Retired people could work for pensions..

seven-day-weekend

StevieJ wrote: »

I am not sure that current state pension provision (without personal pension) is any better than a breadline retirement level?

The basic full State Pension is £107 a week. Some people then have SERPS and S2P on top of this and in some cases these additions can be nearly as much as the basic pension.

Some people do not get a full SP because they have not paid the required contributions.

However.. if your income is less than £142.70 (single people) or £217.90 (couples) it will be made up to these amounts by the means-tested Pension Credit. This Benefit is a passport to Housing Benefit/Local Housing Allowance and Council Tax Benefit.

Hope this helps.

GeorgeHowell

ash28 wrote: »

Mortgage Equity Withdrawal

Not that many people do this, and most people of Boomer age would be advised not to anyway, being too young yet. Some ought to do it, but won't. I have elderly relatives who I wish would do so, instead of having to increasingly scrimp and watch pennies. But other more influential branches of the family are discouraging them. I believe this is with a view is to inheriting the maximum, not for the purposes of spending it themselves but to pass on to their own thirtysomething and not too disadvantaged children. The exact opposite in fact of what a lot on here are complaining about.

Dunroamin

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

The basic full State Pension is £107 a week. Some people then have SERPS and S2P on top of this and in some cases these additions can be nearly as much as the basic pension.

Some people do not get a full SP because they have not paid the required contributions.

However.. if your income is less than £142.70 (single people) or £217.90 (couples) it will be made up to these amounts by the means-tested Pension Credit. This Benefit is a passport to Housing Benefit/Local Housing Allowance and Council Tax Benefit.

Hope this helps.

They can be considerably more than the basic pension - a maximum of £240 rings a bell.

GeorgeHowell

Angry_Bear wrote: »

I've just bought my first house (do I count as "young" at 31?) and I didn't get a penny from anyone else. Neither did my sister, my sister-in-law, or two of my friends. The rest I don't know about - so I can safely say that NONE of the young people I know who have bought houses/flats, have done so with the help of The Bank of mum and Dad and/ or The Bank of Grandparents.

Maybe I just know people with poorer parents.

It seems that it's the ones with no Bank of Mum & Dad financing facility that are doing all the complaining, and then tarring everyone with the same brush.

Dunroamin

Angry_Bear wrote: »

I've just bought my first house (do I count as "young" at 31?) and I didn't get a penny from anyone else. Neither did my sister, my sister-in-law, or two of my friends. The rest I don't know about - so I can safely say that NONE of the young people I know who have bought houses/flats, have done so with the help of The Bank of mum and Dad and/ or The Bank of Grandparents.

Maybe I just know people with poorer parents.

Of course, lots of people get indirect help (not saying that this is true of you) from parents refusing to take money from their adult children for their keep or by taking an uneconomic amount. the children who've been helped in this way often boast about having done it without help from anyone.

GeorgeHowell

Dunroamin wrote: »

Of course, lots of people get indirect help (not saying that this is true of you) from parents refusing to take money from their adult children for their keep or by taking an uneconomic amount. the children who've been helped in this way often boast about having done it without help from anyone.

Very true. That's what happened to me -- my parents could not have afforded big hand outs but I lived at home until marriage, paid over enough so they weren't out of pocket, but didn't really contribute to the overheads. That enabled me to save up a deposit. That's how they helped, and I was grateful and made no bones about anyone knowing. I'm sure the same happens now. But whilst saving up I did not enjoy the same lifestyle or financial freedom as my parents did, did not resent the fact that the first house I bought was not as big as theirs or furnished as nicely, nor expect them to make further sacrifices in order to level it all out and so that we could "have it all now".

Jennifer_Jane

paulmapp8306 wrote: »

Im not advocating anything in particular - and I understant BobQs point.

I will say than NI is not just for pension provision. Its where the NHS is (or is supposed to be) funded from as well. Hence why the NI rate went up 1% to fund extra NHS costs a few years back.

Basically, I say we should get rid og NI all todether, but raise income tax by that amount. Ultimately it all goes into a government pot anyway - just call it one thing and let the government decide how its spent. That way there will be no "ive paid in for my pension" type feeling. You pay Tax on what you earn - and get benefits (including pension) as and when you NEED it - and access to amenaties like medical care, policing, armed forces protection, education, libraries etc etc through you life.

The difficulty is always - when do you impliment the change. If your going to change it has to happen at some point and there will always be winners and loosers. Change it now, while also raising the state retirement age by a couple of years (planned anyway), and have done with it.

I keep asking this on this forum, if not this thread, but if you don't separate the assessment for pension entitlement on NI, then how do you?

Or are you saying that there should just be a pension for anyone who wants it/has a low income (ie completely means-tested)?

The point is that we HAVE paid in for the pension. I get 62% of the State Pension (plus a couple of bits and pieces to bring it up to £94 a week) because that's all the contributions I have put into the system.

Us people on Basic State Pension do not think of it as a 'benefit', whether it is slotted into the welfare budget or not.

I could have received a non-inflation linked UK Basic State Pension in the Country I was living in before I returned to the UK. There are thousands of people who live in, mainly, Commonwealth countries who paid into the system, paid everything they were asked to, and are still on the original State Pension that they received when they left the UK - it's not just the sun-tanned Saga-lout, little Englanders in Marbella (to half-quote Paul), many people left the Country to retain relationships with their children who have emigrated. If they return, then their pensions would catch up, but a huge amount is being saved by this lack of inflation-linking.

Also, the retirement age IS being increased to 68 in 2046, so anyone born in 1976 needs to have some kind of bridging income/pension if they want to retire before age 68, as well as obviously just using the Basic State Pension as a top-up rather than relying on it.

paulmapp8306

If you live in a foreign country, then return to the UK for retirement and have not paid into the system - why should you be entitled to a state pension? Stay in the country you paid into and use their system. Thats not really the point though

What Im actually saying, is that NI should be scrapped. Increase Income tax by that 12% across the board (so 34% basic, 52% higher etc). This state income is then used to fund everything supplied by the state - including a pension. That pension should be means tested just as other benefits are. if you want a better income in old age - then make your own arrangements throughout your working life. Yes there is a cutoff point where its not worth saving all your life for a similar level private income - but thats the same with all benefits really.

If you return to the UK after paying no tax into the system - then whether you are entitled to any benefits - including a pension needs to be assessed on a case by case situation, however in most cases there would not be a full entitlement. if you have paid into the system (or nominally paid in if your on benefits for all/part of your life) then you are entitled. if you were out of the country making no contribution for say 10 years, and the pension age was 68 (for easy maths) then you get 4/5ths of the full entitlement as you paid in for 4/5ths of your working life.

Again - the cross over period becomes an issue though - but once in place you would know that if you live/work outside the UK and pay no tax into the UK, then you will need to make your own provisions to top up what you WOULD be entitled to on return & retirement. I cant see any issues with this long term. It does present issues for people who have already spent 10 years away without providing any private income for retirement. There maybe needs to be a suitable period where exceptions are made in this case - on individual merit.

Jennifer_Jane

:j

paulmapp8306 wrote: »

If you live in a foreign country, then return to the UK for retirement and have not paid into the system - why should you be entitled to a state pension? Stay in the country you paid into and use their system. Thats not really the point though

What Im actually saying, is that NI should be scrapped. Increase Income tax by that 12% across the board (so 34% basic, 52% higher etc). This state income is then used to fund everything supplied by the state - including a pension. That pension should be means tested just as other benefits are. if you want a better income in old age - then make your own arrangements throughout your working life. Yes there is a cutoff point where its not worth saving all your life for a similar level private income - but thats the same with all benefits really.

If you return to the UK after paying no tax into the system - then whether you are entitled to any benefits - including a pension needs to be assessed on a case by case situation, however in most cases there would not be a full entitlement. if you have paid into the system (or nominally paid in if your on benefits for all/part of your life) then you are entitled. if you were out of the country making no contribution for say 10 years, and the pension age was 68 (for easy maths) then you get 4/5ths of the full entitlement as you paid in for 4/5ths of your working life.

Again - the cross over period becomes an issue though - but once in place you would know that if you live/work outside the UK and pay no tax into the UK, then you will need to make your own provisions to top up what you WOULD be entitled to on return & retirement. I cant see any issues with this long term. It does present issues for people who have already spent 10 years away without providing any private income for retirement. There maybe needs to be a suitable period where exceptions are made in this case - on individual merit.

Re the first paragraph, this is an extraordinary assertion. For one thing we work globally these days, and people do go all over the place to work; they especially can work anywhere in the European Union without too much problem. So your point of view is extremely insular and out-of-date. So since many people are not staying in one country for the whole of their lives and have a mix of places in which they've paid tax (I've paid tax in 3 countries and lived in 4), then there should be a system where they may return to their home country, of which they are a citizen, for instance, and not be beholden on means-testing and state benefits.

My point was that even though I did not pay into the UK tax system for 26 years or so (although I did pay tax on savings I had here), I most definitely did send NI contributions back to pay for a future - reduced, as it happens - State Pension.

People do return to various home countries for various reasons: helping with aging parents; problems in the foreign country and so on. Or just wanting to be home again. You normally pay into a pension whilst you are working, and those pensions either cannot be transferred overseas, or are at the whim of currency conversions and foreign exhange controls.

I just can't see the problem with NI and why people feel that this kind of assessment for contributions has to be done away with. Why?

PaulF81

GeorgeHowell wrote: »

That answer evades the point and avoids quoting specifics.

Bit like the majority of your posts then me old mukka.