MPs debate transitional state pension arrangements for women

jamesd

You missed the point. The lower state pension means that more of the affected people would qualify for Pension Credit or higher Pension Credit and the related benefits for those receiving that one, making it a costly option to allow people to take a lower amount sooner.

Those pitching the option of a lower state pension before state pension age are trying to claim that it's cost free when it isn't.

Even restricting the option to just those who would still be over the Pension credit level now wouldn't solve the problem because Pension Credit's payment level can increase at a rate above the state pension level, potentially causing a future obligation even if there's not one today. This effect is one of the reasons for introducing the flat rate state pension since projections have been that 50% or more might end up qualifying for Pension Credit. That flat rate system will eventually reduce the number getting to that point but not soon enough to matter for this discussion because we're discussing those who won't have been in the flat rate system for 35 years.

Seabee42

More of the wrong type of discrimination. No doubt they would also qualify for winter fuel allowance and other rubbish like that.
Would they stop paying NI? There is no money tree you haven't paid in enough.

jem16

jamesd wrote: »

Those pitching the option of a lower state pension before state pension age are trying to claim that it's cost free when it isn't.

I think Vara more or less ruled it out on Monday and made specific reference to this FOI request. The tables are interesting.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/dwp-foi-releases-for-march-2016

jamesd

Thanks, the responses that are relevant to the lower for longer option in the two linked documents are:

"Several of the options in Tables A-D would be unlawful if introduced, as they would introduce new inequalities."

"Paying a lower state pension for a longer period throughout the pensionable age of the women affected

Not costed

Primary legislation would be needed to pay a lower state pension in this way.

While this option has not been costed, even if a lower pension rate was actuarially calculated (on state pension received), this option would impact on other state expenditure and receipts. The benefits and costs arising from changes to state pension age in the Pensions Act 2011 were outlined in the Impact Assessment:

- Increased income tax and National Insurance payments of £8.3 billion

By working an extra year after reaching state pension age, a woman with average earnings could have over £17,500 extra income after tax as well as increasing their pension pot by around 4% (equivalent to an extra £160 per year over their retirement), compared to stopping work at their state pension age.

There would also be knock on impacts on Pension Credit expenditure and other means-tested benefits, as well as Winter Fuel Payments.

Furthermore, independent research shows that reductions in working lives could have large impacts on the economy.

-For example, adding one year to working lives would result in sustained increases to GDP of over 1%. To put this into perspective, if 2014 GDP had been 1% higher, this would have added £17bn to the economy."

greenglide

No doubt they would also qualify for winter fuel allowance and other rubbish like that.

The Winter Fuel Payment is only payable to people over female State Pension age. To pay some women at a lower age than that would mean paying men of the same age.

The same is true of other benefits like bus passes tied to female SPa but not free prescriptions which are at age 60.

Wont happen.

jem16

Savvywoman website is doing a poll on this;

"Should women born in the 1950s get a lower state pension paid before their state pension age?"

https://www.savvywoman.co.uk/

It's on the right hand side of the Home page but you have to scroll down quite a bit to get to it.

Might be worth voting so that views are more representative than just Waspi supporters.

jamesd

Interesting that even though it is a site specifically directed to women, the group most likely to support this sort of thing, at the moment the voting has 41.59% saying "No, they shouldn't get their pension early".

I assume WASPI would object to that poll answer because such answer choices can be expected to influence the response in the no direction, by implicitly countering the WASPI assertion that they aren't getting it early but when they should properly get it.

Paul_Herring

jamesd wrote: »

at the moment the voting has 41.59% saying "No, they shouldn't get their pension early".

I fully expect this poll to disappear soon. They clearly aren't getting the reply they thought they would...

jem16

jamesd wrote: »

Interesting that even though it is a site specifically directed to women, the group most likely to support this sort of thing, at the moment the voting has 41.59% saying "No, they shouldn't get their pension early".

I assume WASPI would object to that poll answer because such answer choices can be expected to influence the response in the no direction, by implicitly countering the WASPI assertion that they aren't getting it early but when they should properly get it.

Sarah Pennells has come out as a great WASPI supporter so it will be interesting to see where this goes.

jem16

Paul_Herring wrote: »

I fully expect this poll to disappear soon. They clearly aren't getting the reply they thought they would...

I would have thought it would be split between Yes and It doesn't go far enough as that seems to be the WASPI view so far from what I've read.