Phasing of State Pension Age

OldBeanz

bigadaj wrote: »

Never forget, everyone thinks they are a victim now.

It is the natural consequence of our multi-cultural society. Every minority requires spokesmen (oops spokespersons) who will be funded by a government initiative. If everyone is rubbing along fairly well then they are out of a job so it is in their interest to highlight any slight to maintain their funding and brow beat the rest of the population with guilt.
There was an article in the Guardian this week with a very confused correspondent discussing a black woman abusing another woman in Muslim garb. The writer struggled to understand how the black person could be racist. There is a booming economy in being a minority.

JezR

Figgerty wrote: »

I swallowed the Osborne/Webb propaganda on the flat rate pension of £144 that everyone would get ...

As to what Steve Webb has said, how about this from 2011, right back at the Green Paper stage:

Mr Webb said that during a 'transitional period' some pensioners would receive less than £140 'directly from the state pension'; the rest coming from existing top-ups.

Media reports intiially were quite accurate about what was planned. What happened was that emphasis was placed subsequently on the long term aim of a flat rate pension as it will be difficult not to achieve the full rate for people who will live 35 working age years in the UK after it is introduced.

Then suddenly the media forgot they had reported the transitional situation correctly at first, and reported it again as though it was some kind of new revelation. The green paper had though said in the interim that the single tier pension would be delivered "through a combination of their state pension and contracted-out pension scheme, as happens now".

atush

Figgerty wrote: »

Retired men will be sending themselves to Coventry.

,


Sorry not all of warwickshire was included.

But the leafy areas are, and it is also the highest consumption of Viagra in t he country. Possibly why little old ladies are passing away earlier lol?

SnowMan

Figgerty wrote: »

I did not EXPECT my employer to do anything. I accepted paying a lower rate NI and that was that.

I swallowed the Osborne/Webb propaganda on the flat rate pension of £144 that everyone would get - that was the first figure I remember hearing. It wasn't until I heard that many pensioners would be getting a lot less that I started to worry. I now know that I should get roughly the same pension I was previously entitled to, without the state second pension, as only those who were contracted in will get that element.

Have a listen to Steve Webb back on moneybox live from 16th January 2013

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01ptzt5

If you listen to that or read the transcript you will see he mentions more than once that those who had contracted-out won't get the full single tier pension, unless they earn enough further pension after 2016 (was 2017 at the time). For example at one point he says

WEBB: Joe, if you’re on £107, it’s probably because you were contracted out, so you have a company pension or something. We won’t be paying £144 to people who are contracted out

Steve Webb was consistently accurate, from an early point, in explaining how the reduction for contracting-out would work.

Figgerty

I either missed all of Steve Webb's clarifications on the state pension changes or they were not clear enough for me to understand.

I now know my position with the state pension age & the state pension amount and thank those who helped me understand the situation. I shall retire next year as I just can't put up with the daily grind any longer. 46 years of continuous working and lengthy commuting is long enough. Perhaps I may even try that Lamborghini Mr Webb talked about. :wave:

I will try and keep up with any further changes the DWP introduce so there are no more nasty surprises for me.

:wave::j:beer:

xylophone

Steve Webb was consistently accurate, from an early point, in explaining how the reduction for contracting-out would work.

He certainly wasn't consistently accurate about the effect of losing increase on pre 88 GMP in its entirety or on over 3% on post 88 GMP.....

http://www.fundweb.co.uk/kenneth-thompson/17563.publicprofile

In support of the above position, this note for the House of Commons Library

Standard Note: SN/BT/4919
Last updated: 17 July 2009
Author: Djuna Thurley
Section Business and Transport Section

Between 1978 and 1997, as a
condition of contracting out of the State Earnings Related Pension Scheme (SERPS),
members had a guarantee of a minimum amount of occupational pension. This “Guaranteed Minimum Pension” (GMP) applied to members of contracted-out schemes who would otherwise have been entitled to SERPS...........

Responsibility for uprating the GMP element, once in payment, is shared between the state and the scheme........... "


And as for https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/447195/new-state-pension--effect-of-being-contracted-out.pdf


"The effect on the recipient of this additional State Pension/Contracted out
Deduction calculation can be virtually the same as if increases had been
paid on their pre-1988 GMP. With the closure of the additional State Pension in 2016 it will no longer be possible to continue the calculation."

A clear and unequivocal explanation of the effect on those with GMP?

I don't think so......

SnowMan

xylophone wrote: »

He certainly wasn't consistently accurate about the effect of losing increase on pre 88 GMP in its entirety or on over 3% on post 88 GMP.....

Steve Webb also said that the government would honour any accrued amounts shown on state pension statements.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmhansrd/cm110404/debtext/110404-0002.htm

for future pensioners, we would also continue to honour the contributions that people have built up to the date of reform

However anyone with less than 10 qualifying years when they reach SPA will get nothing, so that isn't the case, bearing in mind that under the old (current) system only a single qualifying year is required. Ultimately up to 9 years built up to the date of reform could be extinguished/dishonoured in extreme scenarios.


So yes he got a few things wrong, but I think overall he did a good job explaining the changes.

hyubh

OldBeanz wrote: »

It is the natural consequence of our multi-cultural society.

Yes yes, it's clearly the muzzies which make people like the OP think the government is ripping them off with their state pension - nothing to do with the terms actually changing over time and a complicated system.

There was an article in the Guardian this week with a very confused correspondent discussing a black woman abusing another woman in Muslim garb. The writer struggled to understand how the black person could be racist. There is a booming economy in being a minority.

Probably just trolling people like you. On pensions, the Mail and the Telegraph are much more likely to be making people think they are 'victims'. The Mail in particular has had some terrible pieces recently - see, e.g., http://www.dailymail.co.uk/money/saving/article-3235966/SPECIAL-REPORT-millions-Britons-never-151-week-new-state-pension.html

greenglide

However anyone with less than 10 qualifying years when they reach SPA will get nothing

Unless they had an MWRRE, were divorced or widowed before 6/4/2016 or have overseas involvement.

bigfreddiel

Figgerty wrote: »

What about the length of time people work (outside the home) and the type of work they do?

Makes no difference

fj