WASPI - Women Against State Pension Inequality

jem16

monkeyspanner wrote: »

Sorry to contradict you but there is a pot of money for pensions its called The National Insurance Fund and here is a link to the Government Actuaries report on the fund of 2010 which was not published until July 2014 as they needed to include the affects of the 2011/14 pension changes in their calculations.

You've only just confirmed what I said and that there isn't a pot of money built up with your NI contributions sitting in it waiting for you. It's basically a PAYG scheme with current contributions being used currently.

From the document you just linked to;

How the National Insurance Fund of Great Britain operates

3.1 The Fund was established on 5 July 1948 and provides retirement pensions, benefits in the event of incapacity, unemployment and sickness and other benefits in cases where individuals meet the contribution and other qualifying conditions. Generally, benefits paid from the Fund are not means-tested.

3.2 The main benefits currently paid by the Fund are:
> State pension (basic and additional)
> Incapacity Benefit/Employment and Support Allowance (contributory only)
> Bereavement Benefits
> Jobseeker’s Allowance (contributory only)
> Maternity Allowance.

As you see it's much more than the state pension.

Also;

3.7 The Fund is financed in such a way that the bulk of contributions paid in a year are used to meet benefit expenditure in the year, so it can be considered to operate broadly on a pay as you go (PAYG) basis. No substantial Fund has been built up. However, as the Fund has no borrowing powers, a working balance is necessary to guard against unexpected falls in contribution income or increases in outgo.

colsten

As the socialist politician Nye Bevan explained decades ago "the secret of the National Insurance Fund is that there ain't no fund". The contributions get spent as they roll in. Any reserve is only there to cater for some swings in the payments that must be made every week.

No matter how often WASPI declare that there is a 'pot', there is none.

Someone, or something, would have to pay for the WASPI demands. It's either higher NI contributions or raiding other financial commitments. Given that WASPI are asking for absolutely eye-watering sums of money - around £30K each for some 5 million women = £150 billion - to be found for them, it's very hard to see how this money could be found without increased contributions by the workforce. WASPI don't care about this - their selfishness is limitless.

monkeyspanner

Sorry to once again contradict you:
Your original comment was "There is no pot of money for state pensions" and I have demonstrated that there is a pot of money for state pensons. Neither you nor I mentioned a personal pot of NI contributions. Please do not misrepresent what I have posted.

Thank you for confirming the other benefits paid which I did point out in my post. You might also wish to acknowledge that the majority (approx 90%) of fund expenditure is on state pensions. See table 10.3 page 50. An extract of that table is given below.
2012-13 actual expenditure
Pensions £80Billion
IB/ESA Benefits £5.7Billion
Other Benefits £1.8Billion

I do not deny that this is a reserve fund built up from past surpluses in NI contributions and supported by current NI contributions. However I would point out that those surpluses were derived from the contibutions of the baby boomer generation who were supporting a smaller retired population by their NI payments. Therefore it is not unreasonable for those surpluses to be used to provide the baby boomers state pensions.

monkeyspanner

colsten wrote: »

As the socialist politician Nye Bevan explained decades ago "the secret of the National Insurance Fund is that there ain't no fund". The contributions get spent as they roll in. Any reserve is only there to cater for some swings in the payments that must be made every week.

No matter how often WASPI declare that there is a 'pot', there is none.

Someone, or something, would have to pay for the WASPI demands. It's either higher NI contributions or raiding other financial commitments. Given that WASPI are asking for absolutely eye-watering sums of money - around £30K each for some 5 million women = £150 billion - to be found for them, it's very hard to see how this money could be found without increased contributions by the workforce. WASPI don't care about this - their selfishness is limitless.

If there is no fund what is the point of the government spending money on an actuarial analysis of that fund.

Incidentally I have stated before that I do not believe there is a case to roll back the 1995 changes despite the claim that these changes were not communicated properly. I do however believe the 2011 changes were improperly implemented due to insuffucient notice for both women and men affected by the acceleration and increase to age 66.

colsten

monkeyspanner wrote: »

If there is no fund what is the point of the government spending money on an actuarial analysis of that fund.

Please see the last quote (3.7) in post #42. Of course with hundreds of millions sloshing in and out on a weekly basis, you would expect that the movements are monitored and modelled against expected needs.

monkeyspanner wrote: »

Incidentally I have stated before that I do not believe there is a case to roll back the 1995 changes despite the claim that these changes were not communicated properly. I do however believe the 2011 changes were improperly implemented due to insuffucient notice for both women and men affected by the acceleration and increase to age 66.

That seems a massively more reasonable position than WASPI have. I could potentially agree that some of the people affected should have been given longer notice. Personally, I am not bothered about the extra 18 months I have to swallow as I think the country has much larger issues than un-doing the 2011 Pensions Act, and these other issues should take precedence.

Debt_Free_Chick

monkeyspanner wrote: »

If there is no fund what is the point of the government spending money on an actuarial analysis of that fund.

That is to determine whether NIC is set at a sufficient level. It also evaluates the contracted out NI rebate.

The only "reserve" is approx 16.7% of this years expected benefit expenditure, as a buffer, in case of higher claims. That buffer is only about 2 months payments, so quite modest

Debt_Free_Chick

The annual accounts are more relevant

jem16

monkeyspanner wrote: »

Incidentally I have stated before that I do not believe there is a case to roll back the 1995 changes despite the claim that these changes were not communicated properly.

There is no legal obligation for any individual to be notified individually of law changes which is where WASPI seems to be setting out its stall. This is an Act which was passed over 20 years ago and is more than half way through being enacted so as you say really no case to roll back those changes only for 1950s women.

I do however believe the 2011 changes were improperly implemented due to insuffucient notice for both women and men affected by the acceleration and increase to age 66.

There are very few people who would disagree with this especially for those born 1953 to 1954 with an added 18 months. Only those born from April 1953 to April 1956 had less than 10 years notice of the changes. John Ralfe did come up with a suggestion that would help that age group at a cost of £8.5bn but this was widely decried by WASPI even though this is quite expensive to implement.

The campaign is doomed to failure simply because of WASPI's ridiculous demands that all 1950s women be put back in the same financial position as if they had been borne before 1950 regardless of circumstances. WASPI seem to think they have the support of MPs for this but I've yet to see one MP publicly state this. Many WASPI supporters have tried to discuss ( and change )this ridiculous ask with the co-founders but have been insulted and subsequently blocked for their troubles.

The ask has now been removed from Facebook and replaced with a statement that says we have all just misunderstood in an attempt to gather support from Conservative MPs in particular. However it cannot be removed from the WPSC evidence given by Anne Keen so until WASPI come out with some realistic and fully costed suggestions I doubt anyone will take them seriously.

Pollycat

jem16 wrote: »

The campaign is doomed to failure simply because of WASPI's ridiculous demands that all 1950s women be put back in the same financial position as if they had been borne before 1950 regardless of circumstances. WASPI seem to think they have the support of MPs for this but I've yet to see one MP publicly state this. Many WASPI supporters have tried to discuss ( and change )this ridiculous ask with the co-founders but have been insulted and subsequently blocked for their troubles.

The ask has now been removed from Facebook and replaced with a statement that says we have all just misunderstood in an attempt to gather support from Conservative MPs in particular. However it cannot be removed from the WPSC evidence given by Anne Keen so until WASPI come out with some realistic and fully costed suggestions I doubt anyone will take them seriously.

I believe in the e-petition debate Mhairi Black stated that WASPI didn't want the 1995 act 'undone' but that's exactly what they stated originally.

jem16

Pollycat wrote: »

I believe in the e-petition debate Mhairi Black stated that WASPI didn't want the 1995 act 'undone' but that's exactly what they stated originally.

Waspi are just playing with words and trying to accuse us all of simply misunderstanding. Supporting MPs have either been taken in by their spin or, as more likely, just in it for the publicity of going against the "nasty" government.

Of course they don't want the 1995 Act "undone" as that would mean every woman would benefit including 1960s, 1970s etc and they couldn't claim that they agree with equalisation.

They simply want their money for 1950s women as if the 1995 Act had never taken place but ONLY for them and no-one else. Equalisation is fine but not for them.