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

redux

d-b wrote: »

Although at one stage I had paid enough NI for a full pension, at old rates at aged 60, I now have 2 or 3 years to make up to get a full pension, new rates, once I am 66.
I tried getting a proper forecast online but was told I have to write in for it. Can't be bothered as the goal posts may well have moved in 6 years time.
.

I phoned up earlier, after the website issue I mentioned earlier.

The full pension qualification now going forwards is to have contributions for 35 years, having been 30 years for a while, and before that 40 something.

Mind you, whether that varies between slightly different ages I don't know.

Thrugelmir

femalemonarchfemalecanine wrote: »

Cameron's a lying amoral weasel, whatever comes out of his mouth is not to be trusted.
still, the party of the rich...

Narrow minded contributions offer nothing to solve the problems that lie ahead.

CupHalfFull

'Every penny you have saved during your working life, you will keep.'
This is vague.

Also, the free TV licence is not available to all pensioners.

jamesd

Butterfly_Brain wrote: »

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? ... Tories are only out to kick the poorest in society

An increase from the current basic state pension of £113.10 to the flat rate of £148.40 plus whatever inflation-linking does to increase it before it starts.

Those with very limited work histories are gainers in state pension from the flat rate system. It's those with long working lives at low or above income who lose.

d-b wrote: »

What's the latest on partner's contributions counting towards a pension as was the case when most women stayed at home? I seem to recall that no longer counts?? Although it did at the time I was at home looking after kids.

The detailed proposals for that are here and I suggest reading that to get them all. The entitlement for a married person or civil partner based on their spouse is 60% of only the basic state pension entitlement of the partner, a category B(L) pension. That's £67.86 a week at current rates.

Assuming you were getting child benefit paid to you, you'll have NI credits for those years. Under the current system each year of credits would get you 1/30th of the current £113.10 basic state pension, under the new rules it will get you 1/35th of the £148.40. So £3.77 per year today but £4.24 under the flat rate. Assuming 16 years of that it's £60.32 vs £67.84 a week.

That £67.84 entitlement of your own is only 2p a week below the 60% spousal pension entitlement so adding three years of juvenile credits and some work means that you'd probably see an increase under the flat rate compared to the current system.

Someone who in the future just chooses not to work while also not paying voluntary contributions might lose out, though. Example 1.1 covers this case well enough and there is transitional protection for what has been accrued so far, but not for future years.

Doc_N

Stormy_Petrel wrote: »

Why do the Tories start every single statement with a line about the mess they inherited from their predecessors? I mean, fair enough when you're in your first year of office, but it's been FOUR YEARS. Have they just been sitting around interfering with themselves all this time?

Why indeed? And why haven't we had a more robust response from Labour?

The Tories (and Cameron in particular - we call him Tw*tty round here) have been clueless in power, and all they've ever had to say has been 'Not our fault, Guv - all down to Labour'.

It was wearing thin after 6 months but after four and a half years of their inaction it's pathetic. Blaming Labour for an economic mess that was created by the bankers and affected most of the world always was ridiculous, but still banging on about it now at every opportunity shows a government that has nothing positive to say about itself. All it can do is try to attribute blame for its own failings.

Still - all in this together, aren't we? And the much-vaunted Big Society? Words, words, words - but no actions.

JohnB47

devon1955 wrote: »

As usual, what is NOT publicised widely is what is important. I received a pension calculation last week which shows that I have a full NI record. This would entitle me to approx. £113 per week if I were to receive the existing pension but only £64 per week from the new state pension.


This comes on top of having seen my state pension age rise twice since I started working. In addition I will not be entitled to the benefits of free bus travel etc. until 66.


This is not the message which is being pushed by the government.

But you will receive the greater of the two calculations, if you reach spa after April 2016. Why are you deliberately misrepresenting the information you've been given? And why are so many people thanking you for doing it?

mgdavid

pennywise63 wrote: »

.......
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 ......

did you stop for one moment to wonder why?
Because in 1947 there was no welfare state benefit system and no NHS either. If you want low taxes there are plenty of countries where you pay little tax and get even less back from the state.

mgdavid

redux wrote: »

Hmm, I've now been able to access this using a different browser.

Heading in the direction of asking for a forecast online, I'm asked to sign up for a government gateway account........

good grief, where have you been for the last n years? How have you managed your pension planning previously?

mgdavid

rdr wrote: »

Funny he doesn't mention the approx £250k he has stollen from my civil service pension.

He's probably forgotten your name; have you popped in to see him lately?

jamesd

Doc_N wrote: »

why haven't we had a more robust response from Labour?

Perhaps because in many ways this is a continuation of what was done under the last Labour government. That introduced a cut in pensions for workers with higher earnings to pay for more for those who worked less but had a long phase-in time for part of that, by eliminating index-linked increase for the upper earnings limit of NI and replacing it with the upper accrual point instead. The current government plan has that happening in 2016 instead of gradually, but also completely eliminates the earnings-related portion. I expect that was also on the "nice to have" objective of Labour in response to Lord Turner's Pensions Commission recommendations.

One of the key things that the parties had to deal with is the way the minimum income guarantee's level would cause it to be paid to a lot of pensioners 20-30 years from now. This plan tries to deal with that by setting the core state pension above the MIG level, going beyond what Labour did.

In many ways this is more of a Labour or Liberal Democrat policy in appearance than a Conservative one. Then some of that balance is addressed with the new access capabilities that looks more like Liberal Democrat and Conservative than Labour.

Contrast with the US politicians largely ignoring similar issues and while we can disagree with much we can at least be glad that our politicians are doing things to solve the problem instead of ignoring it.