New (2016) State Pension - BEWARE!!!

hyubh

saver861 wrote: »

Well I'd like to think I have taken responsibility for my affairs .... and I think my affairs are in pretty good shape even if I say so myself.

As for my understanding of my new pension access, I did just that, and took responsibility. I got me some statements .... I got me some more statements when they changed em ... because the first ones were too confusing .... I even got me yet some more statements when the second version was deemed too confusing also!!!

I got me some knowledge on how much I would get for my years ... awww man you would be soooo proud of me for taking all that that responsibility ... all by my little ole self ....

However, you still don't ... more likely won't get it. It ain't just me saying that I was under the impression I would qualify for the full state pension with 35 years NIC's when the new pension info came out. Nope ..... not just me bro ... loads others too ..... intelligent peeps too ... so not too complicated ....

Spin ... spin ... spin... thats the reason ..... it was mis-sold ... people were mis-informed .... 55% don't get the full thing due mainly to being contracted out .. thus majority do not get it ... yet by far the majority 'thought' they were gonna get it if they had 35 years.

These are people who are responsible .. working .. jobs .. mortgages .. families .... etc etc .. don't you think they were responsible enough to manage these everyday circumstances .... so why did so many fail when it came to understanding their new pension entitlements ...

Government spin ... that's what it was bro .... but somehow something tells little ole me that you ain't never gonna get that bit ... and its all down to the fact that peeps did not read the green paper and check out their contracted out status etc etc.

The fact that they have had at least three attempts at the pension statements might give you a clue as to why people are still confused ......

I recommend staying off the shandies at 1 am in the morning.

JezR

peterg1965 wrote: »

It's generally the case with MOST reporting in the media on a variety of subjects. Things get sensationalised, and facts are blurred. I am in the defence arena and lots of published material is simply incorrect or written in a certain manner that belies the truth!

Isn't the old saying that you think newspaper reports are by and large accurate until you read one about something you know well.

The phrase is also 'what bleeds, leads', and has been the case here as much as anything else. Sensation is up front, usually around someone who has 'lost out', and the reporting of the full mundane detail is hidden away (if included at all), even if on exactly the same topic.

Can't remember for example any major splash articles about how well the self employed by and large have done from this change.

Chickereeeee

You would have to be pretty 'naive' to think that you (or anyone) would be getting a big increase in pension for free. Surely if you suspected it, you would investigate thoroughly, and look for reasons that it was untrue?

I was under no illusions from day one, and remember it being very clear that not everyone would get the single tier.

I am actually impressed by the way they are implementing a very complex process, preserving the foundation amount etc.

C

greenglide

not everyone would get the single tier.

Everyone who has 10 years NI or more gets the "Single Tier" but if you havent got 35 years you get a pro-rata amount. Same as the current Basic Pension.

saver861

Chickereeeee wrote: »

You would have to be pretty 'naive' to think that you (or anyone) would be getting a big increase in pension for free. Surely if you suspected it, you would investigate thoroughly, and look for reasons that it was untrue?

It was not a big rise for free. You needed an additional 5 years NIC's for a start. So, take the current pension of £119.30 for 30 years and add the additional 5 years would take the new pension up to £141.53. That's just over £13 more so not exactly a 'huge' pension increase.

Chickereeeee wrote: »

I was under no illusions from day one, and remember it being very clear that not everyone would get the single tier.

Excellent. What was obvious to you seemed to bypass a large majority of people!

The point you might be missing is that while you were fully clear from day one, the majority were not. Its the majority that has to be catered for by the Government. When there is an election in place, every party makes every effort to ensure their core message is getting through. If it is not then they change it pronto.

Not the same when the Government of the day want to splash good news .... while they make every effort to 'bury the bad news'.

Chickereeeee wrote: »

I am actually impressed by the way they are implementing a very complex process, preserving the foundation amount etc.

C

hmm ... easily impressed then it seems!

Malthusian

What was obvious to you seemed to bypass a large majority of people!

A loud minority is not the same as a large majority.

The majority of people either understood what was going on and that they weren't going to have their cake and eat it, or if they didn't understand, they understood the onus was on them to find out, by getting on the Internet or the phone or speaking to someone more knowledgeable, until they did.

It is only a minority, albeit a very vocal one, who believe that they have no responsibility to understand how the system works, and if they get the wrong idea it's the taxpayer's responsibility to make their wrong idea into a reality.

greenglide

seemed to bypass a large majority of people!

The same people, in large part, who didnt understand the old system either.

But they happily whinge away that "they havent been told / it wasnt personally explained" etc.

zagfles

hyubh wrote: »

I recommend staying off the shandies at 1 am in the morning.

Blimey - I've have Saver861 on ignore for last couple of months, I'd almost forgotten why - now I remember

saver861

hyubh wrote: »

I recommend staying off the shandies at 1 am in the morning.

All perfectly clear to moi .... anything I can clarify further do ask ....

saver861

zagfles wrote: »

Blimey - I've have Saver861 on ignore for last couple of months, I'd almost forgotten why - now I remember

Good on you bro .... see now ... I was going to say all sorts of nice things about you but seeing as you wont get to read the post ... not much point really! Dang .....