MSE News: Tory Conference: State pension age could rise early

Oldernotwiser

ceridwen wrote: »

None at present - its the case though that the age one receives the OAP Tax Allowance is the same as THE state pension age - hence a lot of older women were due to receive their OAP Tax Allowance at 60 (ie the womens retirement age) - but will, as things stand at present, not receive it until 65 (ie THE State Pension Age) - as I understand it (even if their own personal State Pension Age is between 60 and 65).

Hence - if THE State Pension Age was raised to 66 - then it would follow that one wouldnt receive the OAP Tax Allowance until 66 (ie a delay of one year/or one further year as the case may be) in getting it.

The OAP tax allowance is already at 65; I don't think it's been different for men and women.

lisyloo

What a one-eyed viewpoint! A lot of people had to work for low pay, didn't have a company pension scheme, etc and weren't in a position to do anything to enhance their futures.
Don't comment on something you know nothing about!

Have to agree with Tony.
Our folks were born in the 1920 and back in the 20s and 30s it was putting food on the table that was a priority.
They certainly weren't in a posistion to save for pensions when they were young. Furter mor they weren't told they had to.

I've been working for 20 years and I've been told not to expect ANY state pension.
So it's hardly a new thing that governements have no choice but to reduce the bill.
There is simply NO choice but to make changes.

If you want a decent standard of iving in retirement then DIY.

Furthermore our folks were burdened with full time care for many years, which doesn't happen these days.

Oldernotwiser

kennyboy66 wrote: »

If you are in your 50's (lets say 54 and female) you can expect to live for roughly another 34 years.

Are you saying that it is right that you should be economically inactive for a full 34 years. Seems a tad long to me.

If you're 54 and female, you'll have to work for another 11 years as it stands. Out of the remaining 25 years, many of these will not be a productive time as people may be living longer but much of that time can be in ill health.

Oldernotwiser

roddydogs wrote: »

This only applies to people who have other pensions/savings, otherwise you get pensions credit of £110 PW from 60, even if youve never paid a penny in NI contributions.

And rent and council tax paid.

Oldernotwiser

Harry_Powell wrote: »

You cut out the explanation when you quoted my text. I suggest you re-read it.

You'll have contributed 49 years of NI to get your pension at 65 (65 - 16 = 50) and I'll have contributed 52 years of NI (68 - 16 = 52) and that's only if they allow us to retire at 68, there is talk of age 70 which means I'll have contributed 54 years to your 49 years. What's your point?

The school leaving age used to be 15, so 50 years' contributions is correct.

EdInvestor

Old_Slaphead wrote: »

Irrespective of planning to reduce the mpact of a later payment of pension, couples planning to retire in this period can expect to see a one-off reduction in state benefit of up to £10,000.

This for an age group who are seeing a sharp reduction in pension fund values with relatively little time to rebuild the shortfall....I think the Tories may well have shot themselves in the foot with a fair proportion of the 'grey vote'

One year of Serps/S2P will also go missing, doubling the loss in some cases and if the move spins off into a delay on the introduction of the higher tax rate band, we could see quite a large backlash.

Much of the uproar over the 10p tax band appears to have come from male semi/early/forced retirees living off bits and pieces of pensions and consulting fees, rather than women.The Government clearly didn't expect this reaction and one wonders if the Tories have thought this idea through.

Harry_Powell

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

The school leaving age used to be 15, so 50 years' contributions is correct.

But NI contributions only started at age 16 and they were pre-paid until 18 anyway whether you worked or not.

http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1949/jul/20/national-insurance-bill

"So long as a child is within the scope of the Family Allowances Act and its provisions it is covered for death grant on either the father's or mother's, National Insurance. A child will, however, no longer be covered in this way after 31st July following his or her 16th birthday, even though schooling may be continued beyond that date. Under the National Insurance Act we credit such children with contributions to their 18th birthday so that when they ultimately enter the scheme as contributors they will be able to make a good start."

Old_Slaphead

Harry_Powell wrote: »

You cut out the explanation when you quoted my text. I suggest you re-read it.

You'll have contributed 49 years of NI to get your pension at 65 (65 - 16 = 50) and I'll have contributed 52 years of NI (68 - 16 = 52) and that's only if they allow us to retire at 68, there is talk of age 70 which means I'll have contributed 54 years to your 49 years. What's your point?

FS schemes for the vast majority have been obsolete for more than a decade. Share deals - for the lucky few maybe. Anything else I might have done to rape the country's finances.

My point on drawing pension benefits - maybe it's fair to allow them to be drawn after a certain number of years worked rather than have an absolute starting age. If you've done 50+ years I think you should be entitled to start from 66 but if you don't start work until 21, 22, 25 or whatever then commencement of state benefit should be from age 70.

patchwork_cat

lisyloo wrote: »

Have to agree with Tony.
Our folks were born in the 1920 and back in the 20s and 30s it was putting food on the table that was a priority.
They certainly weren't in a posistion to save for pensions when they were young. Furter mor they weren't told they had to.

I've been working for 20 years and I've been told not to expect ANY state pension.
So it's hardly a new thing that governements have no choice but to reduce the bill.
There is simply NO choice but to make changes.

If you want a decent standard of iving in retirement then DIY.

Furthermore our folks were burdened with full time care for many years, which doesn't happen these days.

I beg to differ about not being told to do anything about it. My grandfather was born in 1899 and he was the most ardent saver for his old age. Now I am sure that someone who knows the history of state pensions will fill in the details, but I believe that in the 1920's you saved for your old age or you starved, continued to work or where cared for by your family.

In those days the state pension was only meant for the very poor and was not paid until you were 70.

seven-day-weekend

tonysbt wrote: »

What a one-eyed viewpoint! A lot of people had to work for low pay, didn't have a company pension scheme, etc and weren't in a position to do anything to enhance their futures.


Don't comment on something you know nothing about!

And also don't forget that the very elderly were brought up with the notion that it was not necessary to provide for their pensions separately from the State as they would pay their NI and then the State would provide all their needs in old age - the 'cradle-to-grave' philosphy - and anyway, many had no opportunity to do so. Factory workers and part-time workers did not earn enough money and there were often no pension schemes for such employees, certainly not for manual workers and part-timers.

I can remember fighting for the right to join the LGPS as a part-timer in the 1990s!:eek:

Also, I would just like to add that being born in January 1950, I am one of the last generation of women (AND a baby boomer!) who can still get my State Pension on my 60th birthday.:beer: