Ask the Pensions Minister about the future of pensions

Judith_Edmonds

I am a struggling ex pat pensioner, living abroad to be with my family. I think it totally unfair that I do not receive pension parity just because I live in Thailand. I disagree with the recent European Court of Human Rights ruling. Will you be fighting for pension parity for others in the same position as me me please?

lcarter

I am female and born in 1954. I understand that the retirement age of women should be equal to that of men and accepted that the way suggested by the previous government, which started being implemented in April 2010, was fair. This method increased the retirement age for women by 6 months every year between the years 2010 and 2020, so that from 2020 everyone retired on their 65th birthday.
I was due to receive my state retirement pension in November 2017, when I would be 63 years and 9 months. Your government claims to be treating everyone fairly. How is the method you are now proposing fair? Your government has announced new proposals for increasing State Pension age. This would mean that from December 2018 the State Pension age for both men and women would start to increase to reach 66 by April 2020. Women’s State Pension age would increase more quickly to 65 between April 2016 and November 2018. Under this method my pension date is likely to be July 2019, when I will be 65 years and 5 months, nearly 2 years later than I was expecting. This proposal is unfair to females born between December 1953 and April 1954 who will have to wait between 1 year and 6 months and 2 years to receive their state pension. Why are you proposing to treat a group of females unfairly, so that some of them have to wait an extra 2 years?
I have been widowed for 4 years and my private pension when I worked for a company in london has gone I feel that if I have to work any longer I might as well just finish myself off now. I am totally and utterly exhausted with it all

Ripoff_2

lcarter wrote: »

I am female and born in 1954. I understand that the retirement age of women should be equal to that of men and accepted that the way suggested by the previous government, which started being implemented in April 2010, was fair. This method increased the retirement age for women by 6 months every year between the years 2010 and 2020, so that from 2020 everyone retired on their 65th birthday.
I was due to receive my state retirement pension in November 2017, when I would be 63 years and 9 months. Your government claims to be treating everyone fairly. How is the method you are now proposing fair? Your government has announced new proposals for increasing State Pension age. This would mean that from December 2018 the State Pension age for both men and women would start to increase to reach 66 by April 2020. Women’s State Pension age would increase more quickly to 65 between April 2016 and November 2018. Under this method my pension date is likely to be July 2019, when I will be 65 years and 5 months, nearly 2 years later than I was expecting. This proposal is unfair to females born between December 1953 and April 1954 who will have to wait between 1 year and 6 months and 2 years to receive their state pension. Why are you proposing to treat a group of females unfairly, so that some of them have to wait an extra 2 years?
I have been widowed for 4 years and my private pension when I worked for a company in london has gone I feel that if I have to work any longer I might as well just finish myself off now. I am totally and utterly exhausted with it all

I do hope you are not too exhausted to write to your MP and to the Minister Steve Webb and I also hope that come any form of election Local or National you will not be too exhausted to vote.

I have already written to my MP and the Minister on this issue because as a male I am also adversly affected for the sake of a few weeks, very very unfair. I did at the time point out that woman will also be disproportionally affected. I don't believe this Governmnet has thought this through like so many other things they are doing. In any changes they not only have to be fair they have to be seen as fair and this change clearly is not fair by any standards. The previous Government picked later years for these changes because they took the time to work out the effect and realised that any earlier would hit people like you very hard indeed. I for one are on your side, it's a pitty this dreadful Government isn't, they don't care really.

Chocklit54

:mad:
I want to know why ministers have chosen to discriminate against women in their late 50's.

Under the proposed pension changes I will be unable to claim my pension until I am 66. This is 6 years longer than expected.
I made my pension arrangements when I was in my 30's :T, and I will not be able to make up the shortfall now, especially given the poor investment returns available.

Men the same age as me will only be losing one year's pension because they already planned to claim pension at 65.

I will be losing approx. £16000 from my planned pension income. It is not fair.

( I currently have more than 30 years qualifying National Insurance contributions - comibination of work & home responsibillities).

dunstonh

I understand that the retirement age of women should be equal to that of men and accepted that the way suggested by the previous government, which started being implemented in April 2010, was fair. This method increased the retirement age for women by 6 months every year between the years 2010 and 2020, so that from 2020 everyone retired on their 65th birthday.

It was not the previous govt that made the change. It went through in 1995 which was under John Major. You are right on the rest though. It gave 15 years lead in (and as we all knew it was coming years earlier than that it was more like nearly 20 years). Then it phased it in over 10 years.

The problem is that everyone is going to be worse off as we pay the debt the previous government took on. You cant keep tapping the same groups for money as you will just bleed them dry. Everyone is losing out somewhere. It would be nice to give a longer lead time. Look at it this way; if pushing back the increase in age cost £x billions, what other group of people would you push that cost onto instead of you?

Under the proposed pension changes I will be unable to claim my pension until I am 66. This is 6 years longer than expected.

Please explain how that is 6 years longer than expected as the proposed changes only bring in the 1 year increase earlier than expected (2 years for a small age group range). Not 6 years.

I made my pension arrangements when I was in my 30's :T, and I will not be able to make up the shortfall now, especially given the poor investment returns available.

What poor investment returns? Short term fluctuations always occur. However, current values have typically only fallen back 2 years and those paying regular contriubtions will benefit from this over the medium to long term as drops in investment values provide opportunities to better growth afterwards. One of the biggest failings on personal provision is not down to investment returns. It is down to unrealistic levels of contribution and a failure to increase the contributions annually to take into account inflation (i.e. £30pm was a good contribution in 1988 but its totally naff now)

Tarkaboy

Dear Pensions Minister,
It is not only people who will retire in the future who have been impacted by bad decisions and legislation on pensions. I have been retired for 5 years now and my pension is dependant on both private and state pensions. The first major impact was when the Labour Government took away the pension credit which devastated the best pension schemes in Europe if not the world. When I retired in 2005 my private pension was reduced down to 40% of what it would have been if the pension credit had remained in place.

Similarly, I have paid into the state Graduated Pension (GP) and then into SERPS from age 40 when it was introduced by Thatcher's Government. I started receiving my Basic State Pension, GP and SERPs entitlement when 65. The GP component is worthless due to various governments actions; the basic state pension is pitiful compared with the rest of the EU and the SERPs component has been reduced in value and bereavement benefits time after time under both Tory and Labour governments.

The previous governments last pensions action was to award a small increase in the basic state pension. They deliberately did not increase the SERPS component which is the pension I am most dependant on. I realise this helps immensely with MP's expenses, reckless local and national government over-spending and exorbitant salaries, bailing out the banks and their massive bonuses and now with the current government recently bailing out the Euro and Ireland, even more international aid to corrupt countries and all the other excesses still ongoing and likely to come.

However, I do not want to support all this largesse in the future.

It is not unreasonable for a government to support its Senior Citizens who have supported the country throughout their working life (note that I say "working life"). However, my standard of living has been seriously reduced due to the actions of governments of all persuasions. I have already asked my local MP about my eroded pensions to which his reply was effectively " what a shame". Perhaps the Pensions Minister will be a bit more forthcoming. As I am heavily dependant on the depleted SERPs pension, please advise if there will or will not be an increase in SERPs payments in 2011 and later years.

Stargazer57

Tarkaboy wrote: »

When I retired in 2005 my private pension was reduced down to 40% of what it would have been if the pension credit had remained in place.

I expect Steve Webb will ask to see your calculations to support this figure, so why not test them here?

Sapphire

I've posted this on another thread, but thought it was also relevant here, as a few suggestions for MSE's meeting:

1. Pensions should continue to be linked to RPI, not CPI, given that pensioners would definitely be much worse off if they were linked to CPI. Soon-to-be pensioners in particular, i.e. within the next ten years, have been promised that their pensions would be linked to RPI, and planned accordingly, so this is what should continue to happen. (State pensions are in any case too low now, compared to those of other countries.)

2. One way of increasing the state pension would be to not pay it to retirees who have £30,000 or more coming in through other pensions, investments or income (quite a lot of people), and using the money from this to raise the pensions of those receiving below this amount. Relatively well-of pensioners do not need the state pension, whereas many of those below this income certainly do. Should the circumstances of a pensioner change in future, i.e. to receive less than £30,000 p.a., the state pension could be reinstated.

3. Also stop winter fuel payments and other benefits to those above £30,000. I have even been told (often with somewhat bemused laughter) by such people that they do not need the money either from these benefits or from the state pension. (Certainly stop winter fuel payments to anyone living abroad, generally in a hot climate!)

4. Raise the state pensions of all pensioners below £30,000. Britain's pensioners should not be receiving less than pensioners in other European countries. Those who have been productive members of society, often for 40–50 years, but who have been on modest incomes due to the nature of their professions and so have not been able to amass fortunes, should be financially comfortable once they retire.

Additionally, what thoughts does the minister have as to how people in their sixties (even fifties) can be employed, given that younger people often cannot find employment, and given the discrimination there is against older people in this country (whether or not it is illegal)? To add: many people in their sixties are exhausted after working for 40–50 years. What professions that do not involve physical work and commuting (which is exhausting in London even for much younger people, for example) can they be employed in, and in which they would be accepted?

Those are a few thoughts I have been mulling over for some time.

johnaka

and why is it that if you are an MP you get £1,000 pension for every year your an MP.say your an MP for 9 years you get £9,000 a year pension ,where as I have paid in for over 40 years and that is all I get.so how is that fair?

Old_Slaphead

johnaka wrote: »

and why is it that if you are an MP you get £1,000 pension for every year your an MP.say your an MP for 9 years you get £9,000 a year pension ,where as I have paid in for over 40 years and that is all I get.so how is that fair?

Think you're undervaluing it - £66,000 x 1/40 = £1,650pa or £14,850 for 9 years.