New £140 state pension proposal

BLT_2

Stargazer57 wrote: »

it is inconceivable that any Government, let alone one led by Tories, would jeopardise the public finances in the way you suggest.

Did you actually read what you just typed? Are you from the planet zod :rotfl::rotfl:


Actually the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, Iain Duncan Smith, and the Minister for Pensions, Steve Webb, whose idea this seems to be, are two of the good guys, both devout christians, both determined to improve the provision of pensions.


There are plenty of catholic priests who are devout christians, but you wouldn't let them babysit your kids. Being a devout christian is no guarantee of personal character

jem16

bigfreddiel wrote: »

Absolutely correct! I'm more average than the average person, so to quqlify that a bit - 65 in July 2016, 30+ years contributions,std rate tax payer (not that comes into it), no ssp, and no other credits.

So yes, everyone eligible will be getting at least £137 in 2016 - not a mile away from £140 in 2015 - another govt con!

Unless of course you have evidence to contradict this,

fj

Yes I have evidence to contradict this.

Just received my state pension forecast for July 2021 - £98.75 plus £0.42 graduated pension so total of £99.17.

I have no entitlement to SERPS/S2P as I have been contracted out.

£137 is not the normal state pension. You have to have something other than the basic entitlement.

seven-day-weekend

Mine is £104 at the moment (which I am receiving). Very little SERPS because contracted out. HUGE increase for me!

(edited to add, not for me as it is for people retiring after the date, not those of us already retired )

CLAPTON

bigfreddiel wrote: »

Absolutely correct! I'm more average than the average person, so to quqlify that a bit - 65 in July 2016, 30+ years contributions,std rate tax payer (not that comes into it), no ssp, and no other credits.

So yes, everyone eligible will be getting at least £137 in 2016 - not a mile away from £140 in 2015 - another govt con!

Unless of course you have evidence to contradict this,

fj

can you quote the detailed figures showing how 137 is made up

napaul

What will happen to currently deferred pensions if the new proposed £140 state pension comes into being?

No-one has answered this yet? If I defer for a further 5 years, what happens to the enhanced pension part of it?

dunstonh

What will happen to currently deferred pensions if the new proposed £140 state pension comes into being?

No-one knows as there just isnt that sort of detail yet. This is just a green paper. It hasnt gone through the consultation and discussion and amendments yet.

However, one would "assume" that as deferred state pension would be classed as one taken already and exempt from the changes.

Loughton_Monkey

BLT wrote: »

Our politicians really are a bunch of short sighted, self serving, expenses filching, morally deficient bunch of scum

I wish posters would get off the fence and say what they really mean.

I really cannot see this taking off, not least because of the cost. We already know of the zooming ratio of pensioners growing with far fewer wage earners to support them. The only thing I can think of is that there is a compensating 'saving' in benefits.

Even if there is some such compensations, I think it gows 'against the grain' moving away from measn testing back to universal. So, in short, I read the Green Paper thus:

"We, the coalition Government know that you are all going to hate us in the next few years because of cuts. However, we wish to give you a carrot that says 'keep us in power' and we want full support from all the over-55's at the very least."

Speaking personally, I love all these 'goodies' that I don't need. Am going to get the Heating Allowance, originally designed for 'poor' people. I was able to buy back 12 years of my wife's state pension (she has just reached 60) - a remarkably cost efficient 'investment' - but the poor (who might need it) caould not afford the £6K cost. Then there is the Stakeholder £720 'bonus' designed to get 'poor' people to throw money into pensions. Many of the poor can't afford the £2,880 maximum contribution but I can.

So. Bring it on!

BLT_2

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

I wish posters would get off the fence and say what they really mean.

I really cannot see this taking off, not least because of the cost. We already know of the zooming ratio of pensioners growing with far fewer wage earners to support them. The only thing I can think of is that there is a compensating 'saving' in benefits.

Even if there is some such compensations, I think it gows 'against the grain' moving away from measn testing back to universal. So, in short, I read the Green Paper thus:

"We, the coalition Government know that you are all going to hate us in the next few years because of cuts. However, we wish to give you a carrot that says 'keep us in power' and we want full support from all the over-55's at the very least."

Speaking personally, I love all these 'goodies' that I don't need. Am going to get the Heating Allowance, originally designed for 'poor' people. I was able to buy back 12 years of my wife's state pension (she has just reached 60) - a remarkably cost efficient 'investment' - but the poor (who might need it) caould not afford the £6K cost. Then there is the Stakeholder £720 'bonus' designed to get 'poor' people to throw money into pensions. Many of the poor can't afford the £2,880 maximum contribution but I can.

So. Bring it on!

Lets be honest, any government that brought in means testing for pensions would be signing their own death warrant. And even if they were to do so they would have to provide some form of grandfather rights to assuage the righteous anger of those who had contributed through national insurance payments for 29 years, only to find that the government had rescinded on their part of the 'deal'

Personally my view is that if they wish to make cuts they should be targetting child benefit more. 1 child is good, 2 are acceptable, however if you are want to do a rabbit impression and have excessive progeny then the tax payer should be absolved of any responsibility for supporting them. CB for the first 2 then you are on your own.

givememoney

I get a full single persons pension of the £97 odd.

My husband gets £212 per week as he never opted out of SERPS.

What concerns us with this `pension fits all` would he be expected to loose the extra contributions he paid in and have to take a cut in pension?

Anyone know?

harz99

Copied from the MSE news thread as we seem to have two threads on the same subject................

Quote:
Originally Posted by harz99
If these proposals come to fruition, I sincerely hope that ALL pensioners are treated equally and we don't end up with a two tier pensioner society - the existing pensioners on an old lower rate, those after the implementation date on a new higher rate!

That is effectively what happened when the NHIC qualifying years for State Pension were reduced.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stargazer57
I wouldn't normally treat the Daily Mail as a reliable source, but as they were briefed on the original story yesterday it is probably as good as it gets until the Green Paper is published.

This story http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-140-week.html makes it clear that existing pensioners wont be affected and more importantly, in the context of this thread, that accrued entitlements to State Pensions in excess of £140 a week will be honoured.

Quote:
Originally Posted by seven-day-weekend
I for one am pleased as my State Pension is presently £104 and I am not entitled to Pension Credit. It will almost certainly be a rise for my husband too when he draws it in 2014 as both of us have opted out into occupational pensions and don't have much SERPS. My friend's pension is already £137 so it will not be as much of a rise for her. I suppose for some people it won't be a rise at all, although I suppose if they have this much in SERPS they will be able to keep it.

ETA: Just read the rise will not apply to existing pensioners. So some chav who has never worked will get £140 a week and I will keep my £104. Ho hum.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-140-week.html

Exactly what I feared seems to be the case.

Just like 7dw above, both my wife and I have worked hard all our lives and because we have amassed some savings - though we are by no means rich - all we get in State Pension is £87 odd for her and £97 odd for me, no access to anything else except the Winter Fuel Allowance.

This just more political dogma, and further destruction of the welfare state by sleight of hand. Of course the millionaires in the ConDem Government will not be affected will they?

It is totally unfair to create two tiers of Pensioners; particularly as the lower tier will have more often paid in contributions for many, many more years, compared to the upper tier who in some cases will have paid nothing whatsoever in.

Either change for all with current total income safeguarded, or leave well alone.