MSE News: David Cameron - We will give pensioners security and dignity

Cyberman60

Doc_N wrote: »

"If you're a man and were born on or after 6 April 1951 or a woman born on or after 6 April 1953, you will be eligible to claim your State Pension under the new rules."

Thanks, Cameron - and what about all the people born before those dates who are stuck forever on the old rules, with a much lower pension, and certainly won't be getting the much-publicised £148.40 a week?

Forget that 148.40. Very few if any will get it !!! People that contracted out of SERPS and those paying less than 35 years NI will have amounts deducted pro rata for those years from that total. Ironically, many such as myself will be worse off than earlier pensioners IMO. :rotfl:

rpc

Cyberman60 wrote: »

People that contracted out of SERPS

Red herring.

If you contracted out (as I did, although I will probably accrue almost enough contracted-in years to make a full pension) then you have a second pension pot instead of some of the state pension. It used to be called protected rights.

If you invested contributions yourself and sacrificed some state pension you can't really complain that you aren't getting the same state pension as someone who didn't take the money themselves. You haven't paid for the full state pension, so you don't get it.

Most people who contracted-out will be significantly better off than those who contracted-in.

What would be unfair is giving everyone the same pension when some have their contracted-out pot set aside and others don't.

mgdavid

Dephead2004 wrote: »

....... This is because I paid a reduced contribution down from 12% to 10.6% apparently as a public servant for 35 years .....

and as a public servant for 35 years how much is your final salary based, fully index linked, unfunded but paid out of current tax revenue, pension?

[Deleted User]

What will the state pension be like for someone in their early 30s?

Work till they drop?

Doc_N

mgdavid wrote: »

and as a public servant for 35 years how much is your final salary based, fully index linked, unfunded but paid out of current tax revenue, pension?

You could make exactly the same point about state retirement pensions: fully index-linked, unfunded, and paid entirely out of current tax revenue.

I'm not a public servant, but I don't begrudge them the pension they signed up to - we all made our own choices of careers, and we all had the opportunity to take the public sector option if we chose to. The attack ought to be levelled at the directors of major employers who've stopped paying their employees fair pensions just so that they can increase dividends to shareholders and thereby increase their own bonuses.

I don't see many senior executives of major companies doing too badly in the pension stakes.

Former_MSE_Andrea

Thanks for the feedback everyone.

You might want to read Martin's latest blog on this:

Why David Cameron writing for MoneySavingExpert is not ‘bonkers’, ‘biased’ or ‘showing your true colours’

jimbo49

all those who are already pensioners should, surely, get the increased pensions. they may have started to draw it earlier, but they still paid into the scheme, just like everyone else.
the other thing that should happen, in my opinion, is that any income less than £100,000 once retired, should be tax free! ordinary people worked damn hard, and look(ed) forward to when they retire(d). they paid tax and insurance on their income whilst earning, again whilst saving and then get hit again after retiring. that is a disgraceful way for any government to behave! everything they have bought during their lifetime is taked and carries on after they retire. what about giving people a card proving their age, once retired, so that they dont pay tax on items bought? anything that can be done to ensure retirees can live the more comfortable life they looked forward to, but still wont be able to because of governments continuing to screw them!!

pennywise63

Experiance over many years has taught me that any alterations or improvemnts the government of the day impliment will not be for the general peoples beniffit, they will give you £5 in one hand and craftily take £10 with the other one , there is always a catch.
Finding an old family payslip from 1947 . the stoppages taken were one 17th of the gross wage . now it's between one quarter and can be as much as one third depending if you pay into a company pension scheme that the government can rob after a few years, Ref Gordon Brown .he dealt a massive blow to pensioners and got away with it only because he used some of the money he stole to enhance the shortfall in M.P.s pensions , they didn't oppose this increase.Shame on all of them .robbers and thieves.

Butterfly_Brain

So what happens to those who haven't been able to afford a private pension, or those who are long term sick and disabled?
Will they have to starve, freeze to death and become homeless?

Not to mention the six years extra lumped on to a woman's retirement age :mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:

Tories are only out to kick the poorest in society

bmm78

MSE_Andrea wrote: »

Thanks for the feedback everyone.

You might want to read Martin's latest blog on this:

Why David Cameron writing for MoneySavingExpert is not ‘bonkers’, ‘biased’ or ‘showing your true colours’

That covers the impartiality issue.

It doesn't however cover why an article containing numerous inaccuracies and half-truths has been published without any disclaimer or warning. Martin has conveniently ignored the tweets raising an issue with the contents of the article, rather than the principle of it.

I don't see a problem with giving Cameron a platform to express views. There is a major problem with him being given a platform to mislead.