Sign the Petition for Womens state pension age going up unfair

jem16

atush wrote: »

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.

I think you seem to be missing the point atush.

Pollycat seems to have made appropriate plans to allow early retirement and fund the time between that and her state pension age. Then the 2011 changes added another 15 months to that state pension age after she had retired. So saving into a personal pension, or anything else, would not have prevented that.

I don't see any mistake from Pollycat.

Pollycat

atush wrote: »

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.

jem16 wrote: »

I think you seem to be missing the point atush.

Pollycat seems to have made appropriate plans to allow early retirement and fund the time between that and her state pension age. Then the 2011 changes added another 15 months to that state pension age after she had retired. So saving into a personal pension, or anything else, would not have prevented that.

I don't see any mistake from Pollycat.

Absolutely correct, jem16. :T

And our situation is further compounded by the fact that my OH - who also retired early - was affected in the 2011 changes so his SPA has moved back from 65 to 66.
This wasn't in our financial plans in 2003 and 2007 when we took the decision to retire because the Government hadn't even thought about it.

Pollycat

atush wrote: »

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.

You are very wrong.
I didn't mention on this thread if I had a personal pension and I didn't mention that I did.

FTR, I have a very good occupational (final salary) pension - which is why I could afford to retire early.

missbiggles1

saver861 wrote: »

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.

I'm not sure how you come up with that statement, surely anybody paying tax is paying for pensions, whether they're 16 or of retirement age themselves?

Even if you're of the (somewhat outdated) view that NICs directly pay for pensions, the contributions made by those in their 60s go just as much to fund pensions as do the contributions of the young.

jem16

missbiggles1 wrote: »

I'm not sure how you come up with that statement, surely anybody paying tax is paying for pensions, whether they're 16 or of retirement age themselves?

Even if you're of the (somewhat outdated) view that NICs directly pay for pensions, the contributions made by those in their 60s go just as much to fund pensions as do the contributions of the young.

NICs paid today are what is funding today's state pensioners - that has always been the case. Once you are of state pension age you don't pay NICs even if still working.

As more and more people retire and are generally living longer too, the more call there is on the NICs. So the burden of payment is on the current workers. If not enough is being paid in to fund the payment out, where is the extra money to come from? If it comes from an increase in NICs it's current workers who are paying more. If it's topped out from the government by increased tax, again it's the current workers that are hit most as their income will generally be higher.

missbiggles1

jem16 wrote: »

NICs paid today are what is funding today's state pensioners - that has always been the case. Once you are of state pension age you don't pay NICs even if still working.

As more and more people retire and are generally living longer too, the more call there is on the NICs. So the burden of payment is on the current workers. If not enough is being paid in to fund the payment out, where is the extra money to come from? If it comes from an increase in NICs it's current workers who are paying more. If it's topped out from the government by increased tax, again it's the current workers that are hit most as their income will generally be higher.

I'm not sure how you think this relates to my post - perhaps you misunderstood it?:D

saver861

missbiggles1 wrote: »

I'm not sure how you think this relates to my post - perhaps you misunderstood it?:D

I think Jem16 post answers your query entirely. Are you not misunderstanding something?

Those receiving state pension are being funded by those currently paying NIC's. Back in the day, the ratio of people claiming pension versus that of those paying NIC's was somewhat different than it is today.

The number of people claiming state pension has risen progessively over the decades. The number of people paying NIC's has not risen in the same proportion. Thus the problem.

missbiggles1 wrote: »

Even if you're of the (somewhat outdated)

hmmm .... always considered myself to be a more modern chappie ...

missbiggles1 wrote: »

view that NICs directly pay for pensions, the contributions made by those in their 60s go just as much to fund pensions as do the contributions of the young.

The working young would refer to those working under pension age. Its not distinguishing someone in their 20's v someone in their 60s.

However, once someone reaches state pension age, be it 60, 65 they stop paying NIC's as mentioned by Jem16. So someone continuing to work from state pension age of 65 immediately gains in two ways. 1) They increase their income by collecting their state pension and 2) They increase their take home salary by not having to pay NIC's.

saver861

atush wrote: »

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

I think you have an over simplified view of the solution to the problem of those who had their spa changed with insufficient notice.

Many who might have returned to work, could not either because of illness or that of a spouse and thus had to be carers.

The opportunities available to those in their 50's and 60's to return to work in any position are somewhat limited, let alone returning to work to their original profession or similar position. Many had taken or were forced to take redundancy.

These are just some of the reasons that contributed to the changing of the policy in 2013 so that all those impacted by any changes should get 'at least 10 years notice'.

atush wrote: »

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.

As responded by the op, there was no mistake. As above, its all about the amount of time and opportunities to be able to, using your own words, insulate against the changes.

RickyB2000

Pollycat wrote: »

Absolutely correct, jem16. :T

And our situation is further compounded by the fact that my OH - who also retired early - was affected in the 2011 changes so his SPA has moved back from 65 to 66.
This wasn't in our financial plans in 2003 and 2007 when we took the decision to retire because the Government hadn't even thought about it.

But doesn't this only really impact those who require the state pension amount to cover their lifestyle (and I mean here essential spending). Between retiring and SPA they would need a pot of cash that they are burning so it runs out at SPA. If SPA increases then they are at risk of not meeting essential spending. Now, would 10 years notice really help these people esp if they are already retired at the point the change is announced? It feels like it should be much higher. Do people really retire so close to being destitute? I guess redundancy could create this situation....

Otherwise, if their early retirement pension income covers their lifestyle then all that changes at SPA is they get a load of extra cash to spend. Of course everyone wants extra cash (that they feel entitled to) and would be miffed at not getting it. But it feels difficult to justify that they even needed extra notice if this was the case (only reason is they may not have retired early as they may have wanted to use the SP money to travel the world - again, 10 years doesn't feel like enough time for notice as people could be on the verge of retiring, taking redundancy etc)

saver861

RickyB2000 wrote: »

But doesn't this only really impact those who require the state pension amount to cover their lifestyle (and I mean here essential spending).

I fully understand the point you are making, but you cannot differentiate by what is essential spending. Essential spending for one will be different to another and depends on many factors, e.g. location, circumstances etc.

RickyB2000 wrote: »

Now, would 10 years notice really help these people esp if they are already retired at the point the change is announced?

10 years is the minimum time needed to make alternative arrangements to make up any shortfall. That is now the government policy.

The key thing here is though that many impacted by changes did not get 10 years notice, with some having as little as 6 years, which is nearly half that of the governments own recommendation!

By way of example, lets say your boss tells you he is going to give you a 5% bonus every year. Now lets say a new employee starts a year later in a similar role to yours and your boss tells the new employee he is going to give him a 10% bonus each year but yours stays at 5%.

You think, hmmm, thats not fair. You ask your boss who says, well, the rule was 5% when I gave you the bonus but 10% when I gave the new employee the bonus so thats how its going to stay. I suspect you might think that was unfair at best and potentially discrimination. How each of you spend your bonus does not come into it.