Sign the Petition for Womens state pension age going up unfair

saver861

hyubh wrote: »

A protected SPA of 60 (or 65) for anyone paying NICs before 1995 would be unfair on anyone younger, who would actually be paying for these extended retirements.

Yes - however, there is requirement to find a fair balance. The working young pay for those in retirement. That has been the case from year dot.

Some people have 40+ years NIC and get the same pension as someone with 30 years. Some people have worked full time and paid more in NIC's than others who have worked part-time but still get the same state pension for the number of years worked.

hyubh wrote: »

The LGPS transitional arrangements that you allude to are far too generous and are a burden on the council taxpayer.

Yes they are generous when comparing to other schemes. People have a choice of careers, pensions schemes etc. But the recipients of these schemes are council tax payers themselves!

hyubh wrote: »

They are also administratively complex, relative to what they are transitioning from and to (see the guides labelled '85 Year Rule', 'Aggregation' and 'The Underpin' here: http://www.lgpsregs.org/index.php/guides/administration-guides-to-the-2014-scheme).

They are changing to career average for instance, so does not make more fair in comparison to others?

hyubh wrote: »

There are funding problems *now*. Your analogies to occupational DB schemes are frankly rather silly, since if the state pension were a private sector DB plan of some sort, it would have been closed years ago.

Perhaps you misinterpreted my intended point - I was making the point that as with all pension schemes, there are transitions and complexity but such complexity is a necessity to make new changes. The complexity is just that, not that somehow the state system should be run in the same manner as a DB scheme. The two are completely different in their objectives, management, etc etc.

saver861

PensionTech wrote: »

-facepalm-

Firstly, I agree, people may have felt shortchanged. People "feeling shortchanged" is not an argument; it is a whinge. I am not sure what your point is.

In which case we will leave it at that.

PensionTech wrote: »

Much like you do with the government who decided to change the state pension age.

Yes - as we said, they have the power to make changes. If I don't agree with those changes, I am entitled to express that opinion as you are with your councillor!

PensionTech wrote: »

As a matter of fact I agree with the general consensus that the 2011 changes were too quick and not well thought through.

Excellent!!! We agree on something then!

PensionTech wrote: »

That has no bearing on whether I think people should have got transitional protection in 1995 - which I don't.

But there is no transitional protection in 1995 changes!

If there was to be transitional protection at the time, then, in my opinion, those who had paid NIC's before 1995 would have been the only ones to have merited any protection. Its just my opinion based on the fact that they had paid NIC's before the changes.

PensionTech wrote: »

Thank you for that considered contribution to this debate.

Well it would seem you disapprove of my contribution. Sorry if I have not attained standards you are accustomed to - nonetheless, you are more than welcome to express your opinion!!!

RickyB2000

saver861 wrote: »

Some people have 40+ years NIC and get the same pension as someone with 30 years. Some people have worked full time and paid more in NIC's than others who have worked part-time but still get the same state pension for the number of years worked.

Not sure this is in the spirit of NI and pensions though. Someone earning £150,000 will have paid in vastly more NI than someone earning £20,000 - should they get a larger pension to reflect this?

As I understand it, you have to pay a minimum of £X per year and you 'earn' a NI unit. Those units are not being changed, so you are not being short changed in that sense. Of course, those units are worth less than they were, so in that sense you could feel short changed to what you thought they were worth, but then a woman's NI unit has been worth more than a mans.

Is a closer analogy a DC pension were it predicts your units will be worth X but when you get to retirement it is only worth Y. This is going to be reality for a lot of young people,

PensionTech

Sorry if I have not attained standards you are accustomed to - nonetheless, you are more than welcome to express your opinion!!!

You have failed to pick up the progress of this discussion and have returned to your initial points, in some cases contradicting yourself hugely. I also see that I am not the first person that you have defeated with your circular logic. I am therefore not going to try to explain the issues with what you propose any further, as you have not listened to what I and others have said already and are unlikely to do so in future. But I do recommend that you try to educate yourself about this subject before weighing in so heavily, because it pollutes an important debate to have people persisting in nonsensical assertions and refusing to consider the counterarguments to what they are saying.

saver861

RickyB2000 wrote: »

Not sure this is in the spirit of NI and pensions though. Someone earning £150,000 will have paid in vastly more NI than someone earning £20,000 - should they get a larger pension to reflect this?

The degree of fair has different meanings to different people. So, the point earlier about the fairness of young people paying for those retired has to find a balance.

There is no perfect science in this and never will be. However, when anything is put forward that is deemed unfair by a majority or significant minority, then that demonstrates a probability that the balance is too weighed one way or the other.

bigadaj

saver861 wrote: »

The degree of fair has different meanings to different people. So, the point earlier about the fairness of young people paying for those retired has to find a balance.

There is no perfect science in this and never will be. However, when anything is put forward that is deemed unfair by a majority or significant minority, then that demonstrates a probability that the balance is too weighed one way or the other.

That doesn't make any practical sense.

So because you have a huge number of baby boomers who think it's unfair that their privileged position isn't being protected, they can enforce the cost of their expectations on a much smaller number of people decades younger than themselves.

It doesn't matter what they have paid in themselves, that money had basically been spent paying previous pensioners.

saver861

PensionTech wrote: »

You have failed to pick up the progress of this discussion and have returned to your initial points, in some cases contradicting yourself hugely.

Well I'm not sure where I have contradicted myself hugely - I am still of the same opinion so, if I have done, its either misinterpreted or unintended.

PensionTech wrote: »

I also see that I am not the first person that you have defeated with your circular logic. I am therefore not going to try to explain the issues with what you propose any further,

Entirely your prerogative.

PensionTech wrote: »

But I do recommend that you try to educate yourself about this subject before weighing in so heavily, because it pollutes an important debate to have people persisting in nonsensical assertions and refusing to consider the counterarguments to what they are saying.

Well part of that education would indeed be participating in open forums such as this and debating opinions.

Clearly you feel my knowledge on the subject is substandard. That may indeed be a very valid conclusion, but equally it would depend on what you are comparing my knowledge against.

Your signature states you are working within the pension industry. I on the other hand have never worked in any capacity in relation to pensions. Therefore, if you are anticipating responses relative to your knowledge you will be disappointed. In the same way, were I discussing matters of my profession with you, then I would be expecting knowledge relative to that of a layman.

I would actually say the onus would be on me to break down the technical and theoretical concepts of my profession to that of a layman if I was in discussion. Likewise my expectation of you.

Your earlier posts contained a number of questions and terminology put to me in a manner that may have been intended as a demonstration of academic superiority. You referred to the complexity and complications of addressing certain scenarios, as such making it impractical or impossible. That could be considered dismissive.

You responded to a post with a 'facepalm'. That could be considered impolite on a public forum.

None of these may have been your intention of course.

I'm not sure exactly where my opinions are nonsensical. I have stated many times, my view is that the 2011 changes are unfair. Most people seem to concur with that opinion. Likewise, if there had been transitional protection in the 1995 policy, that might have been restricted to those who had paid NIC's prior to that point.

So, its a little difficult so see how those opinions are so nonsensical ..... but then again, that is in itself, a matter of opinion!!!

Happy New Year btw.

saver861

bigadaj wrote: »

So because you have a huge number of baby boomers who think it's unfair that their privileged position isn't being protected, they can enforce the cost of their expectations on a much smaller number of people decades younger than themselves.

There is no privileged position. People who pay their NIC's are entitled to pension - that is not a privilege, its a basic right as the policy stands.

The changes to state pension ages are necessary - there is no debate about that. Where those changes have not been smoothed out fairly, then that suggests a problem, i.e. 2011 changes.

RickyB2000

saver861 wrote: »

The degree of fair has different meanings to different people. So, the point earlier about the fairness of young people paying for those retired has to find a balance.

There is no perfect science in this and never will be. However, when anything is put forward that is deemed unfair by a majority or significant minority, then that demonstrates a probability that the balance is too weighed one way or the other.

I guess Fairness depends on where you are sitting. See my first post on this thread. Of course the politics of envy kick in for many people. Most people would say people earning over £150k should pay more tax as they earn a fortune. Does that make it fair? Would they say the same if they earned over £150k? Likewise, for those of us who do not have the option of retiring at 60, do not have the defined benefit pensions, can't buy a house, can't find a decent job etc, it is hard to be sympathetic (and unenvious) of those that do when they have a reduction in their benefits.

The country has no money, everyone has to contribute towards reducing costs. This means every section of society will be hit with what they consider unfair changes (which is why I don't think size of the group matters). I guess from a 'state benefit' point of view, I would assess whether the change has caused that group to be put in a position where they are below the standards of minimal existence in the UK with no way to rectify that. For me, that is what state benefits are about. Not an extra £5k a year to enjoy exotic holidays or a new car (sure most people wouldn't be doing this). It is national INSURANCE after all

atush

Pollycat wrote: »

I'm not sure if your post is adressed to me (agent69 quoted my post) or agent69.
If me, that boat sailed over 12 years ago - when I was still expecting my SPA to be paid at 63 years and 6 months.

Are you disabled so cant go back to work? Part time even? REtiring doesnt have to be a one way street.

I guess my point was for others to learn from your mistake (in not having a personal pension) in that it can help you retire early, and help insulate you from any changes to the SP.