Mrs GC's Pension

Grumpy_chap

Dazed_and_C0nfused said:

So you get to keep that and it will be increased each year by the double/triple lock.  

Can I just clarify this?  I thought that the triple lock was only relevant for pensioner already taking their state pension. 
Mrs GC and I both have a good number of years before we will reach state pension age.
Are you saying that my £196 per week and her £185 per week will both continue to increase at the Triple Lock rate even before we are able to receive State Pension?  (Assuming no change in policy / legislation).
I really had thought that Triple Lock really was only a vote-winner for the elderly.  Surprised the Government / Opposition don't do more to explain that it is a vote-winner for us all (or at least all that are supportive of the Triple Lock, or would be supportive if they knew it applied to them).

Taking the Triple Lock rationally, I suppose at some point it has to cease as the ultimate continuation of Triple Lock would be that state pension (total) exceeds GDP, which is not sustainable....

Dazed_and_C0nfused

Grumpy_chap said:

Thank you, having first understood my state pension, Mrs GC has looked at her information, which is as follows:

Your forecast is £185.15 a week, £805.07 a month, £9,660.86 a year

£185.15 is the most you can get You cannot improve your forecast any more.

Your National Insurance record You have 2 years when you did not contribute enough

So, that's the current maximum state pension and, even though some contribution years were missed, Mrs GC cannot do anything to increase that amount that will be received. 

Then, it does seem as though Mrs GC has some COPE:

You’ve been in a contracted-out pension scheme Like most people, you were contracted out of part of the State Pension

Contracted Out Pension Equivalent (COPE) Your COPE estimate is £3.29 a week

How would she find out where that COPE pension will be paid?  

Does she have a company (defined benefit) pension due to be paid at some point?

Most likely explanation is she paid lower NI for a while when contracted out and it will effectively be part of that pension.  Albeit the £3.29 will never be specifically mentioned.

Grumpy_chap

Dazed_and_C0nfused said:

Does she have a company (defined benefit) pension due to be paid at some point?

Yes, she has a short period of NHS pension.  Other than that, she seems not to have work-pensions (all DC) until auto-enrolment started (which I assume would all be after contracting out was stopped).

Dazed_and_C0nfused

Contracting out ended over 6 years ago now, 2015:16 tax year was the final one.

Grumpy_chap

Thanks - that £3.29 must be somewhere in the NHS pension?

Do you think it is likely that the 2 years when she did not contribute enough are when the contracting out was?

I suppose that is all detail that is not important and the point to focus on is "You cannot improve your forecast any more." so no need to make any voluntary payments

Silvertabby

Grumpy_chap said:

Dazed_and_C0nfused said:

So you get to keep that and it will be increased each year by the double/triple lock.  

Can I just clarify this?  I thought that the triple lock was only relevant for pensioner already taking their state pension. 
Mrs GC and I both have a good number of years before we will reach state pension age.
Are you saying that my £196 per week and her £185 per week will both continue to increase at the Triple Lock rate even before we are able to receive State Pension?  (Assuming no change in policy / legislation).
I really had thought that Triple Lock really was only a vote-winner for the elderly.  Surprised the Government / Opposition don't do more to explain that it is a vote-winner for us all (or at least all that are supportive of the Triple Lock, or would be supportive if they knew it applied to them).

Taking the Triple Lock rationally, I suppose at some point it has to cease as the ultimate continuation of Triple Lock would be that state pension (total) exceeds GDP, which is not sustainable....

Yes.  The triple lock benefits everyone who is accruing - by whatever means - the State pension, by increasing the amount they 'bank'. 

Dazed_and_C0nfused

Grumpy_chap said:

Dazed_and_C0nfused said:

So you get to keep that and it will be increased each year by the double/triple lock.  

Can I just clarify this?  I thought that the triple lock was only relevant for pensioner already taking their state pension. 
Mrs GC and I both have a good number of years before we will reach state pension age.
Are you saying that my £196 per week and her £185 per week will both continue to increase at the Triple Lock rate even before we are able to receive State Pension?  (Assuming no change in policy / legislation).
I really had thought that Triple Lock really was only a vote-winner for the elderly.  Surprised the Government / Opposition don't do more to explain that it is a vote-winner for us all (or at least all that are supportive of the Triple Lock, or would be supportive if they knew it applied to them).

Taking the Triple Lock rationally, I suppose at some point it has to cease as the ultimate continuation of Triple Lock would be that state pension (total) exceeds GDP, which is not sustainable....

Missed this earlier.  Yes, under current rules your State Pension will increase each year by a minimum of 2.5%.

But it could potentially be 10% next time round so your £196 could easily be getting on for £215/week if you check your forecast again in the next tax year 😃

Grumpy_chap

I'm amazed that politicians haven't done a better job of explaining the universal scope of Triple Lock.

GunJack

HAng on......

not all of Mr G-C's pension will increase by triple-lock, the excess (called the Protected Amount IIRC) over the base level will only increase by something like CPI capped at a low level. It's not blanket triple lock as his starting amount calculated in 2016 was already more than the New SP level.

Albermarle

Grumpy_chap said:

I'm amazed that politicians haven't done a better job of explaining the universal scope of Triple Lock.

Yes, you are right. Although state pension increases for the future, will probably be of little interest to the majority of the population ( either too young or uninterested in pensions/personal finance as most people are ) . It could be a vote winner for some over 50's if it was promoted more and this age group will tend to vote as well.
They seem to be missing a trick !