Pension boon

[teamsaint]

good post Ards.

The "retirement age" is already heading up to 70.

well it is for the vast numbers with little or no worthwhile private or occupational pension.

The big mistake is to think that anybody at Westminster gives a damn.

because they don't.

we are a cost.

Edit: I am going to give up as much work as soon as I can just to spite them.

[ahinton]

Not in my book it isn't. We paid N.I. contributions (I used to do it by old fashioned stamps before the direct debit system became possible) the understood contract with the government being that at age 65 (60 in Mrs A's case) we would have the right to a STATE PENSION.

Sure - but this "right" is not dependent upon an investment made by the "contributor" - it's just part of a government sponsored Ponzi-type scheme where people who pay this week find the benefits (including state retirement benefit) paid out to those entitled to them next week; for that reason, they're not "pensions" (which presume some kind of investment of a contributor's funds into a pot for his/her future benefit) but, s I've suggesed, a Ponzi-type arrangement into which those who pay are not investing their payments on their own behalf.

The word 'benefit' has a whiff of charity about it, or at least that someone's doing you a favour. I know the reason WHY they changed it to a' benefit'. Someone who we know looks after a grown up child with quite severe difficulties. The 'child' gets a disability allowance in her own right, but the parent applied for an attendance allowance because she has, literally, to be in attendance much of the time. She received a wonderfully worded gobble-dee-gook letter saying, We are please to inform you that you qualify for an attendance allowance. Amount £0.00. Reason: You are already in receipt of retirement benefit. Well, there's something not quite right there.

You bet there isn't! Taxpayers pay for every instance of such assessment and the subsequent mailing of letters accounting for them.

Here's another thing which seems very unfair, though we're not going to let it spoil a friendship. Mrs A paid a full stamp while she was working, but took off about 8 years for child-rearing purposes....an admirable decision IMO...but resulting in a small gap in her contribution record. Her friend and her husband seldom worked and were in receipt of all sorts of benefits throughout their lives. I've no problem with that. But whilst in receipt of benefits, they were automatically credited with NI payments, so on retirement had a full contribution record, whereas Mrs A who worked extremely hard does not, and receives a smaller retirement pension (oops, sorry, benefit).

Yes, benefit (for no one invests in these things as though they were "pensions" per se) but yes, I agree with you.

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!!

According to experts, it won't happen, at least not for the majority of pensioners. There will still be an even bigger army of civil servants (sorry, I can't help using the phrase) working out entitlements, contribution records, eligibility, etc, etc. And by 2018 some actuarial process will decree that the retirement age will need to be increased to 90.

As little as 90? Not for long, surely?!

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

She received a wonderfully worded gobble-dee-gook letter saying, We are please to inform you that you qualify for an attendance allowance. Amount £0.00. Reason: You are already in receipt of retirement benefit. Well, there's something not quite right there.

That puzzles me. Both of my parents received Attendance Allowance in addition to their state pensions.

[ahinton]

good post Ards.

The "retirement age" is already heading up to 70.

well it is for the vast numbers with little or no worthwhile private or occupational pension.

The big mistake is to think that anybody at Westminster gives a damn.

because they don't.

we are a cost.

Edit: I am going to give up as much work as soon as I can just to spite them.

Give up what you want, but many people of state retirement age continue to work and the "state retirement age" will continue to rise way beyond 70 until it gets to 100 or whatever and then phases itself out by virtue of its ridiculousness unless, as I pointed out earlier, life expectancy runs in parallel with such increases and there turn out to be many hundreds of thousands of centenarians eligible to receive state retirement benefit when 100 becomes the entitlement threshold for it.

[MrGongGong]

Sure - but this "right" is not dependent upon an investment made by the "contributor" - it's just part of a government sponsored Ponzi-type scheme where people who pay this week find the benefits (including state retirement benefit) paid out to those entitled to them next week; for that reason, they're not "pensions" (which presume some kind of investment of a contributor's funds into a pot for his/her future benefit) but, s I've suggesed, a Ponzi-type arrangement into which those who pay are not investing their payments on their own behalf.

Some people insist on thinking that N.I is a savings scheme, it's NOT, it never was.
Given that people live longer and probably (? if not yet but soon will) outnumber those paying in then you don't have to be Norman Wisdom to know what the Albanian's found out.

[ahinton]

That puzzles me. Both of my parents received Attendance Allowance in addition to their sate pensions.

I don't know if tht stll applies; some, though not all, other state benefits cease when state retirement benefit kicks in.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

Sure - but this "right" is not dependent upon an investment made by the "contributor" - it's just part of a government sponsored Ponzi-type scheme where people who pay this week find the benefits (including state retirement benefit) paid out to those entitled to them next week; for that reason, they're not "pensions" (which presume some kind of investment of a contributor's funds into a pot for his/her future benefit) but, s I've suggesed, a Ponzi-type arrangement into which those who pay are not investing their payments on their own behalf.

Of course they are pensions. Just because the state nicks the money to do whatever they want with it, it doesn't alter the fact that it was paid by the employee(s) for a purpose. All public sector pensions work in this way, and when it has been spent on something else, there is deemed to be a "pensions black hole".

When you take something that isn't yours, there used to be a specific term for it.

[teamsaint]

Give up what you want, but many people of state retirement age continue to work and the "state retirement age" will continue to rise way beyond 70 until it gets to 100 or whatever and then phases itself out by virtue of its ridiculousness unless, as I pointed out earlier, life expectancy runs in parallel with such increases and there turn out to be many hundreds of thousands of centenarians eligible to receive state retirement benefit when 100 becomes the entitlement threshold for it.

I fail to see what your point is at all.

Until the people of this country stand up for what we /they want, and stop accepting what some career driven bureaucrats/ accountants tell the government what they should do, we will continue to have our incomes stolen by them.

This is a rich country that CAN afford state pensions, and much else. time to fight and not endlessly cave in , to powers that find money for war, arms, bailing out banks and all the other utter waste.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

I fail to see what your point is at all.

Until the people of this country stand up for what we /they want, and stop accepting what some career driven bureaucrats/ accountants tell the government what they should do, we will continue to have our incomes stolen by them.

This is a rich country that CAN afford state pensions, and much else. time to fight and not endlessly cave in , to powers that find money for war, arms, bailing out banks and all the other utter waste.

[teamsaint]

Some people insist on thinking that N.I is a savings scheme, it's NOT, it never was.
Given that people live longer and probably (? if not yet but soon will) outnumber those paying in then you don't have to be Norman Wisdom to know what the Albanian's found out.

I'm not sure I trust the figures on demographics that endlessly get thrown around , particularly by the government.

see, this kind of stuff is just lies.

put out by the DWP.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/apr/19/statistics-100-years-old

very very few people, ( about 15000 currently) live to be 100.

[Flosshilde]

Someone who we know looks after a grown up child with quite severe difficulties. The 'child' gets a disability allowance in her own right, but the parent applied for an attendance allowance because she has, literally, to be in attendance much of the time. She received a wonderfully worded gobble-dee-gook letter saying, We are please to inform you that you qualify for an attendance allowance. Amount £0.00. Reason: You are already in receipt of retirement benefit. Well, there's something not quite right there.

Ardcarp, there is indeed something not quite right. Attendance allowance is paid to the person requiring the care (but only when they're over 65; before that they get Disability Living Allowance or, now, Personal Independence Payment; if they vwere getting DLA before they were 65 they continue getting it); the theory is that they use it to pay for the care they need. Your friend could apply for carers allowance.
Retirement benefit/State pension is considered to be in lieu of wages from a job; I think the carers allowance is intended to compensate for loss of earnings because of carer's responsibilities; therefore if you are getting the state pension - ie a wage - you can't get compensation for losing earnings.
Full information here https://www.gov.uk/attendance-allowance/overview
(I had to go into all this for my mother)

[Flosshilde]

Of course they are pensions. Just because the state nicks the money to do whatever they want with it, it doesn't alter the fact that it was paid by the employee(s) for a purpose.

And employers, who also contribute NI payments.

[Beef Oven!]

And employers, who also contribute NI payments.

And the tax-payers who pay the NI contributions for those on benefits.

[teamsaint]

And the tax-payers who pay the NI contributions for those on benefits.

trouble is, the government won't tax business in a way that actually generates revenue, and is discovering that folks would rather earn £12k tax free as check out assistants that have " career" jobs paying £20/£25k where they pay bloody stupid marginal rates, and have career type stress thrown in as a bonus.
And who can blame them, when you can spend the free time listening to world class Sibelius performances for nowt?

[Beef Oven!]

trouble is, the government won't tax business in a way that actually generates revenue, and is discovering that folks would rather earn £12k tax free as check out assistants that have " career" jobs paying £20/£25k where they pay bloody stupid marginal rates, and have career type stress thrown in as a bonus.
And who can blame them, when you can spend the free time listening to world class Sibelius performances for nowt?

Nowt? I bought my TV licence - that covers radio too