Tories target the vulnerable, again.

Graham_Devon

JP45 wrote: »

I doubt that it will appeal much to the younger middle class Tory voter but it will certainly appeal to the elderly Tory voter. It's in the same mould as Cameron's pre-election pledges on free Bus Passes and the Winter fuel allowance.

And the reason for this apparent outbreak of generosity towards the elderly? Well as a recent article in The Independent pointed out:

So it's now being turned around into a tory vote winning scheme

Let's get this straight...coalition cuts something, and the coalition is obviously out to get those the cuts hit, especially the vulnerable.

Coalition proposes to give more to a group which holds masses of vulnerable people, and it's turned around into a tory scheme to get more votes and appeal to their followers.

Take money from the vulnerable....wrong.
Give money the to vulnerable....wrong.

Sheesh, hard life in government aint it

LilacPixie

ukcarper wrote: »

I thought since 1978 if you took time off work to look after children you got credits towards your pension.

Semi right. If you claim child benefit you automatically get home responsibilities protection if you were claiming for a child under 16. There was no requirment to be not working just to be claiming the child benefit.

ukcarper

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Erm ok.

Splitting hairs, I feel. It's a cost saving, whichever way you put it, whether one was included in the spending review or not.

It is not splitting hairs the money saved from increasing to 66 is already accounted for. The extra for £140 will have to be found from somewhere else.

dunstonh

Dont forget that the "revised" figures being talked about are in place of both the basic state pension and the state second pension. Its not just the basic that they are talking about replacing.

Someone on full qualification and employed can expect to get the £5k basic and probably around another £3k in S2P. So, when you look at it like that, that person is likely to be worse off. There are people retired today who get over £10k a year in basic, graduated, SERPS and S2P. With just one pension, that wont be possible with the proposals.

The big winners here (assuming there is no change to the proposals, which is highly unlikely as its only green paper stage) are the self employed (who dont current get S2P) and those that have contracted out in the past (assuming the method used is a fixed date for change rather than transitional). The losers are those who contracted in and have larger amounts than the proposed single amount.

1984ReturnsForReal_2

ukcarper wrote: »

It is not splitting hairs the money saved from increasing to 66 is already accounted for. The extra for £140 will have to be found from somewhere else.

£40-£60 quid ish............

Morglin

lostinrates wrote: »

Right well. If we are to be opposed to universal benefits in the form of child benefit, why not to state pensions?

Or will they also be means tested?

If the latter I think I'm for them, if not I'm not.

Why should I get the same as a woman who has worked the years I haven't? Now, this is where it gets more tricky: I have no issue topping up my NI if I will benefit from the pension, but why should I, personally (putting ethics side,)pay in if it will be means tested...when, as PN says, people who haven't worked AND haven't topped up for whatever reason do get it.

I'm hoping there is a missing link here.

It won't be means tested - everyone, resident here, regardless of any employment history will (allegedly) get what is worth £140 per week now.

But, I shouldn't worry - the country will be in such social and financial chaos soon, that any of these plans are likely to be abandoned anyway.:mad:

Lin

Davesnave

Morglin wrote: »

But, I shouldn't worry - the country will be in such social and financial chaos soon, that any of these plans are likely to be abandoned anyway.:mad:

Lin

With a sig like yours, you probably won't worry! :rotfl:

StevieJ

Graham_Devon wrote: »

This ignores the savings from the retirement age being put up to 66.

The savings mentioned, to make it cost neutral, don't.

That was to cut the deficit not to give it back

StevieJ

dunstonh wrote: »

Dont forget that the "revised" figures being talked about are in place of both the basic state pension and the state second pension. Its not just the basic that they are talking about replacing.

Someone on full qualification and employed can expect to get the £5k basic and probably around another £3k in S2P. So, when you look at it like that, that person is likely to be worse off. There are people retired today who get over £10k a year in basic, graduated, SERPS and S2P. With just one pension, that wont be possible with the proposals.

The big winners here (assuming there is no change to the proposals, which is highly unlikely as its only green paper stage) are the self employed (who dont current get S2P) and those that have contracted out in the past (assuming the method used is a fixed date for change rather than transitional). The losers are those who contracted in and have larger amounts than the proposed single amount.

I am so not convinced that will happen.

robin_banks

ukcarper wrote: »

It is not splitting hairs the money saved from increasing to 66 is already accounted for. The extra for £140 will have to be found from somewhere else.

What extra £140 ?.