New State Pension Guide

gadgetmind

greenglide wrote: »

Anyone who couldnt understand that wouldnt understand anything beyond "Some people will get £155.65 but some will not get as much" and immediately think that they will get the £155.65.

And some will get more, even including those such as myself who contracted out for quite long periods. I contracted in again around 2005, which was good timing more by luck than judgement, but I did it based on detailed calculations and projections I made at the time. The luck element is that the rule changes didn't blow my doors off!

saver861

greenglide wrote: »

It is now, officially, the "Starting Amount" but the amount is the same.

Same thing but many were confused by the term 'foundation' thus why they changed it.

greenglide wrote: »

You keep on banging on about this but could you please produce some evidence as to why DWP changed the format?

Well short of speaking to the relevant's at DWP, I can't give you an exact reason. However, by reason of assumption, it would be on the basis that the information was confusing to the recipients.

There is evidence on this forum of people being confused by the pension estimates. There are various media articles about people being confused by the estimates.

The DWP will have made their decision partly on the basis of the number of requests for clarity of the statements issued etc.

Equally, one would deduce that, if the original estimates were of sufficient clarity and there was a minimum requests for further clarification then they would have left the original as it was.

greenglide wrote: »

We do seem to be a nation of pretty thick people, especially in financial matters. People use it these days as a badge of honour "I should get everything, nobody what. Why should I have to thick, plan, save etc"

It is worrying in the extreme and seems to be getting worse. There was a time when pensioners as a group (I know this is a wild generalisation) were literate, numerate and generally fairly bright people.

This is of course another debate. However, if we assume that the current people in or around pension age, had the opportunity of student grants etc. then one wonders why the education system has failed.

Your premise that the pensioners generally used to be more proficient at numeracy and literacy would question the current status even more. The generation you refer to were blighted by war years and had little in the way of benefits of opportunity, certainly much less than the current 'young' pensioners.

So, I would not disagree with you that it is disappointing that it should be so difficult to understand relatively straightforward material.

However, the point is, that is the current situation and to try to plough on and disregard this or pay insufficient attention to it would ultimately lead to further problems down the line, case in point is indeed the misinterpretation of 35 years qualifying for the full £155 new state pension.

greenglide

There is evidence on this forum of people being confused by the pension estimates. There are various media articles about people being confused by the estimates.

The DWP will have made their decision partly on the basis of the number of requests for clarity of the statements issued etc.

Equally, one would deduce that, if the original estimates were of sufficient clarity and there was a minimum requests for further clarification then they would have left the original as it was.

Sorry, that cuts no ice with me.

If people cannot understand the original version, they wont understand the later version either and probably dont know why they asked for a forecast in the first place.

It looks very much like the lowest common denominator and a rush to the bottom. Putting everything in Sun reader english and removing things which some people wont understand got us into this mess in the first place.

If you cant understand answer and the answer is generally well presented, explained well and correct (and the original forecasts were) why change the answer?

saver861

gadgetmind wrote: »

Google.

But that depends on people having both access and skills ....

gadgetmind wrote: »

I wasn't being entirely serious, and I have been leading large teams for 30+ years, but I still prefer to cull any weaker ones ASAP!

Yes - there comes a point when that is necessary. However, as team leader you would be responsible for the appointment and continued development of said individuals. Equally, there comes a point where the selection and retention process needs a review if there are a disproportionate amount of weaker ones.

Thus, as previously mentioned, why are so many regular individuals having problems with financial / pension concepts.

gadgetmind wrote: »

My boss as such is on a different site and our company secretary actively sends people my way!

Ah right .... that explains the quantity of your posts on MSE then ..

gadgetmind wrote: »

If they instead prefer not to bother and to moan about being "confused" then I'll point them at simple explanations, but google finds such information very easily.

There are people coming on here all the time asking for assistance with their estimates ..... sometimes not happy with the findings .... but you can hardly say they have not bothered, given that they requested the statement and then sought further clarification.

gadgetmind wrote: »

What's the basis for that claim? The least IT literate people are the over 65s, who aren't affected at all.

Well, anybody from age about 40 upwards may have left school at 18. Thus, anyone leaving school in the 90's would have very little exposure to IT and it would have been considerably different then. The internet as we know it really only developed from about 2000.

Thus, if those people did not develop their IT skills, either through their profession or personally, then its likely their IT skills will be limited.

saver861

greenglide wrote: »

Sorry, that cuts no ice with me.

If people cannot understand the original version, they wont understand the later version either and probably dont know why they asked for a forecast in the first place.

So, why do 'you' think they changed the statements then?

greenglide

So, why do 'you' think they changed the statements then?

I don't know but I do believe that they shouldnt have done. If the forecast had been truly complex then there would be a case (remember that at one time the forecasts contained the full breakdown of Basic, AP, COD (pre and post 88) and GRAD) but stating two figures and you will get the higher one shouldnt be beyond the grasp of many people.

Maybe they should ask what your current level of understanding of what you have asked for and filter the response according to the ability to process the data?

anothermam2

My quote was through government gateway online.
I am 52, so 15 years to spa
My 31 years are from 13 years at work and 18 years of child benefit.
I did not contract out.
All the figures are quoted on gov gateway that I would have to pay to HMRC from 2010 to 2014. (Which added up to £2675.40) It would take me up to 35 years which I believe would give me £155.65

Interestingly bit the bullet and rang future pensions and they are sending me a quote that I already have on line, then I have ring them back and they will tell me how much I have to pay, which I already know!! Then I have to ring HMRC with NO paper record of this quote of what I have to pay, just a telephone conversation to quote. What a waste of money when I could have just rung HMRC in the first place!

SnowMan

anothermam2 wrote: »

My quote was through government gateway online.
I am 52, so 15 years to spa
My 31 years are from 13 years at work and 18 years of child benefit.
I did not contract out.
All the figures are quoted on gov gateway that I would have to pay to HMRC from 2010 to 2014. (Which added up to £2675.40) It would take me up to 35 years which I believe would give me £155.65

When you log in through gateway there are two figures they show you.

a) the amount of state pension you have earned so far, based on contributions to date (or 2014/2015 to be precise)
b) the projected amount of state pension you will get up to if every future year is a qualifying year.

I think you are saying b) is £155.65pw but we need to know a) to be able to decide what is going on, i.e. what you've earned to date

If your starting amount, a) is based on the new rules then it might be

= 31/35 x 155.65 less COPE (contracted-out deduction)
= £137.86 less 0 (as never contracted-out)
= £137.86pw

If so buying the 4 years may get you up to £155.65pw as you expect.

But it may be more complicated than that especially if your old rules calculation is higher, or if your starting amount is below £137.86pw.

So is your starting amount a) above £137.86pw or is it the £119.30pw you mentioned earlier?

anothermam2

The quote under new rules was £119.30 based on 31 years

SnowMan

anothermam2 wrote: »

The quote under new rules was £119.30 based on 31 years

That doesn't make sense at all.

That is just the full basic state pension which you get if you have 30 qualifying years.

That would indicate that you earned no additional pension under the existing state scheme during the 13 years at work.

It also means that you were contracted-out after all, otherwise your starting amount would be at least £137.86pw as calculated above.

But you say you weren't contracted-out.

So something isn't right there.