I don't trust any politician....am I paranoid or sensible?

bostonerimus

Linton wrote: »

When the state pension system changed in 2016 the government/civil service went to great lengths to ensure that nobody lost any benefit they had already legally earned. The changes were related to the effect of post 2016 contributions. This seems to be a general principle and it seems extremely unlikely to me that this would change in the future.

I think that only really applies for people who are actually getting the pension. My cynicism is because I have already gone through the change of the required contribution years going from 30 to 35, the on and off phasing out of Class 2 contributions and the introduction of the flat rate pension..I also look at the women who had their retirement age changed.

I might just keep paying the Class 2 while it still exists (as it is such a small amount) to pad my contribution years just in case.

bostonerimus

jimi_man wrote: »

I just don't get this? Why would anyone pay more than they had to? If that's the case then where do you draw the line? Voluntarily pay more tax as well? Voluntarily carry on paying more NI after SPA? And then how much more should you pay and how long for?

If there is a desire to divest yourself of excess income then there are numerous charities that I feel would be more deserving.

My thinking is that Class 2 NI is so inexpensive it's cheap insurance against changes to the number of qualifying years as has happened in the past.

I will probably donate the pension to the church in the village where I grew up where my parents are buried.

Linton

bostonerimus wrote: »

I think that only really applies for people who are actually getting the pension. My cynicism is because I have already gone through the change of the required contribution years going from 30 to 35, the on and off phasing out of Class 2 contributions and the introduction of the flat rate pension. I also look at the women who had their retirement age changed.

The principle of not losing any guaranteed money was true for everyone. If you had kept your total at 30 years you would still have received more in your pension than you would have got under the old system. The point is that when the number of years was increased, so was the full state pension. You didnt lose any money from the change from 30 to 35.


Again introduction of the flat rate system did not cause anyone to lose any money they had aleady earned. For example people who had already earned more than the current full state pension kept the extra and will be paid the extra even if they havent yet reached state pension age.



Women's age change was independent of the new pension scheme, being something that was announced many years previously.

grnglide

introduction of the flat rate system did not cause anyone to lose any money they had aleady earned.

What about people with less than ten years contributions who were / are too close to SPa to be able to reach the 10 years contributions to get anything? This was introduced with the new State Pension as well.


It may be not many people impacted but there are some.

JoeCrystal

grnglide wrote: »

What about people with less than ten years contributions who were / are too close to SPa to be able to reach the 10 years contributions to get anything? This was introduced with the new State Pension as well.


It may be not many people impacted but there are some.

I am not entirely sure about this but would they get pension credits instead to top up their incomes?

nigelbb

grnglide wrote: »

What about people with less than ten years contributions who were / are too close to SPa to be able to reach the 10 years contributions to get anything? This was introduced with the new State Pension as well.


It may be not many people impacted but there are some.

I guess this could be covered by the transition arrangements were a calculation was made in 2016 of entitlement under old & new rules & the pensioner receiving whichever was the larger sum. If under the new rules you would get zero then 5 or 6 years under the old rules is bound to be higher.

p00hsticks

bostonerimus wrote: »

My cynicism is because I have already gone through the change of the required contribution years going from 30 to 35

Don;t forget that it was only 30 years for a relatively short period of time (2010-2016) - before that it was 39 years for a woman, 44 for a man. So not all changes are detrimental.

bostonerimus

Linton wrote: »

The principle of not losing any guaranteed money was true for everyone. If you had kept your total at 30 years you would still have received more in your pension than you would have got under the old system. The point is that when the number of years was increased, so was the full state pension. You didnt lose any money from the change from 30 to 35.

This is true as I would have only qualified for the old basic state pension...30 years of the flat rate was more than the full basic state pension. However, to get the full flat rate pension I had to pay another 5 years of contributions. I'm now maxed out under current legislation, but given the "not a guarantee" and "under current legislation" wordage in the HMRC forecast the goal posts could change and they could easily move to needing say 40 years. I hope that they'd give a chance to catch up at historical rates.

bostonerimus

p00hsticks wrote: »

Don;t forget that it was only 30 years for a relatively short period of time (2010-2016) - before that it was 39 years for a woman, 44 for a man. So not all changes are detrimental.

Yes, I know. Back then HMRC was pretty good about sending out notices and letting you know about changes. Now they aren't quite so communicative.

Linton

bostonerimus wrote: »

...rate pension I had to pay another 5 years of contributions. I'm now maxed out under current legislation, but given the "not a guarantee" and "under current legislation" wordage in the HMRC forecast the goal posts could change and they could easily move to needing say 40 years. I hope that they'd give a chance to catch up at historical rates.

All official statements regarding the future will use or imply those sorts of words. Parliament is sovereign and can do what it likes, one government cannot bind a future government. . However Precedent is a major factor as is the possibility of Judicial Review.