Thursday 13 October 2011, the last possible date, the Government announced its plans. It would cap the delay for women at 18 months. It kept the rise to 65 by November 2018. But would then stretch out the transition from age 65 to 66 for both men and women by an extra six months. It will now be completed in October 2020. The concession will cost £1.1 billion (at 2010/11 prices), half of which will be spent on stretching the timetable for men, none of whom had complained.

On Tuesday 18 October 2011 the House of Commons accepted these changes and despite a further attempt in the Lords to amend them the Pensions Act 2011 became law on 3 November 2011."

 

Edited July 21, 2018 by partington

[nontabury]

1 hour ago, partington said:

This is just silly. Governments make policy not civil servants. This was an Act of Parliament introduced by the Conservative Party, and voted through by  their MPs.

 

What a shame that those 600 MPs couldn't change what this civil servant decreed.

 

 

http://www.web40571.clarahost.co.uk/statepensionage/SPA_history.htm

 

"2011 - Pensions Bill sets out the planned changes
In February 2011 the detailed timetable for change was announced in the Pensions Bill 2011. Women's state pension age would rise to 65 by November 2018 and then men and women's pension age would rise together to reach 66 by 5 April 2020. Five million men and women would face a later state pension date. But while men would have to wait at most another year, 500,000 women would have to wait longer than a year. The wait for 300,000 would be 18 months or more and 33,000 would have to wait for two years. 

Widespread protests and rebellions in Parliament - which the Government defeated - led to promises by the Secretary of State Iain Duncan-Smith to introduce some 'transitional' changes to help the most severely affected women. But the Pensions Bill went through almost all its stages in Parliament with no details of what the Government would actually do. 

On Thursday 13 October 2011, the last possible date, the Government announced its plans. It would cap the delay for women at 18 months. It kept the rise to 65 by November 2018. But would then stretch out the transition from age 65 to 66 for both men and women by an extra six months. It will now be completed in October 2020. The concession will cost £1.1 billion (at 2010/11 prices), half of which will be spent on stretching the timetable for men, none of whom had complained.

On Tuesday 18 October 2011 the House of Commons accepted these changes and despite a further attempt in the Lords to amend them the Pensions Act 2011 became law on 3 November 2011."

 

Well as we’ve recently seen regarding the so called Brexit negotiations, Senior  civil servants do work to their own agenda. And this senior civil servant WAS responsible for recommending these changes, for which he receives a large salary,pension as well as retiring at an earlier date than Joe Bloggs.

[sandyf]

23 hours ago, OJAS said:

As I recall all parties have expressed opposition to frozen pensions while not in government. But, unfortunately for those of us who feel penalised in this way, those who then go on to win a General Election always seem to change their minds on this particular issue - presumably after their DWP ministerial appointees have had their ears bent by whomever is DWP's Sir Humphrey at the time.

This is how the frozen saga began.

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

3. When pensions were first introduced in 1925, they were only payable in Great Britain. Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man. Subsequently, a provision was included in the Contributory Pension Act 1929 enabling pensions to be paid in His Majesty’s dominions (broadly the countries which now form the Commonwealth). When the rate of pension was increased in 1946, the increase was not paid to pensioners abroad. The reasons for this decision appear to have been related mainly to the then forthcoming new scheme of National Insurance. It was considered that the substantial increase in pension, from 10 to 26 shillings, was a first instalment of the new scheme and that pensioners abroad had made only a small contribution to their pensions and could not reasonably expect a share in the new scheme.

 

Morality takes second place when money is involved and with the current financial burden of brexit I see little chance of any change in my lifetime. The latest government publication can be found here.

https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/SN01457

[evadgib]

43 minutes ago, sandyf said:

This is how the frozen saga began.

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

3. When pensions were first introduced in 1925, they were only payable in Great Britain. Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man. Subsequently, a provision was included in the Contributory Pension Act 1929 enabling pensions to be paid in His Majesty’s dominions (broadly the countries which now form the Commonwealth). When the rate of pension was increased in 1946, the increase was not paid to pensioners abroad. The reasons for this decision appear to have been related mainly to the then forthcoming new scheme of National Insurance. It was considered that the substantial increase in pension, from 10 to 26 shillings, was a first instalment of the new scheme and that pensioners abroad had made only a small contribution to their pensions and could not reasonably expect a share in the new scheme.

 

Morality takes second place when money is involved and with the current financial burden of brexit I see little chance of any change in my lifetime. The latest government publication can be found here.

https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/SN01457

Change won't happen without support from everyone affected along with their families inc any in UK or in the 'alright jack' club ( Brits currently in EU). How many contributors to this board have $igned up ?

[mommysboy]

On 7/22/2018 at 9:19 AM, evadgib said:

Change won't happen without support from everyone affected along with their families inc any in UK or in the 'alright jack' club ( Brits currently in EU). How many contributors to this board have $igned up ?

If there is to be change, I would say it's more likely to be further restrictions. I really think pensioners currently claiming might want to see that their cup is more than half full!  When I retire I would say there is a small chance that I will receive a reduced pension.  It could even get worse than that (very unlikely).  I am already thinking about returning to Blighty out of necessity.

 

Us Brits love an Aunt Sally.  Regarding healthcare it's those with Alzheimers who find cast iron rights are as flimsy as confetti. Regarding pensions it will probably be expats.

Edited July 27, 2018 by mommysboy

[BritManToo]

48 minutes ago, mommysboy said:

Regarding healthcare it's those with Alzheimers who find cast iron rights are as flimsy as confetti.

If you have dementia, you probably won't care about anything.

[nong38]

I saw a recent report from MP's saying that Auto enroll to work pensions was to be pursued further with probable increased contributions in preparation for the end of the "triple lock" pension promise introduced by DC, I think the next Government will change the rules there, so 2 more years of possible 2.5% increases ( last month inflation stood at 2.4% )  then HMG will start to turn the screw on pensioners the young seem to be the priority these days regardless of who built the wealth of today and the recent past, like frozen pensions, conveniently forgotten.

[mommysboy]

3 hours ago, BritManToo said:

If you have dementia, you probably won't care about anything.

Your loved ones will! Believe me!  

[BritManToo]

Just now, mommysboy said:

Your loved ones will! Believe me!  

I don't have any of those, rid myself of that particular millstone 10 years back.

[mommysboy]

11 minutes ago, nong38 said:

I saw a recent report from MP's saying that Auto enroll to work pensions was to be pursued further with probable increased contributions in preparation for the end of the "triple lock" pension promise introduced by DC, I think the next Government will change the rules there, so 2 more years of possible 2.5% increases ( last month inflation stood at 2.4% )  then HMG will start to turn the screw on pensioners the young seem to be the priority these days regardless of who built the wealth of today and the recent past, like frozen pensions, conveniently forgotten.

'regardless of who built the wealth of today'

 

You are joking aren't you?

[mommysboy]

5 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

I don't have any of those, rid myself of that particular millstone 10 years back.

If there is one thing you really need when you're in that final decline, it's a loved one!!

 

I wish you many more happy years and decades regardless.

Edited July 27, 2018 by mommysboy

[nong38]

6 minutes ago, mommysboy said:

'regardless of who built the wealth of today'

 

You are joking aren't you?

No actually I am not, previous generations built what we have today, its always been that way,  how that is used is often out of our control. When I looked at retirement my view was I would have a state pension and a work pension, add to that income from shares ( 2008 crash knocked that back a bit ) and interest from savings, my guess was 5% ( ISA) then look what happened, BOE slashed interest rates which affected my income but at the same time it was possible for young people to get cheap mortgages and loans to keep the economy moving all at my expence and then not giving me annual pension increases because I happened to move house, if only Thailand were in the EU, there will be a vacancy soon one always hopes?.

[mommysboy]

2 hours ago, nong38 said:

No actually I am not, previous generations built what we have today, its always been that way,  how that is used is often out of our control. When I looked at retirement my view was I would have a state pension and a work pension, add to that income from shares ( 2008 crash knocked that back a bit ) and interest from savings, my guess was 5% ( ISA) then look what happened, BOE slashed interest rates which affected my income but at the same time it was possible for young people to get cheap mortgages and loans to keep the economy moving all at my expence and then not giving me annual pension increases because I happened to move house, if only Thailand were in the EU, there will be a vacancy soon one always hopes?.

That's a skewed view sheltering behind a general truth imo.

 

Whatever this current old aged generation may be remembered for it won't be wealth creation or financial prudence.  Young people have not been favoured at all- in fact it is generally regarded that the youngsters of today will be severely economically disadvantaged relative to previous ones.  What a crock of...

[nong38]

34 minutes ago, mommysboy said:

That's a skewed view sheltering behind a general truth imo.

 

Whatever this current old aged generation may be remembered for it won't be wealth creation or financial prudence.  Young people have not been favoured at all- in fact it is generally regarded that the youngsters of today will be severely economically disadvantaged relative to previous ones.  What a crock of...

My lost interest through my prudence is not a crock of xxxx as you put it, you are entitled to your opinion, people of my generation are watching young people "living for today" not bothering to save and doing it with my lost interest courtesy of the banks and building societies who moved my interest into their loans at very low  ridiculous rates, when the interest rates go up, the young will not be able to cope and the chickens will come home to roost. Sorry if you don't see that I think its pretty obvious.

[billd766]

2 hours ago, mommysboy said:

That's a skewed view sheltering behind a general truth imo.

 

Whatever this current old aged generation may be remembered for it won't be wealth creation or financial prudence.  Young people have not been favoured at all- in fact it is generally regarded that the youngsters of today will be severely economically disadvantaged relative to previous ones.  What a crock of...

My generation which is one you are referring to did pay their bills, did not expect something for nothing. quite happily paid for pensions for the previous generations without complaining but DID expect the same treatment from your generation.

 

Sadly your generation is all about me, me and me again.

 

I, and my generation worked for what we wanted and needed and expected little or nothing in return.

 

Your generation expects and demands everything given to them without having to work for it. So to quote you

 

"What a crock of..." If you want it go and get it and forget the me, me, me.

Edited July 27, 2018 by billd766
edited for bad spelling after I had posted it.

[mommysboy]

2 hours ago, billd766 said:

My generation which is one you are referring to did pay their bills, did not expect something for nothing. quite happily paid for pensions for the previous generations without complaining but DID expect the same treatment from your generation.

 

Sadly your generation is all about me, me and me again.

 

I, and my generation worked for what we wanted and needed and expected little or nothing in return.

 

Your generation expects and demands everything given to them without having to work for it. So to quote you

 

"What a crock of..." If you want it go and get it and forget the me, me, me.

You may have been wise, but I contend that does not apply throughout.

 

The younger generation is increasingly far more sober, diligent, and prudent than previous generations, particularly the baby boomers . Whatever ! Let's just say a typical youngster of today has really been dumped on from a great height.  He will pay more tax, for longer, get less benefits, and most won't stand an earthly of getting on the housing ladder. I doubt whether the NHS will be as comprehensive as it has been, and he has to pay for advanced education.

 

It's time a lot of these false narratives were laid to rest.

Edited July 27, 2018 by mommysboy

[denby45]

12 hours ago, billd766 said:

My generation which is one you are referring to did pay their bills, did not expect something for nothing. quite happily paid for pensions for the previous generations without complaining but DID expect the same treatment from your generation.

 

Sadly your generation is all about me, me and me again.

 

I, and my generation worked for what we wanted and needed and expected little or nothing in return.

 

Your generation expects and demands everything given to them without having to work for it. So to quote you

 

"What a crock of..." If you want it go and get it and forget the me, me, me.

Sorry Billd but I too am from your generation and of course I did pay my bills and paid for pensions, saved for retirement, never got into debt etc. However that is what you and I did. If everyone of our generation and the government of our time had conducted their affairs like you and I then at least the mountain of debt we have shouldered the next generations with would not exist. Yes I too am extremely angry that my carefully thought out retirement plans have been scuppered by terrible government policies but I still count myself lucky to have been one of the baby boomer generation. God help those who are following.

 

Den

Edited July 28, 2018 by denby45

[billd766]

10 hours ago, mommysboy said:

You may have been wise, but I contend that does not apply throughout.

 

The younger generation is increasingly far more sober, diligent, and prudent than previous generations, particularly the baby boomers . Whatever ! Let's just say a typical youngster of today has really been dumped on from a great height.  He will pay more tax, for longer, get less benefits, and most won't stand an earthly of getting on the housing ladder. I doubt whether the NHS will be as comprehensive as it has been, and he has to pay for advanced education.

 

It's time a lot of these false narratives were laid to rest.

 

That may be true for the baby boomers but certainly not for my generation.

 

I left school at age 15 1/2 and went out into the workplace.

 

There was NO advanced education for most of us, free or paid for, unless we went to a grammar school or went to night school as my brother did.

 

I started paying income tax at 15 1/2 and now I am 74 and STILL paying income tax which I figure I will be doing until I die. 59 and a bit years paid so far and who knows for how much longer.

 

As I live in Thailand my pension is frozen at the rate that I got it in 2009 and as I pay income tax I am partly funding my own pension, something I have in common with every other pensioner who is paying income tax.

 

I was 40 when I bought my first house and I gave it to my ex wife in the divorce settlement.

 

Come down off your high horse and look around you.

 

My parents never owned their own house and always rented.They never lived in social housing and left school at 13 or 14, never got the chance for a higher education either.

 

A slightly amended quote from your post.

 

"It's time a lot of these your false narratives were laid to rest."

[dick dasterdly]

1 hour ago, denby45 said:

Sorry Billd but I too am from your generation and of course I did pay my bills and paid for pensions, saved for retirement, never got into debt etc. However that is what you and I did. If everyone of our generation and the government of our time had conducted their affairs like you and I then at least the mountain of debt we have shouldered the next generations with would not exist. Yes I too am extremely angry that my carefully thought out retirement plans have been scuppered by terrible government policies but I still count myself lucky to have been one of the baby boomer generation. God help those who are following.

 

Den

"I still count myself lucky to have been one of the baby boomer generation. God help those who are following."

 

I agree 100% with this part of your post.

[mommysboy]

1 hour ago, billd766 said:

 

That may be true for the baby boomers but certainly not for my generation.

 

I left school at age 15 1/2 and went out into the workplace.

 

There was NO advanced education for most of us, free or paid for, unless we went to a grammar school or went to night school as my brother did.

 

I started paying income tax at 15 1/2 and now I am 74 and STILL paying income tax which I figure I will be doing until I die. 59 and a bit years paid so far and who knows for how much longer.

 

As I live in Thailand my pension is frozen at the rate that I got it in 2009 and as I pay income tax I am partly funding my own pension, something I have in common with every other pensioner who is paying income tax.

 

I was 40 when I bought my first house and I gave it to my ex wife in the divorce settlement.

 

Come down off your high horse and look around you.

 

My parents never owned their own house and always rented.They never lived in social housing and left school at 13 or 14, never got the chance for a higher education either.

 

A slightly amended quote from your post.

 

"It's time a lot of these your false narratives were laid to rest."

There's truth both ways I guess.  But I don't think the points I have raised are my invention.  Of course, I know a lot of people currently pensioners worked hard and it also wasn't easy growing up in post war years.

[vogie]

12 hours ago, mommysboy said:

You may have been wise, but I contend that does not apply throughout.

 

The younger generation is increasingly far more sober, diligent, and prudent than previous generations, particularly the baby boomers . Whatever ! Let's just say a typical youngster of today has really been dumped on from a great height.  He will pay more tax, for longer, get less benefits, and most won't stand an earthly of getting on the housing ladder. I doubt whether the NHS will be as comprehensive as it has been, and he has to pay for advanced education.

 

It's time a lot of these false narratives were laid to rest.

I am a little dubious of some of your claims mb, have you any evidence of your claims. Why will he pay more tax, we started work at 14 or 15 year old, I didn't know any of my friends who were out of a job. So to be working for 50 years of your life will take some beating by anybodys standards. What is the average age that youngsters start work these days, I cannot find anything on the internet to confirm or deny this.

You say he has to pay for advanced education, well that is their choice, we never had that choice, if you was not academically inclined you did not go to university, which in the 60s was only 4% of the population, now it is 40% of young people thanks to Tony Blair. Most of the youngsters leaving university will find they don't have a cat in hells chance of finding employment as their degrees are useless and there are too many of them. It almost meaningless them going to uni. Most end up working in coffee shops with a grant that will never be paid off.

Sorry if I seem a bit cynical, but when you see these young people getting plastered of a weekend, getting drunk on cocktails and whatever, we could not afford that luxury. They will not think twice of spending two or three hundred pounds on a night out, I just don't see how they are worse off than us.

Edited July 28, 2018 by vogie
Spelling mistake

[DILLIGAD]

Maybe they are not worse off,but their expectations are too high &/or unreasonable?
Just a thought???


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[BritManToo]

9 minutes ago, vogie said:

I just don't see how they are worse off than us.

No final salary pensions (everyone my age has one).

No job for life (most of my peers worked for one employer all their life).

ZERO hour contracts.

Little chance of a lifetime marriage and family for men (women just don't want monogamy any more)

No prospect of owning their own homes (in my 20s a 'starter' house cost 2x-4x salary, now a house costs 10x-20x salary)

 

And that's a few just off the top of my head.

But on the plus side, nobody cares if you smoke cannabis any more, which probably compensates everyone for the loss of everything else..

[dick dasterdly]

Just now, BritManToo said:

No final salary pensions (everyone my age has one).

No job for life (most of my peers worked for one employer all their life).

ZERO hour contracts.

Little chance of a lifetime marriage and family for men (women just don't want monogamy any more)

No prospect of owning their own homes (in my 20s a 'starter' house cost 2x-4x salary, now a house costs 10x-20x salary)

 

And that's a few just off the top of my head.

But on the plus side, nobody cares if you smoke cannabis any more, which probably compensates everyone for the loss of everything else..

A somewhat exaggerated post, but I agree with the gist of points 1,2,3 and 5.