New State Pension - 20 Million to lose out under pension reform

monkeyspanner

http://www.theguardian.com/money/2016/feb/20/20-million-lose-out-pension-reform?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Gmail

bigfreddiel

Old news fj

greenglide

But if they (ignoring auto enrolment just to confuse things) people won't actually know because the vast majority of people don't tend to know how much their state pension will be. Any people are surprised if the AP they get from GRAD / SERPS / S2P is a big improvement over the basic pension.

As for nSP, few people actually know apart from expecting the full "flat rate" some get more, some get less.

Old news.

kidmugsy

If you introduce a reform that you hope to be fiscally neutral, and some people gain by it, it follows as night follows day that some people will lose by it.

In other news, 2 + 2 = 4.

hyubh

kidmugsy wrote: »

If you introduce a reform that you hope to be fiscally neutral, and some people gain by it, it follows as night follows day that some people will lose by it.

In other news, 2 + 2 = 4.

Surely a big part of the rationale for nSP is to make total payouts less for people with a working lifetime of being contracted in compared to now, with the end result being a lower total cost in the medium to long term? In other words, creating lots of losers amongst younger people is part of the idea. However, the article isn't really making that point, since it's focussing specifically on the end of S2P and the implications for low paid private sector workers.

parcival

Please, let's not go through all this again......

Malthusian

In other news, 2 + 2 = 4.

But that's not fair on people who only have 1 and 2. How can you deny them their right to have 4 as well? © The Guardian

molerat

I have only got 1+2 and will get only 3 I have paid for, the same as before the changes. The big difference is that I can add some extra money and buy the additional 1 to get 4, something I could not have done previously and much cheaper than buying 1 from a pension company.

But am I bitter, of course I am. Why should I have to pay extra for something I have never been entitled to.

hyubh

Malthusian wrote: »

But that's not fair on people who only have 1 and 2. How can you deny them their right to have 4 as well? © The Guardian

Where does the article cited claim that?

molerat wrote: »

I have only got 1+2 and will get only 3 I have paid for, the same as before the changes. The big difference is that I can add some extra money and buy the additional 1 to get 4, something I could not have done previously and much cheaper than buying 1 from a pension company.

You appear to be talking about people who have a materially significant about of contracted out working to their name, but a number of years yet to SPA, which on my reading is not what the article is about. Am I missing something?

Malthusian

Where does the article cited claim that?

Its implicit claim that we can continue to pay state pensions at their current level without massive increases in tax is equivalent to believing that 1 + 2 = 4 if you want it to. The same for its implicit claim that we can make a fiscally neutral reform to state pensions under which some people gain and nobody loses.

hyubh

Malthusian wrote: »

Its implicit claim that we can continue to pay state pensions at their current level without massive increases in tax is equivalent to believing that 1 + 2 = 4 if you want it to. The same for its implicit claim that we can make a fiscally neutral reform to state pensions under which some people gain and nobody loses.

Personally, I couldn't care less what one might (or might not) find 'implicit' in the article. I am however interested in what the technical issue explicitly alluded to actually is, though I'm confident it isn't any of the more general things you are currently opining about.