Ask the Pensions Minister about the future of pensions

jeanniebeanie_2

dunstonh wrote: »

The problem with the £140 state pension issue is that it is just a proposal that has yet to go through consultation, debate or anything of substance. It is so early in the process that detail would be sketchy as its more an idea than a reality at the moment. However, it has been reported as if it will happen and everything is known about it. You just have to see the number of posts on this thread from people asking questions on the assumption that it is much further along in the process. The media has to be blamed for that as you can safely assume that most people posting have only obtained their information from the media.


Wonder who leaked it to the media without substance then?

dunstonh

jeanniebeanie wrote: »

Wonder who leaked it to the media without substance then?

It wasn't leaked. It was a proposal announcement. Just like the sort that are issued every week. Some go on to happen. Others do not. Most that do go on to happen end up with something looking a lot less like they did at the start.

It is great that it has provoked discussion and that is the point of proposals as it allows people to identify issues that may need to be resolved over the consultation and discussion period.

To give you an idea it hasnt got to white paper stage yet and indeed wont get green paper stage until the end of the year. A green paper is a proposal rather than a commitment to action. Depending on what happens at green paper stage, it may or may not go on to white paper stage.

jeanniebeanie_2

dunstonh wrote: »

It is great that it has provoked discussion and that is the point of proposals as it allows people to identify issues that may need to be resolved over the consultation and discussion period.
.[/QUOTE

YES! It got 'proposed' without substance it was reported without substance. We discuss on here possible issues and are warned of 'scaremongering' and accused of 'whinging' (not you). We do need a forum like this to bring possible issues to the fore without being told to 'wait for the facts'. The discussion/ consultation stages will be long and meanwhile we have no certainty not only for the future, but also for what we perceived as our past preparation for provision - people are understandably very concerned!

klsoozy

Everyone is having their state pension age raised to 66 by 2020. The way this has been scheduled means that women born between April 1954 and April 1955 will bear up to a two year increase in their expected retirement age rather than the one year increase applying to everyone else.
This does not give enough time for adjusting pension plans (for instance I took early retirement (for health reasons) judging I could afford it on an small occupational pension if I received my state pension in 2018). How is this justified as equitable treatment?

wallace53

My question is: "What is the LOGIC" of changing the age entitlement? From April 2010, the number of qualifying years for the maximum pension was reduced to 30. From 2012, the age from when the pension is being paid, is increasing. Apart from "cost saving", can anyone explain the LOGIC?

dunstonh

YES! It got 'proposed' without substance it was reported without substance. We discuss on here possible issues and are warned of 'scaremongering' and accused of 'whinging' (not you). We do need a forum like this to bring possible issues to the fore without being told to 'wait for the facts'. The discussion/ consultation stages will be long and meanwhile we have no certainty not only for the future, but also for what we perceived as our past preparation for provision - people are understandably very concerned!

I largely agree with that. However, my perception of the reporting was that is was presented as if it was further along the development stage than it was in reality. This has lead to the worry that many people have with them wanting answers no when there are no answers. Some of the comments are clearly coming from people who believe this is not a proposal but cast in stone. That could be down to poor reporting or it could be them jumping to assumptions. The latter is quite possible or even probable. Many inaccurate pension myths come from the workplace where colleagues with an incorrect opinion get their information treated as gospel. The number of times I have seen people from large local employers with decent occupational pensions who have not joined as someone at work told them it was rubbish is incredible. They dont find out for themselves. They rely on misinformation and myth. Which brings us full circle back to the post I initially commented on where the person wasnt sure the occupational scheme was worth it. It is but it just needs the person to find this out using the facts and not rely on myth and misinformation.

jeanniebeanie_2

Valid points!

dennislp

The last 33 years of my working life I paid into an additional pension scheme out of my monthly salery, this was to give my wife & I a better standard of living once I retired., Money we could have spent on other things, money I paid tax on. I now receive that additional pension which helps, but what realy makes me so angry is I pay tax on it, WHY?

Ripoff_2

Martin, this question is detailed but it is very important because it is going to cost millions of people thousands of pounds if the change from RPI to CPI goes through as it is proposed therefore could you ask Steve Webb the following question please:

Q: How can it possibly be fair, right or just to move pension indexing for inflation for millions of public, private and state pensions from the 38 year old recognised and trusted RPI inflation indexing measure. To a new measure, CPI, that he knows is not truly representative of pension inflation. He has been informed as such by his own statistical Unit and the professionals.

He as been advised by his own statistical unit the ONS (Office of National Statistics). They were also advised by the body that makes recommendations to the ONS, the CPAC (Consumer Prices Advisory Committee) that changes need to be made to the CPI measure before being used for pension indexing.

The ONS were advised that CPI was not the correct measure for pensioner indexing by the RSS (Royal Statistical Society).

Steve Webb was advised again the reasons why CPI is not to be used at a meeting in London on the 23rd November 2010. Jill Leyland from the RSS said, "CPI is good as a macro-economic indicator and for comparison between countries, but it is NOT suitable as it is to be used for wages and pensions".

Steve Webb knows this change will further push pensioners both Private and Public into possible poverty because he knows that CPI is on average 1% less than RPI.

Steve Webb is also aware what is missing from CPI i.e Housing costs and certain taxes and that CPI is calculated using the geometric mean and not the arithmetic mean as of RPI.

This produces a formula effect that on this years September indexing of RPI at 4.6% and CPI at 3.1% of the difference, 0.9% was totally due to the formula effect alone and nothing to do with the RPI to CPI measuring criteria.

In other words Steve Webb knows that using this method is cheating pensioners and he seems to think this con trick is acceptable.

:beer:

cbrooks

Ripoff wrote: »

Steve Webb knows this change will further push pensioners both Private and Public into possible poverty because he knows that CPI is on average 1% less than RPI.



:beer:

It sounds like the Government are at it againthe 1% shortfall here will be syhoned of for other things. Probably the 3million in expenses they have just announced that MP's haev had since the scandals. GITS:mad: