WASPI Campaign .... State Pensions

mumps

Jackieboy wrote: »

My parents were very proud of the fact that neither of them had ever claimed benefits, even through the Depression. They were mortified to find that they had less money coming in than people who had been in and out of work for years so finally succumbed when my mother's OA made it seem necessary. When she was turned down, their reaction was to tell them to stuff it rather than going through the indignity of appealing.

(You did say that you'd been successful in getting AA for your mother which sounded as if you'd actually done the application for her as opposed to filling in the application form for her but in her own words.)

I had two preschool children at the time, one a lively 18 month old daredevil so I took the form away with me to do it when they were in bed, it was too chaotic to do it any other way so yes I did actually do the form although we had discussed how her condition affected her. To be honest if you have arthritis in your hands that means you can't hold a pen, cut up food, prepare food or dress without help and arthritis in your ankles and knees that means you can't walk up or downstairs or as far as the frontdoor without agonising pain it doesn't take a rocket scientist to work out what the issues are. Obviously she read through it before it was sent off.

My point was about if the form has changed as it wasn't that big a form and I have looked online now and can say it is alot bigger than it was 20 years ago. I should have just looked in the first place.

The only benefits my mother ever had prior to the AA were family allowance as it was called then and her pension. My father never had a penny of benefits in his life. To be honest I think that is irrelevant if someone is entitled to attendance allowance, if someone needs the level of support my mother needed then I think they should have it. There was no indignity in my mother applying for and receiving a benefit she was entitled to. She worked from 14 years of age, during the war she worked night shifts in a factory doing vital work to produce equipment that our armed forces needed, she brought up 3 children when she was widowed. Frankly I think the suggestion she was undignified is rude and unnecessary.

mumps

Malthusian wrote: »

People don't choose not save into a pension because the government has changed the State Pension Age. They choose not to save into a pension because they're undervaluing their future happiness and they know it. We know they know it because when you ask them why they're not saving into a pension and why they're taking a voluntary pay cut they don't say that they'd rather spend it on iPhones or coffee, they come out with nonsensical non-sequitur reasons like "the government keeps changing the state pension rules".

I don't envy your job attempting to persuade people to save into a pension. If people aren't prepared to value the future then it doesn't matter how persuasive the reasons you give them are, since they all relate to the future. It requires a change in mindset which is unlikely to be accomplished in a meeting with HR.

I did manage to convince some people which was good, it was particularly useful when I got close to retiring and could say that I could retired 3.5 years before my SRP age as I had another pension which would be bigger than the SRP. I think that helped make it real for some of them. Then again some just needed the money for the mortgage so I used to encourage them to join as soon as they could and not think it wasn't worth it if they didn't do it as soon as they started work. It is a delicate balance.

colsten

Silvertabby wrote: »

one of my 'favourites' was the chap who reckoned that the LGPS final salary scheme was a rip off because we were charging him £100 per month whilst a stakeholder pension cost just £20 per month. " It's just another council tax - I'm not paying it if I don't have to" was another common one.

That is truly scary! With this sort of approach to his later life, he'll almost certainly end up as one of the people living in poverty. You got to wonder what his parents taught him about money and saving.

Pollycat

molerat wrote: »

I think a lot of us born in the 40s/50s/60s did not want their kids to have to put up with some of the things we had to and some just overdid it, they now expect everything to just appear in front of them just like it did when mum and dad got it for them. I remember a family treat being sharing a mars bar between mum, me and my brother - can you imagine that now !

Exactly this ^^^^.

mumps

colsten wrote: »

That is truly scary! With this sort of approach to his later life, he'll almost certainly end up as one of the people living in poverty. You got to wonder what his parents taught him about money and saving.

The reality is that an awful lot of people don't understand much about pensions, tax or NI. I used to do a talk on it for new staff and the strange beliefs people have are quite mind boggling. I've also tried to help people with SSP as my daughter's employer (Part-time job when she was a student) tried to avoid paying SSP when she was in hospital. I explained how it worked, told her the questions to ask and she ended up about £250 better off, might not be exact figure as it was a few years ago. Since then I have helped friends of my children when similar issues have occurred. If you don't know you've been ripped off how can you fight it?

atush

Originally Posted by Pollycat View Post
I've no idea how this generation got to be like they are. I don't have kids so I've not contributed to it.

I expect is it down to their parents.

Mine were the last of their friends to get phones (i waited til secondary school) and they didnt have the best/most expensive of anything. Could have afforded it at some point, but I dont have the best of everything for me either.

Even when they got to Uni and I bought them i phones, they didnt get the latest one, but the one just replaced as they were cheaper. Now they pay for their own, they can decide what they want. But seem to not be lured into the latest. Esp now they have to pay lol.

System

There was an old Prudential newspaper advert from decades ago with pictures of the same man ageing from twenties to his sixties.
In the first one the caption said something like "I'm young, what do I need a pension for?"
30s he said "They tell me there's no pension scheme",
40s "I suppose I ought to start thinking about a pension"
50s "I dread the thought of retiring without a pension" and finally
60s "I've no money - I wish I'd saved for a pension".

And in those days all he spent his money on was beer fags and betting. Now he expects the full range of gadgets that he sees everyone else having, plus holidays and a new car.
There's no way of getting through to such people.

bigadaj

Clifford_Pope wrote: »

There was an old Prudential newspaper advert from decades ago with pictures of the same man ageing from twenties to his sixties.
In the first one the caption said something like "I'm young, what do I need a pension for?"
30s he said "They tell me there's no pension scheme",
40s "I suppose I ought to start thinking about a pension"
50s "I dread the thought of retiring without a pension" and finally
60s "I've no money - I wish I'd saved for a pension".

And in those days all he spent his money on was beer fags and betting. Now he expects the full range of gadgets that he sees everyone else having, plus holidays and a new car.
There's no way of getting through to such people.

I think that's the point, it's a general issue with people rather than being a particular generation.

Some of the more stupid or short sighted would historically have benefitted from their own laziness in being put straight into a defined benefit scheme with little action required, either with a public sector large private sector employer.

Now the opportunities are much reduced, so more people will end up in relative poverty in their old age. It's one form of personal choice I suppose.

chiefie

bigadaj wrote: »

I think that's the point, it's a general issue with people rather than being a particular generation.

Some of the more stupid or short sighted would historically have benefitted from their own laziness in being put straight into a defined benefit scheme with little action required, either with a public sector large private sector employer.

Now the opportunities are much reduced, so more people will end up in relative poverty in their old age. It's one form of personal choice I suppose.

For me I do think it's harder nowadays. When I started 30 years ago my contribution in the DB scheme was 3%. Although I had a rubbish car and a small house saving that 3% by opting out wouldn't have made a difference.

Now you are talking 15% I can see why some do put it off.

Not saying it's right, and my kids do spend loads on tech and gadgets but we didn't have the same pull. If I had enough to go out on a Friday night blowout I was happy. We live in an overly commercial world. All we hear from governments is the economy when really they should be more bothered about our health, and happiness.

hyubh

molerat wrote: »

I think a lot of us born in the 40s/50s/60s did not want their kids to have to put up with some of the things we had to and some just overdid it, they now expect everything to just appear in front of them just like it did when mum and dad got it for them.

Ha ha, good one. Although, seriously, I don’t think anyone under 40 needs lecturing from the generations that gave the country the three day week, themselves final salary pensions, and current 20 and 30 somethings a sharp decline in state entitlement and a collapse of occupational pension provision into negligible DC arrangements that, nevertheless, we are told we should be thankful for.