Ask the Pensions Minister about the future of pensions

dunstonh

Ripoff wrote: »

You have obviously not realised how this change affects woman born in 1954 compared to the previous age change proposals.

Its added up to 2 years depending on the date of birth.

So, who do you want to take money off to pay for the funding if the pensions were allowed up to two years earlier?

wotsthat

maybug wrote: »

Just because there are several women saying the same thing it does not mean it is one person using different names. It is simply they sound similar because they are the same age (born in 1953 and 1954) and are female because that is the age group that is having their pensionable age increased at a much faster rate than any other age group. We do understand that everyone should take a share of the increase but for some of us our increase this time round is twice that of other people's (2 years instead of 1 or less) and we have also had a previous increase - that is what is unfair and we are protesting about. I have now arranged to see my local MP to discuss this.

You are not taking 'twice' the share at all.

Why is it that a man born in 1967 has to retire at age 66 when until recently they thought they would get the state pension at age 65 (it's so unfair).

Why, as a higher rate taxpayer, will my family allowance stop when there will be families with a higher joint income who will still get it (it's so unfair).

Why is VAT going up from 17.5% to 20% (it's so unfair).

Why will my wife's pension be indexed to CPI instead of RPI (it's so unfair).

I work for a smaller company and they won't be forced to contribute to my retirement until 2016 (it's so unfair)

Why are we funding housing benefit to keep people in the most expensive housing stock in the country when I can't afford to live in London (it's so unfair)

Why is the limit for basic rate tax being lowered and then frozen as it means I'll pay more tax (it's so unfair)

etc. etc. etc.

I'm, believe it or not, quite sympathetic to this small group of women but I think it's time to stop bleating, take a step back and have a look at where we are. What do you want the government to do? Borrow some more money from your children and grand-children to give to you?

You could look on the positive side and say that this is great news because, for you, equality is being accelerated.

Ripoff_2

Many of these "Unfair" changes are NOT just during the budget deficit problem, they are FOR LIFE for many people. RPI to CPI is for life, for example. Then take the pension age increase for woman from 1954 onwards it's the phasing that is the most "Unfair" part of this.

ALL who welcome these changes in these posts citing the budget deficit, are missing the point, the gross "Unfairness" comes in the implimentation and the fact that many changes ARE FOR LIFE! or what people have left of it. Many are being brought in retrospective, now that has never been fair.

People are "Bleating" as someone put it, not because they don't want to pay their fair share but because it affects them for life. The Government is doing things on the back of the deficit, using that as the justification that effects peoples lives for the rest of their life, that is why people are "bleating" and why it is so unfair.

It strikes me that many will be paying the price of this failure of the banks and the greedy money men, long after the deficit is cleared with many of this Governments proposals.

Where is the commitment to lower VAT for example in better times?, will they restore the RPI to CPI link when things are better, will they lower the age of retirement for ALL when the country can afford it.

I do not believe that if we suddenly became the fastest and weathiest economy in Europe that they will reverse any of these changes, THEY WILL NOT, THESE CHANGES WILL BE PERMINENT FOR MANY! ( I have seen or heard nothing to say otherwise)

The rich will get richer and the poor will get poorer with the excess of the 1980's being rubbed in our faces again. The rich drinking their champagne on the latest set of bonus figures. I saw it in the 1980's and mark my words we will see it again. You had to live through those times to understand what people like me now fear!

Sure lots will be suffering under these changes but the CEO',s, the Money men, the bankers and the rich will just work round them, they will not suffer, unlike so many private pensioners, or the unemployed, the young or for that matter the general hard working public, who can't work round any of these changes, who will suffer but for life in many cases!

"WE are not all in this together, many of these proposals are very biased one way and hit the poorest the hardest but FOR LIFE"

Lets have the changes time limited, then they may be a little fairer! Perhaps the question to Steve Webb and Co, should be "How long will these changes be in effect and are you going to promise to reverse them when times are better? If the answer is YES, then the next question is "But how can the electorate ever TRUST any promise you or this Con/LB coalition Government makes?"

chris_m

Ripoff wrote: »

will they restore the RPI to CPI link when things are better, will they lower the age of retirement for ALL when the country can afford it.

Most unlikely to happen because we won't be able to afford it - the principle point of those changes is to try and deal with the problem that we ave, and which will get worse, as the ratio of pensioners to workers gets worse due to people living longer.

Don't forget, state pensions and public sector pensions in payment now are being paid for by people working now, not what was saved up from when the pensioners were working.

The advancement of the age change is to try and fix the deficit, but the change itself is to deal with changing demographics.

wotsthat

Many of these "Unfair" changes are NOT just during the budget deficit problem, they are FOR LIFE for many people.

I know and I think it's a good thing. Maybe we can pay off some of the national debt as well and reduce the interest payments that are being paid.

The rich will get richer and the poor will get poorer with the excess of the 1980's being rubbed in our faces again. The rich drinking their champagne on the latest set of bonus figures. I saw it in the 1980's and mark my words we will see it again. You had to live through those times to understand what people like me now fear!

I did live through the 80's - there were lots of opportunities for social mobility. I'm grateful for the opportunities and glad I took them.

Sure lots will be suffering under these changes but the CEO',s, the Money men, the bankers and the rich will just work round them, they will not suffer, unlike so many private pensioners, or the unemployed, the young or for that matter the general hard working public, who can't work round any of these changes, who will suffer but for life in many cases!

It's so unfair

Lets have the changes time limited, then they may be a little fairer!

Why? So we can start the cycle of overspending again?

Ripoff_2

Martin, perhaps you could advise via this thread when you will be putting the questions raised here to Steve Webb the pensions Minister. I do hope they are put before April 2011 before the changes are due to take place. Thanks

Gatser

lamb1102 wrote: »

Personally I think it is a good idea but obviously we dont want a situation where people are raiding their pension funds and leaving themselves in a bad position come retirement or just using it for possible tax avoidance.
I think if people knew that in certain circumstances they could access a part of their pension fund to help them through rough times without too heavy a penalty then more people would have an interest in saving in a pension fund and saving more money also.

Good point.
But why oh why must we prove that we have enough by being forced to buy annuities to get a secure income. Surely the technology exists to ringfence that "minimum sum" and allow us greater access to the surplus pension funds....even (say) at GAD rate x 2.
The government will gain by taxing that extra income (probably)

Still far too many uncertainties and variables with pensions to make Mr & Mrs Average be positive about pensions saving. Just looking to set up a company scheme and majority of employees are "not interested thanks" even though ER contributions equal to EE contributions.

Interested_Taxpayer

Ripoff wrote: »

Martin, perhaps you could advise via this thread when you will be putting the questions raised here to Steve Webb the pensions Minister. I do hope they are put before April 2011 before the changes are due to take place. Thanks

Martin. I refer to Ripoff's post above. Do you have a date for Steve Webb yet? I know of a number of posters on the RPI to CPI Early Day Motion 1032 thread who would love to put some questions to the Minister. Thanks.

StevieJ

Ripoff wrote: »

You have obviously not realised how this change affects woman born in 1954 compared to the previous age change proposals.

Don't forget it adds a year on to men who are born in 1954 as well.

Interested_Taxpayer

Interested_Taxpayer wrote: »

Martin. I refer to Ripoff's post above. Do you have a date for Steve Webb yet? I know of a number of posters on the RPI to CPI Early Day Motion 1032 thread who would love to put some questions to the Minister. Thanks.

Come on Martin :money:. He is either going to face the questions or not. I'm sure that there are many posters on this site who would like to know when or if this will happen. This is so we can have time to post a few more questions. Thanks.