WASPI Campaign .... State Pensions

saver861

jamesd wrote: »

Please do encourage anyone eligible to claim them, that's why we, as a society, choose too provide them. Benefits recipients are often not what anyone would consider to be scroungers, just people in need due to unfortunate life circumstances.

There are scroungers ... some who have probably worked less than 10% of their working lives .....

There are those caught in the benefits trap .... lose money if they work ....

There are those genuinely in need - the people that the benefits system was created for and wholly entitled to their benefits ...

There are 1950's women, who until 2011 planned on getting their pension at a certain age and would not be needing the benefits system ....

missbiggles1

saver861 wrote: »

There are scroungers ... some who have probably worked less than 10% of their working lives .....

There are those caught in the benefits trap .... lose money if they work ....

There are those genuinely in need - the people that the benefits system was created for and wholly entitled to their benefits ...

There are 1950's women, who until 2011 planned on getting their pension at a certain age and would not be needing the benefits system ....

Something of a contradiction in terms, don't you think?

saver861

missbiggles1 wrote: »

Something of a contradiction in terms, don't you think?

Why would that be then?

To qualify for any form of social security benefit, it is a requirement to prove entitlement via means testing.

To qualify for pension it is a requirement to have a designated number of NI contribution years payable at predesignated age, available to all who qualify, regardless of status.

Can't see any contradiction there ... but as beauty is in the eye of the beholder ..... semantics is in the eye of the reader - that's why rules are in place!1

Freecall

saver861 wrote: »

There are 1950's women, who until 2011 planned on getting their pension at a certain age and would not be needing the benefits system ....

Regardless of the rights and wrongs of the debate, I have to say that it seems to be a contradiction in terms to me as well (or at least a illogicality)

If they would not need the benefits system then why would the value of a benefit be of any relevance to them?

bigadaj

saver861 wrote: »

Why would that be then?

To qualify for any form of social security benefit, it is a requirement to prove entitlement via means testing.

To qualify for pension it is a requirement to have a designated number of NI contribution years payable at predesignated age, available to all who qualify, regardless of status.

Can't see any contradiction there ... but as beauty is in the eye of the beholder ..... semantics is in the eye of the reader - that's why rules are in place!1

State pension is still a benefit.

The obvious analogy is with Jobseeker's Allowance, contributions based initially is not means tested and based on contributions, as opposed to income based based on need.

missbiggles1

saver861 wrote: »

Why would that be then?

To qualify for any form of social security benefit, it is a requirement to prove entitlement via means testing.

To qualify for pension it is a requirement to have a designated number of NI contribution years payable at predesignated age, available to all who qualify, regardless of status.

Can't see any contradiction there ... but as beauty is in the eye of the beholder ..... semantics is in the eye of the reader - that's why rules are in place!1

Sorry, you're wrong on both points. Some "benefits" are contribution based, several aren't means tested and many people get a full, basic state pension never having made an NI contribution in their lives.

jamesd

saver861 wrote: »

There are 1950's women, who until 2011 planned on getting their pension at a certain age and would not be needing the benefits system ....

The largest cost in the benefits system in the UK is the state pension, at around 5.5% of GDP. It's just that like contribution-based JSA it's not means tested and to some people that makes it more palatable than means tested benefits. I wish all those eligible for means tested benefits claimed them and got them, including women affected by either of the Acts discussed here.

slightlymiffed wrote: »

It may now be becoming clearer to me, having read it, why so many in the pensions industry may be worried. Ian Blackford (SNP) mentioned that a reduction in pension tax relief would pay some £35 billion towards transitional relief for women.

It's not yet clear enough. The state pension is paid for out of NI. Pension contribution tax relief is paid for out of lost income tax revenue, mainly. More money into the state pensions would either reduce money for other state pensioners, cut other NI paid for benefits or require an increase in NI rates.

saver861

missbiggles1 wrote: »

Sorry, you're wrong on both points. Some "benefits" are contribution based, several aren't means tested and many people get a full, basic state pension never having made an NI contribution in their lives.

Clearly it depends on what benefits you are referring to. However, feel free to list them all, which are means tested, which are not, etc.

Personally, I think the debate whether it is a benefit or not is a red herring in the context of the 2011 act ..... call it as you please.

I was given an official name when the world got lucky and I came into it. That official name was even recorded on an official document.

Now ..... in my time .... I have been called a lot of other things as well ...... however, I'm still that same gorgeous guy that entered the world and got the official name!!!

missbiggles1

saver861 wrote: »

Clearly it depends on what benefits you are referring to. However, feel free to list them all, which are means tested, which are not, etc.

Personally, I think the debate whether it is a benefit or not is a red herring in the context of the 2011 act ..... call it as you please.

I was given an official name when the world got lucky and I came into it. That official name was even recorded on an official document.

Now ..... in my time .... I have been called a lot of other things as well ...... however, I'm still that same gorgeous guy that entered the world and got the official name!!!

If you had a genuine desire to broaden your knowledge, I would - as you don't, I won't bother. At least you aren't arguing that people only get their SRP based on their NI contributions though.:D

saver861

missbiggles1 wrote: »

If you had a genuine desire to broaden your knowledge, I would - as you don't, I won't bother.

Well .... I'm all for broadening my knowledge ..... you know what they say ... Knowledge is Power ... on the other hand Bu11sh1t just has an odour don't ya know!!!!!!

missbiggles1 wrote: »

At least you aren't arguing that people only get their SRP based on their NI contributions though.:D

There are other ways of building up pension entitlement via credits etc so NI contributions is not the only way but it will represent the majority way ....

Then there is the Married Womans stamp .... tell me about that? How does that contribute to the price of turnips?