£140 a week!

jamesd

One of the Sunday papers wrote this:

1. Additional state pension above the £140 could be retained.
2. Protected rights pension income for those who contracted out would be deducted from the £140.

2 wouldn't be too bad if done on a pro-rata basis for years contracted out. If it's done on a money value basis it could eliminate much of the gain that those who take greater investment risk can obtain.

bendix

thefenman wrote: »

I am so, SO sorry if I am just a tiny bit concerned about my future income!

Perhaps if you relied on your own efforts to fund your retirement rather than rely on the government you would be less concerned.

The state pension is not a god-given right. It is a benefit which can be withdrawn, increased or amended at will.

If you don't like your future income being subjected to the whim of political change, you should make your own plans and free yourself from the nanny state. That you haven't to date is your fault, not that of anyone else.

Errata

The fine detail will be in the Green Paper which has yet to be published! Consultaitons on the Green Paper will then take place before the final policy is published in a White Paper.
Any theories about what might or might not change are guesses and speculation until the Green Paper is published.

CLAPTON

bendix wrote: »

Perhaps if you relied on your own efforts to fund your retirement rather than rely on the government you would be less concerned.

The state pension is not a god-given right. It is a benefit which can be withdrawn, increased or amended at will.

If you don't like your future income being subjected to the whim of political change, you should make your own plans and free yourself from the nanny state. That you haven't to date is your fault, not that of anyone else.

A few years ago many people funded their own private pension funds using their own money albeit using the tax rules to make payment before tax.

However the government changed the age at which they could take their own funds from 50 to 55.

So it would seem that unless one invests offshore in a secret account it's a little difficult to free oneself from the state whether nanny or not.

johnaka

mmm some of you just don't remember do you!
years ago it use to state on your payslip pension contribution -till the crafty government of that time decided to join it all into NI contribution.
so yes I would say it your right to entitlement.
you can argue all you like.
I still have a couple of old payslip some where it stated pension contribution.
every body inc youg'n now are paying into it but you don't see it because it is all hidden in the NI contribution.
and the gov 'would have you believe that the younger ones aren't contributing.
I would like it to be broken down(NI) so we know exactly what we are paying for.

jem16

johnaka wrote: »

mmm some of you just don't remember do you!
years ago it use to state on your payslip pension contribution -till the crafty government of that time decided to join it all into NI contribution.

When would that be then?

casey_junior

jem16 wrote: »

When would that be then?

Thhat was when Graduated pension was stopped to make way for SERPS which was sold as an added pension ppaid for by a higher NI contribution, Barbara Castle I think.

diable

Like it will be in existence when I retire in 20 years......

wotsthat

mmm some of you just don't remember do you!
years ago it use to state on your payslip pension contribution -till the crafty government of that time decided to join it all into NI contribution.

An entitlement is something that the government of the day can take away if it decides to - having a good memory does not change this fact.

Politicians are breaking promises that they made only a few weeks ago. What makes anyone think that they feel bound by a promise made by Barbara Castle in 1974!

I would like it to be broken down(NI) so we know exactly what we are paying for.

It's just income tax with another name. It gets spent on exactly the same thing i.e. health, education, photographers for the PM etc.

There's a paradox on this board; there's negativity aimed at politicians but so many people seem to want to rely on these same politicians for a retirement income.

yabbadoo

I'm a relatively new State pensioner (I'm 68), married 30 years, raised 3 kids, all 3 went to Uni. My wife is approaching 60, has a full NI contribution record, will be a pensioner in her own right next year. She elected to retire when I did, and is not entitled to any State benefit as we are living together.
What's puzzling me is the "couples" element of the new pension (£140 a week single, £280 for "couples"). I recognise that this will apply to "new" pensioners in a few years time BUT when and how did "couples" come to be finally recognised?
I understand the argument for "personal" tax allownaces and liabilities, but when there is a legal "couple" (i.e married) with only one breadwinner, there is a good case for transferable tax allowances ESPECIALLY in the case of pensioners, at this time. I believe there are many couples like us. My modest Co. pension + State pension takes me into Marginal Age Relief (effective tax rate 30% on any increase) but my wife has no income and £6000-odd tax allowances, unusable.
Is the recognition of "couples" in the new pension regime leading to rationalisation of tax allowances for State pensioners?