Sign the Petition for Womens state pension age going up unfair

RickyB2000

saver861 wrote: »

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.



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.

I guess what I was saying is based on some posts about how difficult it is to get / keep a job in your 50's, is 10 years (so 55 - 57) actually going to allow these people to make up any short fall? Esp if they take a private pension at 55 so 12 years before new SPA. So if we agree that people deserve time to make up the short fall (and I don't have an issue with that if people are being put into a difficult financial situation as a result), shouldnt that require a much longer notice period (like mid 40's?)

Is there a binding contract for the state pension? Or is it more like some bonus schemes, where contractually the bonus is up to the discretion of the employer. If they don't want to pay you one, they don't have to. You may be upset (and quit) but contractually there is nothing you can do about it. That is why it is very unwise to base your spending on the potential to get a bonus. If it is like this, then you can vote another government (or threaten to vote one in, or start a revolution). Obviously if there is a contract guaranteeing a bonus then you take legal action to get what you are due. I know it may be different as the government can probably override contracts. Though there may be something about an expectation to get a bonus that can override a contractural clause if everyone gets one consistantly every year (which the SP probably would fulfil)

What you are spending it on does matter to an extent when looking at whether the change has created finacial hardship. Reading some of these posts it sounds like wealthy retired people who want some more cash, rather than people who are truly being put into a difficult financial situation by the changes.

Some people think the state pension will be means tested in the future. There must be a concept of basic standard of living, as most other benefits are means tested - suggesting that once you earn over a certain amount you are expected to be able to continue. Though many people will be upset if their insurance contributions never return anything to them (I would be one of them!)

Pollycat

RickyB2000 wrote: »

What you are spending it on does matter to an extent when looking at whether the change has created finacial hardship. Reading some of these posts it sounds like wealthy retired people who want some more cash, rather than people who are truly being put into a difficult financial situation by the changes.

Some people think the state pension will be means tested in the future. There must be a concept of basic standard of living, as most other benefits are means tested - suggesting that once you earn over a certain amount you are expected to be able to continue. Though many people will be upset if their insurance contributions never return anything to them (I would be one of them!)

But the state pension is not means tested at the moment.

I've paid NI contributions (on a decent salary amount) for 33 years.

I have as much right to the state pension as the next person who is exactly the same age as me - regardless of their or my financial situation..

RickyB2000

Pollycat wrote: »

But the state pension is not means tested at the moment.

I've paid NI contributions (on a decent salary amount) for 33 years.

I have as much right to the state pension as the next person who is exactly the same age as me - regardless of their or my financial situation..

To be clear, I would say the same thing. However, do you really have the right? Only in so much as current government says you have the right. As we see, that can be changed at any time, with seemingly little notice. One could say that up until recently those earning £60k had a right to child benefit - they don't anymore.

Ultimately, I would say that if you could challenge the government in a court of law and win, then yes, you do have the legal right to the benefit.

The point I am making is when considering if these changes are fair and made with enough notice, looking at the finacial impact on those affected surely must be the key measure. If it is only impacting wealthy pensioners with more cash than they know what to do with (as everyone else just keeps working), it becomes harder to justify reversing / smoothing / compensating those who are being impacted. Again, like the child benefit change - those who were used to the extra money (and spending it) suddenly lost it. It didn't garner much sympathy / support from most people. I wonder how many people here supported preventing that change (actually considering there are probably a decent number of high earners on here, probably quite a few). But in the grand scheme of things, these people are not now on the bread line. They just had to reduce their spending a bit.

Note that I would love to be in a world were we could afford both of these things. Neither change is 'fair'

LHW99

I have as much right to the state pension as the next person who is exactly the same age as me - regardless of their or my financial situation..

This idea does worry me somewhat (and I am impacted by both sets of pension changes). Any benefits, be it pensions, JSA or whatever are in the end paid by all taxpayers (through NI and other taxes). The country, ie taxpayers, have to be able to afford it, and therefore once anyone is receiving an income from the state equivalent to the minimum (living?) wage it seems to me that any extra above that is a priviledge rather than a right.

Perhaps an old fashioned view but there.

BobQ

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.

I agree. This is the same argument as most public sector occupational pensions which are based on an unfunded model. The current pensions and benefits are funded by the NI contributions of those in work and any shortfall made up from taxation. People would understand the concept better, if all their NI contributions went into a fund and were enough to pay directly for the state pension. But the unfunded model is what the Government has chosen, so can only be explained to people based on their need to pay so many years of contributions. Each contribution year is just as valid as any other whether you are 18 or 63.

saver861

RickyB2000 wrote: »

Is there a binding contract for the state pension? Or is it more like some bonus schemes, where contractually the bonus is up to the discretion of the employer. If they don't want to pay you one, they don't have to. You may be upset (and quit) but contractually there is nothing you can do about it. That is why it is very unwise to base your spending on the potential to get a bonus.

I think you are mixing too issues and underestimating citizens rights. You buy your eggs and milk in Tescos and pay for them. If you don't get what you pay for there is a breach of contract. You don't have a written binding contract with Tescos though.

Same with pensions. Sure the government could say we ain't gonna pay pension no more. They would be as popular as if Tescos increased their price of eggs and milk by 5000% - there is no law to stop Tescos doing so, but it would be commercial suicide.

Not only would the government not get in next election, they would not get in for a generation.

RickyB2000 wrote: »

What you are spending it on does matter to an extent when looking at whether the change has created finacial hardship. Reading some of these posts it sounds like wealthy retired people who want some more cash, rather than people who are truly being put into a difficult financial situation by the changes.

Whether you are millionaire or a pauper, if you pay Tescos for milk and eggs, you are entitled to the same size 12 eggs and same fresh milk.

Even by your own logic, why should some poorer pensioners have had only 6 years notice for their spa changes, while other equivalent poorer pensioners have 10 or more years notice for spa changes.

So, even if pension was only going to people below a certain income level which are in some pre-defined bracket of poor, the changes would still be unfair to those with less notice.

RickyB2000

BobQ wrote: »

I agree. This is the same argument as most public sector occupational pensions which are based on an unfunded model. The current pensions and benefits are funded by the NI contributions of those in work and any shortfall made up from taxation. People would understand the concept better, if all their NI contributions went into a fund and were enough to pay directly for the state pension. But the unfunded model is what the Government has chosen, so can only be explained to people based on their need to pay so many years of contributions. Each contribution year is just as valid as any other whether you are 18 or 63.

Is the cause of the unfunded model due to that fact that when it was introduced it pretty much straight away started paying people who never contributed anything. So to pay these pensions the money had to come from the working population. In theory you can never get ahead of yourself (or NI has to be so high to cover current and future pensions that the load becomes unbearable). I suppose the boomer generation was the window to get ahead, where the tax paying population vastly outnumbered the retired population - but why squirrel money away when you can use it to win votes (and improve the economy etc)

antrobus

BobQ wrote: »

... People would understand the concept better, if all their NI contributions went into a fund and were enough to pay directly for the state pension. ....

Actually, NI contributions do go into a fund. They go into the National Insurance Fund (there are separate ones for GB and NI). You can find the fund accounts here;

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/national-insurance-fund-accounts

Sadly, the current level of NI contributions does not appear to be quite sufficient to pay for the state pension.

BobQ

saver861 wrote: »

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.

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.

But this is exactly how some employers act, with different staff on different terms and conditions.

while I can understand the fact that it irks women affected by the 2011 changes that the government then defined a policy of 10 years notice, the fact is in 2011 it was not the policy at the time.

RickyB2000

saver861 wrote: »

I think you are mixing too issues and underestimating citizens rights. You buy your eggs and milk in Tescos and pay for them. If you don't get what you pay for there is a breach of contract. You don't have a written binding contract with Tescos though.

Same with pensions. Sure the government could say we ain't gonna pay pension no more. They would be as popular as if Tescos increased their price of eggs and milk by 5000% - there is no law to stop Tescos doing so, but it would be commercial suicide.

Not only would the government not get in next election, they would not get in for a generation.




Whether you are millionaire or a pauper, if you pay Tescos for milk and eggs, you are entitled to the same size 12 eggs and same fresh milk.

Even by your own logic, why should some poorer pensioners have had only 6 years notice for their spa changes, while other equivalent poorer pensioners have 10 or more years notice for spa changes.

So, even if pension was only going to people below a certain income level which are in some pre-defined bracket of poor, the changes would still be unfair to those with less notice.

Interesting concept, does paying NI create a contract, and if so what are the details of that contract. I suppose this is irrelevant as the court wouldn't be able to reverse primary legislation if that was how the government was changing the 'contract'. Otherwise this would be going to court and not back to parliament. I fully agree it would be suicide to remove the state pension. However, a few tweaks that impact only a small % of the population and it could both alter the 'contract' and not destroy itself. It may be unfair on some people, but that is they way of things if it mainly hurts the well off (child benefit etc).

I agree, if poor pensioners are negatively impacted by the change (and I don't mean because they have to work a few more years) then it needs reviewing. It's back to that point - what would you have done differently. I would assume most low income people in their 50's were planning to work to their SPA. So little impact to them (other than having to work longer). Those with poor provision probably the same. Those well off enough to take early retirement are probably not going to really notice it. So that leaves people who literally retired depending on a cash lump that runs out at old SPA, are there many who do this? However, we know what assuming does which is why I do support it being looked at and make sure we are not impoverishing a whole load of people.

EDIT: to use the tesco analagy some more though, only two people buying eggs and milk at the same time can expect them to be the same. Someone a day eater may have paid the same and got less etc. As I understand it, the SP changes match this model (actually, they are probably closer to a coupon for £X off the price - the price and quantity could vary day by day).