Inflation?

[ahinton]

Yes, but they are means-tested benefits.

Apart from anything else, the semantics of 'pension' and 'benefit' could not be more different.
A pension suggests something deserved or existing as a right,
A benefit whiffs of charity and hand-outs.

It is true that state retirement benefit is not means-tested at the point of entitlement or thereafter (at least not so far), but they are means-tested during their "contribution" period by means of the "Ponzi"-type scheme rules under which "contributors" contribute what they're supposed to in accordance with their ability to do so (in terms of amounts of income received from employment and net profits received from self-employment) and that their "contribution" circumantances and amounts will accordingly qualify them for different amounts of that benefit, so it's not as though it's something universal, even under the newly announced scheme (which won't affect anyone born before certain dates anyway).

A pension suggests something "deserved or existing as a right" only to the extent that the contributor thereto will have invested pension contributions into to his/her fund and his/her contributions have been invested on his/her behalf over time during which they will hopefully have achieved decent growth.

Those who believe that state retirement benefit somehow differs from all other state benefits ought perhaps to consider whether government should phase them out and concentrate on providing benefits to those who actually need them, not least because there are many millionaires and people with large incomes from other sources who clearly don't need but remain entitled to state retirement benefit; after all, whilst government has a duty of care to look after the needy as best it can, it has no inherent duty to act as a pension provider, especially as there are private companies who already specialise in pension provision whereas there are obviously none who specialise in benefit provision. Indeed, one of the cons of this entire state retirement benefit scheme is that successive governments have succeeded in hoodwinking citizens by pretending that they can act as pension providers when not only is pension provision outside their areas of expertise but also they do not invest "contributors" funds on their behalf into pension pots for vesting at a later date. It simply strikes me as dishonest. Governments do not and are not expected to provide salaries for employees of private companies or profits for the self-employed, so why should they try to muscle in on "pension" provision?

These meanings may be unimportant to some, but in my opinion re-naming a pension as a benefit shows disrespect to the recipients.

I don't doubt that they may be unimportant to some and, of course, the name doesn't affect the entitlement qualifications or the amounts paid out, but I cannot see where this "disrespect" - which I have no reason to assume was ever intended as such - comes into the matter; indeed, some recipients of state retirement benefit might not even realise that the product itself has at some point taken on a second name. There's no shame - nor indeed should there be - in receiving any state benefit to which a claimant is legally entitled; that goes for state retirement benefit as much as for any other.

BTW, when I referred to 'the government' above, I was not being partisan, I just meant any government (Major, Blair, Brown, Cameron, Boris, Jeremy).

No, I was aware of that and you are of course correct in that particular (except in your references to Boris and Jeremy!).

And talking of weaselly tricks, did you know that friends of mine who are teachers and who retired at 60 with a Pension from the Teachers' Superannuation Scheme had that pension (their RIGHT, IMO)) reduced when they began receiving the state retirement benefit, aged 65? We live in a miserable, miserly state!

No, I didn't - and that's scandalous! Is this because the Teachers' Superannuation Scheme is a government funded one and that government has enabled itself to means-test it to the point that any new income source (including state retirement benefit) acquired subsequent to the vesting of pensions under that scheme will have the effect of reducing contributors' entitlement to it? If so, I wonder if there's a potential or actual human rights transgression there...

[MrGongGong]

Apart from anything else, the semantics of 'pension' and 'benefit' could not be more different.
A pension suggests something deserved or existing as a right,
A benefit whiffs of charity and hand-outs.

These meanings may be unimportant to some, but in my opinion re-naming a pension as a benefit shows disrespect to the recipients.

It would seem more disrespectful to me to refer to the money we rightly give to people with disabilities, life limiting medical conditions or other similar reasons as a "hand-out".
Using this phrase seems to get close to the "deserving" vs "undeserving" poor

Disability benefits ARE "deserved" and "existing as a right".

[jean]

...whilst government has a duty of care to look after the needy as best it can, it has no inherent duty to act as a pension provider, especially as there are private companies who already specialise in pension provision...Indeed, one of the cons of this entire state retirement benefit scheme is that successive governments have succeeded in hoodwinking citizens by pretending that they can act as pension providers when not only is pension provision outside their areas of expertise...

They manage it a lot better than the companies who supposedly 'specialise'!

Is this because the Teachers' Superannuation Scheme is a government funded one and that government has enabled itself to means-test it to the point that any new income source (including state retirement benefit) acquired subsequent to the vesting of pensions under that scheme will have the effect of reducing contributors' entitlement to it?

Is it something to do with the fact that Teachers' Superannuation was contracted out of the former State second pension scheme?

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

And talking of weaselly tricks, did you know that friends of mine who are teachers and who retired at 60 with a Pension from the Teachers' Superannuation Scheme had that pension (their RIGHT, IMO)) reduced when they began receiving the state retirement benefit, aged 65? We live in a miserable, miserly state!

Yes, that happened to me,

BUT

The reduction was something insignificant like £21 PER YEAR.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

Is this because the Teachers' Superannuation Scheme is a government funded one . . .

No. It's funded by contributions from teachers and their employers, and is currently in surplus.

[ahinton]

It would seem more disrespectful to me to refer to the money we rightly give to people with disabilities, life limiting medical conditions or other similar reasons as a "hand-out".
Using this phrase seems to get close to the "deserving" vs "undeserving" poor

Disability benefits ARE "deserved" and "existing as a right".

Agreed - although I'm not sure that ardcarp meant that they're otherwise.

[ahinton]

No. It's funded by contributions from teachers and their employers, and is currently in surplus.

So why do you suppose that the amounts in payment were reduced when pensioners began to receive state retirement benefit? I'm far from an expert (as should be obvious from the fact that I knew nothing about this) but it doesn't seem right to me - indeed, it almost sounds to be unlawful.

[ahinton]

They manage it a lot better than the companies who supposedly 'specialise'!

No, jean; whilst I agree that the world of pension trustees is by no means perfect, the government doesn't so much "manage it" better or worse than these but not at all! Why? Because there's no pension pot to manage! That said, successive governments have nevertheless persisted in giving the public the impression that their duties include those of pension provider as part of the welfare state system when, in reality, the fact that they cannot fulfil this rôle isn't even down to investment incompetence (of which certain pension providers can on occasion be accused) but to the simple fact that they're not acting as pension provider in the first place because they don't invest contributors' payments on their behalf.

Arguments that state retirement benefit is somehow different to all other state benefits purely on the grounds that they happen not to be means-tested at point of provision simply do not hold water, because it is and indeed always has been part of that welfare state system just as are all other state benefits. There might be a more persuasive argument that sate retirement benefit should be means-tested, just as personal income tax allowances are, regardless of age, were it not for the fact that the additional administrative costs and increases in margins of error that inevitably accompany almost all means-testing make it financially counter-productive.

[MrGongGong]

Agreed - although I'm not sure that ardcarp meant that they're otherwise.

I didn't think he meant that either
but the phrase "hand-out" is more than a little dodgy IMV

[ahinton]

I didn't think he meant that either
but the phrase "hand-out" is more than a little dodgy IMV

Indeed it is; it can have unsavourily pejorative connotations.

[Dave2002]

It's as if the government says, OK mate, you're retired, we're paying you a benefit (i.e. pension) already, so you've got all the time and money in the world to act as a full-time parent in your 70s. AAArrrgghhh!!!

I don't know all the details, but it's not only children under 16 who are problematic. A significant number of older people have partners with serious problems, so that can end up with one 75+ year old person trying to cope with a partner with dementia. Even a much younger person would find it difficult to look after a seriously ill or demented person, yet, as you say, the government seems to assume that many people will just put up with it and somehow cope. There are benefits, but not everyone claims them, and some of the benefits can only be claimed by the person who has the problem. Unless relatives manage to get Power of Attorney before major problems set in, trying to get help and financial support can be very difficult. Getting Power of Attorney once someone really does have a major problem (e.g dementia diagnosed) is next to impossible, and I think strictly illegal.

[P. G. Tipps]

And talking of weaselly tricks, did you know that friends of mine who are teachers and who retired at 60 with a Pension from the Teachers' Superannuation Scheme had that pension (their RIGHT, IMO)) reduced when they began receiving the state retirement benefit, aged 65? We live in a miserable, miserly state!

Are your friends male? I retired at 60 from a famous retail outlet and was paid an additional pension sum on the grounds of gender equality.

Once I reached State Pension Age my pension from that company was slashed by more than half. Throughout my career I've been in contributory, non-contributory, contracted in, contracted out, blah, blah, blah and private pensions.

The end result is that I have absolutely no idea if what I am now receiving is correct, I simply have to take my former employers and insurance companies' word for it.

Unsatisfactory ... but I suspect that I'm not exactly alone in my pension confusion and bewilderment ,,, and, of course, there's the many low-paid folk at BHS where the loss of their jobs is not the only worry for the future.

Everything is relative, I suppose, when it comes to pension 'justice'.

[ahinton]

Once I reached State Pension Age my pension from that company was slashed by more than half.

Why?

Throughout my career I've been in contributory, non-contributory, contracted in, contracted out, blah, blah, blah and private pensions.

The end result is that I have absolutely no idea if what I am now receiving is correct, I simply have to take my former employers and insurance companies' word for it.

No, you don't - and nor indeed shold you if you have little or no confidence in what they tell you (which is perhaps unsurpriring given that each employer and each insurer can only reasonably be expected to be able to tell you about what you had with them); you need to see an independent financial advisor but, as I seem to reall that you didn't trust any of those, you would appear to have little alternative but to continue to have no idea as to whether what you receive is correct. It's up to you, really.

[P. G. Tipps]

Why?

The hidden clue is there somewhere in my post, ahinton ...

No, you don't - and nor indeed shold you if you have little or no confidence in what they tell you (which is perhaps unsurpriring given that each employer and each insurer can only reasonably be expected to be able to tell you about what you had with them); you need to see an independent financial advisor but, as I seem to reall that you didn't trust any of those, you would appear to have little alternative but to continue to have no idea as to whether what you receive is correct. It's up to you, really.

Ahinton, believe me, the last person I would choose to consult on anything connected with my money (never mind the current minefield that is Pensions, State or Private), is an 'independent' financial 'advisor' ... whatever he/she 'advised', almost certainly I would have little pension left at the end.

[MrGongGong]

Ahinton, believe me, the last person I would choose to consult on anything connected with my money (never mind the current minefield that is Pensions, State or Private), is an 'independent' financial 'advisor' ... whatever he/she 'advised', almost certainly I would have little pension left at the end.

I'm a bit puzzled by this
Yes, there are dodgy people in the world, but would you ask the postman how to rewire your house?
Unless you spend vast amounts of your time thinking and learning about money then why not ask someone who really does know about it?
People in the UK are downright weird when it comes to the sordid business of coin.
My accountant likes accounts, he knows shed loads of stuff about tax and all the other stuff that goes with it... which is rather useful for me

The kind of thinking you display here is one of the reasons our education system (and in Scotland as well, don't believe the hype!) has been done over by folk who know absolutely nothing about it apart from the fact that they all went to school.

Why not find and trust people who know stuff?