MSE News: £140-a-week state pensions on the cards

ceridwen

I certainly think this is a good idea in principle.

What I AM concerned about is whether we will still get:
- SERPS pension (which is, after all, a job pension - rather than State Pension money iyswim)
- free buspasses
- winter fuel allowance

My assumption is that the way it will work is the money I get from/or via the State on retirement will consist of:

- New State Pension of £140 a week
and
- SERPS pension I have to date
and
- the "bits and bobs" (ie winter fuel allowance, free buspass, etc)

This meaning that the flatrate State Pension is what people will have instead of Basic State Pension and any Pension Credit they are entitled to only and all other pension income will be disregarded and paid as per plan,

I would be very upset if the Government started making excuses not to pay me any of my SERPS pension because of this new basic State Pension (as I have physically earned my SERPS pension by working in jobs to get it). If the Government tried to deduct my SERPS pension from this £140 - then it would mean that, in effect, I had been paid less than I thought I was as salary for the jobs in question iyswim. My understanding of the salary level I was paid for jobs where SERPS applied is that it consists of "Salary NOW and SERPS addition to my Basic State Pension at retirement". I would not want to think that the Government had come along and retrospectively applied a paycut to my former employment by saying "We are going to say that your previous employer only paid you salary NOW for the job and we will keep that part of your salary that is due as SERPS Pension later".

ArKay

Thank you Stevie. I did not think your advice was irresponsible as it was just advice and you did suggest I get a pension forecast. I think the point of my original query was that if you could get full flat rate even if you had missed payments because of motherhood for example, what is to stop any of us getting full rate if we miss payments. However, it all seems undecided at present.

bilbo51

ceridwen wrote: »

...SERPS pension (which is, after all, a job pension - rather than State Pension money iyswim)...

You do know what "SERPS" stands for don't you?

Andy_L

Just_landed wrote: »

The issue I have with all this is :-

Cons put a fairer system together then comes along people like Tony Brown and robs your Pension fund, I wonder if there is a way the new system can be etched in stone then we won't be robbed again.

Lamont & Major robbed the pension funds in exactly the same way.
Thatcher robbed the state pension by replacin g the earnings link with RPI indexation.

Neither party is covered with glory when it comes to pensions, imo quite possibly becasue the time scale of pensions is far longer than the electoral cycle

SandraScarlett

Moneyer wrote: »

What is the now the position of those who (with government encouragement) have voluntarily paid lump sums to buy "missing" years of NI contributions? Will they derive no benefit from these payments, and if so will they be refunded?

About 10 years ago, myself and several of my friends, all in our 40s or 50s, were asked if we wished to buy missing years. Most of us did so, only to find, on becoming 60, that those of us who had been paying "Married Women's" contribution had wasted our money, as we received a higher figure by claiming 60% of the pension, based on our husband's contributions.

The younger ones, who reached 60 in the last 10 months, or are yet to have their 60th birthday, also wasted their money, because they were buying years in order to have at least 39, whereas last April the figure dropped to 30 years.

I know that many married women paid full rate NIC, and now have a full pension, but 40 years ago, the difference between the 2 rates (10 shillings, or 50p) represented 10% of the amount of "housekeeping" we managed on in those days. This 50p, combined with the 40p you received for children (but not for the first child - you got nothing!) put many meals on the table.

I can't see the current bunch of pensioners being given an increase to £140 a week, as I'm sure huge amounts must be saved by giving us multi-paged bewildering forms to complete, so this will probably only apply to youngsters under 55.

As an oldie, I'd advise people not to "buy" years until the last minute, and no, none of us got the money refunded!! HTH

xx

ed123_2

......hmrc were sending out letters (I know I got one) re purchasing ni missing contributions months before the changeover from 49 to 30 years (men)....these payment were non-refundable.....to my mind this could be (allegedly) obtaining money under false pretences....

djscott

What about those living in the British Commonwealth whose pensions are frozen at the rate they were paid when they left the UK? These pensioners paid into the scheme for the full 40+ years. Those living in the USA or Europe get the full amount. Will the UK government now do the right thing about frozen pensions and pay every pensioner ₤140 per week? If we returned to the UK for our declining years it has been reckoned we would cost the government ₤7000 per year in health fees alone.

Bunter_2

SandraScarlett wrote: »

I know that many married women paid full rate NIC, and now have a full pension, but 40 years ago, the difference between the 2 rates (10 shillings, or 50p) represented 10% of the amount of "housekeeping" we managed on in those days. This 50p, combined with the 40p you received for children (but not for the first child - you got nothing!) put many meals on the table.

I seem to recall that (50 years ago) most married women chose the lower rate stamp. It just seemed then to be the sensible thing to do. No one gave much thought to retirement. When a person retired they were presented with a big clock and then just seemed to disappear from the face of the earth.

Strangely enough I seem to recall that when my mother sent me to collect the family allowance it was nothing for the first child and eight shillings (40p) for subsequent children.

I dont know what the disparity was between the lower and higher cost insurance stamp (circa 1959) but ten shillings then could get me ten pints of Walker's best mild.

Eco_Miser

dunstonh wrote: »

The state pension increases are not set to be increased. That happened back in 1995 with the female state pension age increase and then increased to 68 back in 2006.

Surely, the state pension ages are set to be increased, as a result of the decisions made in 1995 and 2006. They haven't been increased yet for men, and only started being increased for women last April, with further increases ongoing for several more years.

dunstonh

Eco_Miser wrote: »

Surely, the state pension ages are set to be increased, as a result of the decisions made in 1995 and 2006. They haven't been increased yet for men, and only started being increased for women last April, with further increases ongoing for several more years.

They have been increased already. They are not set to be increased again. If you ask a 30 year old to get a state pension forecast it will be to age 68. Not 65. These changes have happened. The wording of "set to increase" suggests a further increase is due.