MSE News: State pension changes to make workers worse off, unions say

N1AK

SnowMan wrote: »

The TUC are arguing for the single tier pension to be set initially at a much higher rate than £144pw.

The TUC are playing to their audience. I have little time for them but I appreciate the fact they've highlighted the inequality of the current proposal (even if I disagree with how to solve it).

SnowMan wrote: »

If it was set at £130pw that would mean that it would be set at a level lower than the current guaranteed pension credit level, the minimum that a single person can be expected to live on, and so expecting people to live on less than that would not be right in my view. So it would also necessitate the retention of a means tested top-up to state pension.

I wasn't seriously suggesting an immediate change to a £130pw pension but, rather clumsily, highlighting that less could be given to current pensioners in order to take less from future ones.

Another option could be to bring forwards plans to delay retirement and means test anyone under 70 who wants to claim the state pension. It'll never happen because pensioners wouldn't stomach it but it's a lot fairer than punishing 20 year olds for their grandparents inaction in the face of ballooning pension costs. Retirement ages should have begun increasing years ago and we're effectively rewarding them for doing nothing about it earlier.

I agree with all the points you make about the way the transition is being worked and would happily support amendment to them as you suggest.[/QUOTE]

N1AK

Perelandra wrote: »

BUT- I do believe that the old pension scheme will become unnaffordable in the long term, and so I would prefer reforms to the system to happen earlier rather than later. I would expect people on average will be worse off under any reform system, as the money needs to be cut somewhere.

You're absolutely right and that's a very well balanced and responsible view. Pension costs had to be controlled.

What I take issue with is that younger people are having their pensions slashed to control costs while we improve pensions for those retiring sooner. Which is patently unfair and blatant political vote buying.

Dunroamin

Tancred wrote: »

Unaffordable? Rubbish. The government keeps pushing up the claimant age so that it will be 80 before long!! :rotfl:

And other countries of similar wealth to the UK have much more generous state pensions.

Other countries' pension schemes can appear more generous because the amounts paid have to cover everything, unlike in the UK where extra can be claimed for rent/mortgage/council tax.

These sort of comparisons can be very difficult to make but there are precious few countries which pay a single pensioner over £300 pw, which would be perfectly possible in the UK, under both the new and the old scheme, for someone renting in the private sector.

OffGridLiving

N1AK wrote: »

You're absolutely right and that's a very well balanced and responsible view. Pension costs had to be controlled.

What I take issue with is that younger people are having their pensions slashed to control costs while we improve pensions for those retiring sooner. Which is patently unfair and blatant political vote buying.

Some of the reasons why pension changes are phased in have been explained to you, another reason is that these changes are coming in because life expectancy is increasing. When we retire there will be will be a larger number of pensioners and they will be claiming pensions for longer.

Therefore you might receive a smaller amount each week than a current pensioner, but you will probably be in receipt of that pension for longer, so the pension received over the duration of retirement will be the same. Swings and roundabouts.

consumers_revenge

cant they just print more money....

seems to work when they want to bail out banks and the rubbish economy!

MacMickster

Dunroamin wrote: »

Other countries' pension schemes can appear more generous because the amounts paid have to cover everything, unlike in the UK where extra can be claimed for rent/mortgage/council tax.

.

The countries with better state pensions also tend to have higher tax rates. Many are also having to make similar changes as they discover that their schemes are unsustainable.

I have serious doubts that the current proposals for the single tier pension will last a decade before they are again changed to the detriment of future pensioners.

dawyldthing

The system as it is is unaffordable. This is going to be controversial and i've said this before but for some pensioners by the time they have there pension, council tax paid, possible housing benefit paid, attendance allowance if they are allowed it, winter fuel allowance, grants for different things like heating or boiler grants and others and the bus pass a lot of them are receiving a lot more than people earning minimum wage.

By the time my generation retire there will be no pensions as the mass of people working can't sustain the increasing elderly population either unless the amount is lowered. Something has to give way and there will be someone down the line that isn't happy, but we don't have an infinate amount of money and everything has to be paid somewhere. I don't disagree that people have paid into the pot for x amount of years and so should be allowed some back but if it is unsustainable then something needs to give. I do think the universal credit if pushed through for everything eventually will work as it will bring things into proportion rather than as it is at the moment.

N1AK

OffGridLiving wrote: »

Some of the reasons why pension changes are phased in have been explained to you, another reason is that these changes are coming in because life expectancy is increasing. When we retire there will be will be a larger number of pensioners and they will be claiming pensions for longer.

A woman retiring now retires at 60. A woman who is currently 40 (considerably older than me) will not retire until 68. Do you really think that life expectancy is going to increase by 8 years by then and that they'll be as able to enjoy retirement when they are 8 years older?

I'm all for setting retirement such that each generation gets the same deal. But that isn't happening. People who have already retired or retire in the next few years are getting a considerably better deal than people retiring in future.

You say that it balances out due to life expectancy and that's absolute nonsense that just shows you haven't researched it and are making statements up. But feel free to prove me wrong and provide some evidence to back your statement up.


People can continue to 'explain' it away by saying it isn't fair to change the terms for people retiring soon but that's not a justification I accept. People retiring now have had 40+ years to deal with the pension shortfall and didn't; bringing in means testing wouldn't lead to them freezing to death and would avoid rewarding them for their failure.

dunstonh

A woman retiring now retires at 60. A woman who is currently 40 (considerably older than me) will not retire until 68. Do you really think that life expectancy is going to increase by 8 years by then and that they'll be as able to enjoy retirement when they are 8 years older?

A woman who is 40 knew her state pension age was at least 65 before she started work. The only increase she has had is from 65 to 68.

Life expectancy has increased. Part of the problem though was catching up. Not just recent increases. When the state pension was introduced, the life expectancy for payment was just 2 years.

nomunnofun

N1AK wrote: »

A woman retiring now retires at 60. A woman who is currently 40 (considerably older than me) will not retire until 68. .

A woman who turns 60 today will not get their state pension until November 2017 - 64 years and two months!