We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Sign the Petition for Womens state pension age going up unfair
Options
Comments
-
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.
I don't think it matters if they were irked or not to be honest, though I expect most would be.
It's more a case of whether it was fair and not discriminatory.
The government defined the minimum 10 year notice just two years after making the changes in 2011 where some only had 6 years or so.
If the government had defined a policy that 6 years was sufficient notice then there would be much less argument.
The wider point here however, is not about women in their 50's as such, but about holding the government to sufficient scrutiny. This is about women in their 50's, the next policy change might be something impacting an entirely different group of people.
If things are not done fairly and reasonably or that the government cannot be held to account, then you have a much more unpleasant and unpredictable situation.
In the same we expect our employers to treat employees fairly, we expect schools to treat our children fairly, we expect hospitals to treat our loved ones fairly, we expect the government to treat the public fairly. Not everyone will agree on what is fair of course, but if the consensus is that something is unfair, then it is unfair, be it the workplace, the school or the government.0 -
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.
As recently as 10 years ago the NI fund was in surplus by getting towards£100 bn.
Although the main cause of this surplus decline was the subsequent recession and long period of low wage growth, it has also been depleted at the other end by paying out more as the number of years of contributions for a pension has been reduced, and the number of people credited with contributions rather than paying for them has increased. This has the effect of the government not paying means tested benefits from the consolidated fund but instead pensions from the NI fund.
The last time that the government paid into the NI fund from the consolidated fund was in 1997 but it won't be long before that is necessary again.0 -
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.
True, but what I was saying (at least by implication) is that people would understand it better if "their" contributions went into a fund that accumulated through their life and was enough to pay "their" state pension. I agree I could have been more explicit!
The NI fund is essentially a method of managed current year contributions (and recording that each individual has or has not contributed in that year) So is basically recording contributions for that year less payments made in that year. The balance maintained is about two months worth of benefits payments.the NIF targets a working balance of at least 1/6th (16.7 per cent) of projected annual benefit expenditure (approximately two months’ benefit expenditure) which may be topped up by way of a Treasury Grant (see section 5 ‘Financial performance’)
In short it does not hold everyone's individual pension contributions and is just a way of managing the unfunded scheme.Few people are capable of expressing with equanimity opinions which differ from the prejudices of their social environment. Most people are incapable of forming such opinions.0 -
True, but what I was saying (at least by implication) is that people would understand it better if "their" contributions went into a fund that accumulated through their life and was enough to pay "their" state pension. I agree I could have been more explicit!
The NI fund is essentially a method of managed current year contributions (and recording that each individual has or has not contributed in that year) So is basically recording contributions for that year less payments made in that year. The balance maintained is about two months worth of benefits payments.
In short it does not hold everyone's individual pension contributions and is just a way of managing the unfunded scheme.
Interesting, how would it work in practice? Are you suggesting we move from a DB style pension to a DC style?0 -
I don't think it matters if they were irked or not to be honest, though I expect most would be.
It's more a case of whether it was fair and not discriminatory.
The government defined the minimum 10 year notice just two years after making the changes in 2011 where some only had 6 years or so.
If the government had defined a policy that 6 years was sufficient notice then there would be much less argument
What matters is that they defined the policy after they made the decision so it was not the policy when the decision was made.
I think it is difficult to justify an action as being discriminatory when it is rectifying something that is discriminatory.The wider point here however, is not about women in their 50's as such, but about holding the government to sufficient scrutiny. This is about women in their 50's, the next policy change might be something impacting an entirely different group of people.
If things are not done fairly and reasonably or that the government cannot be held to account, then you have a much more unpleasant and unpredictable situation.
In the same we expect our employers to treat employees fairly, we expect schools to treat our children fairly, we expect hospitals to treat our loved ones fairly, we expect the government to treat the public fairly. Not everyone will agree on what is fair of course, but if the consensus is that something is unfair, then it is unfair, be it the workplace, the school or the government
I can agree with what you say above. But you do not prevent discrimination by maintaining a system that is already discriminatory.Few people are capable of expressing with equanimity opinions which differ from the prejudices of their social environment. Most people are incapable of forming such opinions.0 -
RickyB2000 wrote: »Interesting, how would it work in practice? Are you suggesting we move from a DB style pension to a DC style?
No, I am not saying we should do this. Just that it would be more understandable to people if it were the case that there was a fund that was sufficient to pay all future pension liabilities. Of course the fund would be huge and expensive to manage, which is partly why the Government prefers an unfunded model.Few people are capable of expressing with equanimity opinions which differ from the prejudices of their social environment. Most people are incapable of forming such opinions.0 -
One issue is I can't see any rationale for the 10 years. For me, this is actually were the argument sits. Is 10 years the right number? Who is it protecting? How? My thoughts on finacial hardship etc would ultimiltey be the driving force behind this number. It may be this that needs further elaboration,as it may help people understand whether 6 years is unfair or whether 10 year policy needs changing.0
-
No, I am not saying we should do this. Just that it would be more understandable to people if it were the case that there was a fund that was sufficient to pay all future pension liabilities. Of course the fund would be huge and expensive to manage, which is partly why the Government prefers an unfunded model.
Why would it be more understandable? It would just tell people that we have your pension covered. I think people already expect that don't they? Or do you mean so they could see the government DOESNT have it covered and that is why they are making loads of changes so we do have it covered?0 -
RickyB2000 wrote: »
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.
You are too focused on the merits of wealthy versus poor. Even if these could be defined, these changes are not means assessed changes. However if they were based on means assessment, then that too would have to be the same for all with the same notices periods etc. Which every bracket of people you choose to apply it too, it has too be the same or very similar for all within that bracket. I think you are missing or wavering from the general point on all of this.RickyB2000 wrote: »If it is only impacting wealthy pensioners with more cash than they know what to do with (as everyone else just keeps working),
I don't know too many of them ... lol. I sure ain't one of them
But, I have been one of those that worked throughout life.0 -
You are too focused on the merits of wealthy versus poor. Even if these could be defined, these changes are not means assessed changes. However if they were based on means assessment, then that too would have to be the same for all with the same notices periods etc. Which every bracket of people you choose to apply it too, it has too be the same or very similar for all within that bracket. I think you are missing or wavering from the general point on all of this.
I don't know too many of them ... lol. I sure ain't one of them
But, I have been one of those that worked throughout life.
Ultimately I am trying to understand the rationale behind the 10 year recommendation, and whether it makes sense. This is ultimiltey driven by who loses out and how by not having 10 years notice. If we believe life expectancy has gone up, then in theory no one loses out financially (the years you lose up front are paid for by the added years at the end). So we are surely left with those who would be impoverished by the change and that the state would not want to turn out onto the streets. Then it is back to what they would be doing in the 10 years notice to prevent this. If I was cynical I could say that the 10 years recommendation is simply to push the problem into someone else's parliament
.
Incidentally I fully agree that the 10 year point should be challenged and discussed.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 351.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.2K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.7K Spending & Discounts
- 244.2K Work, Benefits & Business
- 599.3K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177K Life & Family
- 257.6K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards