WASPI Campaign .... State Pensions

slightlymiffed

jamesd wrote: »

There we're also in agreement, I think.

Please take a look at the graph showing anticipated dependency ratio changes. and observe the projected changes:

2012: 3.21
2017: 3.29 (a short term improvement)
2022: 3.39
2027: 3.08
2032: 2.76
2037: 2.74

Dependency ratio is the number of working people per non-working state pensioner. A projected 31% increase instate pension recipients would inevitably stress this even if the number of working people was unchanged. Though in fact the UK population is expected to increase (well, before brexit immigration changes...) but still not be able to keep up with the increase in state pension recipients.

Also note that the short term improvement is in a significant part due to the changes in state pension age that are being discussed here, which keep many people working for longer. Undo those changes and that'd presumably vanish into the longer term trend.

How did I know this? Back to the Turner Commission and knowing what to search for, then a simple Google search for the text "uk dependency ratio" to get to the data.

Younger people tend not to be much interested in pensions and most won't even know that the flat rate pension system is a large cut to the state pension for those with a fullish working life. Under the old system for a low earner it'd have been around 190 a week.

You really are interested in pensions jamesd. So, you are not an MP - then I can only surmise you are working on behalf of the pensions industry. Which is fine but maybe some transparency would be good?

I did look at the Turner Commission 'dependency ratio' and I also found another very interesting alternative view by an economist, Henry Shutt

https://harryshutt.com/pensions-failure/

Either way, the upcoming Cridland Review will possibly make recommendations which would be be very unwelcome by the pensions industry - namely, the scrapping of the higher rate tax relief on pensions.

Isn't this the real reason why some in the pensions industry are so determined that Waspi don't succeed with their campaign?

As for the 'I don't think young people tend to be much interested in pensions'. 1950's women were accused by Stephen Crabb of having been'busy breezing through life' and not noticing pension age changes. For your information, my eldest is just a few years younger than I was in 1995 when I should apparently have been well aware of the changes to state pension age.

hyubh

Pickyperson wrote: »

When I worked in the NHS if you had less than five years of contributions it was refunded as "not viable" to use as a pension pot

Yes, or more exactly, the vesting period to earn a preserved pension was five years until changes in covering pensions legislation in 1988.

Pickyperson wrote: »

I still will not get the new flat rate pension because for part of my life I worked in the NHS which made me contracted out so I am not eligible but because I did not work there long enough I am not entitled to an NHS pension.

This is incorrect - on processing your refund, the scheme should have paid a 'contributions equivalent premium' (CEP) to the Inland Revenue to put you back into SERPS for the period concerned. Given we're talking about the 80's, if they didn't do that, there will still be a GMP liability sitting against the NHS scheme's name, which they will want to clear up - if you're reasonably sure this period is still shown as contracted out in HMRC's records, I'd get in touch with NHS Pensions if I were you.

Under the flat rate pension rules it clearly states that you will not be entitled to the flat rate pension if you were contracted out.

Others have explained this well, but in a nutshell, if you weren't due to get the equivalent of the new single tier pension under the old rules because of contracting out, you won't at the outset get more just because the new system has come in. However, for someone with a significant amount of contracted out employment in the past but still some years working to go, it's generally all good because they can now earn more state pension than they could have earned before, for not much more NI.

p00hsticks

slightlymiffed wrote: »

You really are interested in pensions jamesd. So, you are not an MP - then I can only surmise you are working on behalf of the pensions industry. Which is fine but maybe some transparency would be good?

If this thread has shown one thing, it is that we should all take an interest in how our pensions work, what state benefits cost and how our country spends the money it gets in.

I don't understand why you believe that anyone who shows a detailed interest in such matters must be either involved in government or in the Pensions industry - it's something that has a significant impact on all of us, as this thread shows.

bigadaj

p00hsticks wrote: »

If this thread has shown one thing, it is that we should all take an interest in how our pensions work, what state benefits cost and how our country spends the money it gets in.

I don't understand why you believe that anyone who shows a detailed interest in such matters must be either involved in government or in the Pensions industry - it's something that has a significant impact on all of us, as this thread shows.

Different people have varying interests and are prepared to spend time on different areas or categories.

For some people that will be pensions, for others it could be soap operas or possibly magazines.

slightlymiffed

p00hsticks wrote: »

If this thread has shown one thing, it is that we should all take an interest in how our pensions work, what state benefits cost and how our country spends the money it gets in.

I don't understand why you believe that anyone who shows a detailed interest in such matters must be either involved in government or in the Pensions industry - it's something that has a significant impact on all of us, as this thread shows.

I agree Poohsticks - we should all take an interest in pensions and if I was 'breezing through life' before, I most certainly am not now!

Jamesd's detailed interest however does seem to go beyond that of most that post here (and many of these here do seem to have connections to, or interest in, the pensions or financial service industries). Whilst jamesd's bedtime reading is entirely his choice, I doubt many of us would choose Hansard.

What I am unclear about is why jamesd seems to repeatedly disseminate information which is somewhat misleading (which others here don't do).

This would be a matter for concern to me if his motives are more than just 'casual interest' - if he does not declare what that interest is. Many on these forums have added a footnote to their posts, declaring their interests - which is honest and transparent.

Just saying.

saver861

slightlymiffed wrote: »

Jamesd's detailed interest however does seem to go beyond that of most that post here (and many of these here do seem to have connections to, or interest in, the pensions or financial service industries). Whilst jamesd's bedtime reading is entirely his choice, I doubt many of us would choose Hansard.

Well, on such forums, as this one, you will get a considerably variation of people with similar levels of experience and interests. Thats what makes these forums work.

You will get people who think they know more than others on a topic
People who do know more than others on a topic
People who don't know anything about a topic
People who think they are always right
People who usually are right
People who pop in and out
People who spend an inordinate amount of time on here
People just about all types and persuasions
but ...... the real bonus is ............ you get me on here also!

Point is, take it all with a pinch of salt..... or a bucket!!!

For instance, the thing about WASPI .... well that's the ironic thing ..... those who are so against it are actually keeping it alive with their opposition. Were all those opposing WASPI to stay silent, the WASPI would have disappeared or be a very distant news item.

That's part of the impact of forums such as this, social media etc.

You know that saying, ignore it and it will go away..... that does not happen usually on social media so it stays prominent!!

jem16

Pickyperson wrote: »

When I worked in the NHS if you had less than five years of contributions it was refunded as "not viable" to use as a pension pot but because you had paid in you were contracted out.

Yes but as I said earlier if you received a refund, then it was paid minus tax and NI. That NI payment was to put you back into the state second pension scheme so you were never contracted out.

http://www.nhsbsa.nhs.uk/Documents/Pensions/Members_Refunds_Factsheet_V4_012014.pdf

See also hyubh's post on GMP.

You have also clarified you were born in 1953 so your first date mentioned was wrong. Have you got that forecast with the wrong information as that would be very helpful?

missbiggles1

slightlymiffed wrote: »

I agree Poohsticks - we should all take an interest in pensions and if I was 'breezing through life' before, I most certainly am not now!

Jamesd's detailed interest however does seem to go beyond that of most that post here (and many of these here do seem to have connections to, or interest in, the pensions or financial service industries). Whilst jamesd's bedtime reading is entirely his choice, I doubt many of us would choose Hansard.

What I am unclear about is why jamesd seems to repeatedly disseminate information which is somewhat misleading (which others here don't do).

This would be a matter for concern to me if his motives are more than just 'casual interest' - if he does not declare what that interest is. Many on these forums have added a footnote to their posts, declaring their interests - which is honest and transparent.

Just saying.

I think that's just your perception. You keep accusing me of that and nothing could be further from the truth.

jem16

slightlymiffed wrote: »

Jamesd's detailed interest however does seem to go beyond that of most that post here (and many of these here do seem to have connections to, or interest in, the pensions or financial service industries). Whilst jamesd's bedtime reading is entirely his choice, I doubt many of us would choose Hansard.

If you'd been around here longer and reading other threads, you would have found out that jamesd has no connection with the government or the pension/financial industry. As he said, he simply has a personal interest.

What I am unclear about is why jamesd seems to repeatedly disseminate information which is somewhat misleading (which others here don't do).

What is misleading? You mentioned earlier that the £77bn cost for the WASPI ask was grossly exaggerated and yet it comes from official figures which jamesd has given you links for.

This would be a matter for concern to me if his motives are more than just 'casual interest' - if he does not declare what that interest is. Many on these forums have added a footnote to their posts, declaring their interests - which is honest and transparent.

Just saying.

He's told you that he has a personal interest in pensions and in opposing discrimination. He is being honest and transparent but yet you still appear to disbelieve him.

Not everyone who disagrees with WASPI are government spies, pension industry plants or financial experts. We simply disagree with its main aim and ask.

jamesd

slightlymiffed wrote: »

You really are interested in pensions jamesd.

Yes, I am. It comes from running out of savings while doing voluntary work around ten to fifteen years ago and having to stop it, then being determined not to be in that position again. So I started to save more than 60% of my income and made choices like a low cost rent area then buying a home at a very low income multiple to minimise costs. Such relatively frugal spending plus investments and a nice enough work income means that today I've accumulated around 90% of the total of my (net pay plus gross pension contributions) over the period.

slightlymiffed wrote: »

So, you are not an MP - then I can only surmise you are working on behalf of the pensions industry. Which is fine but maybe some transparency would be good?

That's an old one, so common that I put a comment on it in my profile here: "I do not work in the financial services industry. I'm neither an IFA nor a mortgage advisor."

slightlymiffed wrote: »

I did look at the Turner Commission 'dependency ratio'

It's not only used by the Turner Commission, it's one of the global standard measures.

slightlymiffed wrote: »

I also found another very interesting alternative view by an economist, Henry Shutt

It is worth knowing that he's renowned as a dissident anti-capitalism economist, not anything close to the normal view of economists.

slightlymiffed wrote: »

the upcoming Cridland Review will possibly make recommendations which would be be very unwelcome by the pensions industry - namely, the scrapping of the higher rate tax relief on pensions.

That would be outside its terms of reference, which are confined to the future state pension age timetable after 2028. "These recommendations should be affordable in the long term, fair to current and future generations of pensioners, and consistent with supporting fuller working lives". All of that implies a further increase in state pension age.

slightlymiffed wrote: »

Isn't this the real reason why some in the pensions industry are so determined that Waspi don't succeed with their campaign?

No, because both are largely irrelevant to the pensions industry, being about state pensions funded out of NI.

However, if you do want someone consistently writing things that may harm the pensions industry you might want to look at my posts about annuities being very poor value compared to deferring the state pension.