apelike   10 #25 Posted April 3, 2016 job.even they struggle.  The wife is even worse off than me. 6 years added on.  That due to equality though. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Allen   38 #26 Posted April 4, 2016 Me and my missus miss out, even though we have both paid in and have well over the number of years required for full pension rights. Angel1 I don't see how you miss out? If you have paid full NI for the full 35 qualifying years? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
max   13 #27 Posted April 4, 2016 I don't see how you miss out? If you have paid full NI for the full 35 qualifying years?  They will if they're already drawing their pensions. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Annie Bynnol   612 #28 Posted April 4, 2016 (edited) You will only get the full £155 if you pay(ed) class one NI at 12 per cent for 35 years. If you have or are paying at 10.4 per cent you will get a lot less even if you have 35+ years. There is a sliding scale for contribution years of between 10 and 34 years which is £4.44 per week per year contribution made. There is a sliding scale (unpublished) for contribution made at the different rates. ie before "additional contribution" and different pension schemes.   Everyone over 55 (after 6th of April) should check the State Pension Calculator. That said you will then have to jump through hoops to get an estimate which as has been said will be a significant amount less than most expected.  You will be asked to create a Government Gateway number. You will also need a passport number. NI number. Mobile phone number.  You then can get your NI contribution history- wildly inaccurate. You can get a prediction of how much you will get at State pension retirement if you contribute until that date. On another page it says you cant contribute more. The number in the big display box is not what you will get.  You will loose about 20% of the £155 p w because you paid into a company scheme. You could loose 20% of what is left in income tax. You will loose £4.44 pw for every year below 35 contributory years.  It is in "beta", and you wont get less than you would under the old system-allegedly. Edited April 4, 2016 by Annie Bynnol Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
RickyM Â Â 10 #29 Posted April 5, 2016 I wont be retiring for 40 years yet so aren't bothered about pensions. Â The way things are going I'll probably die before being eligible for one anyway. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Dr Afzal   12 #30 Posted April 5, 2016 (edited) That due to equality though.  I would not say that is the reason. If it was, then why have they upped men`s retirement age to 66/7 for them that retire in about 10 or 12 years time. I would say the simple reason for increasing the retiring age of women and men is the black hole in the government cash pot.  Debate amongst yourselves where the money has gone. (even after Gordo sold the family gold off, the pot is low). Think bank bail-outs as a starter for 10 Edited April 5, 2016 by Dr Afzal Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
I1L2T3   10 #31 Posted April 5, 2016 I wont be retiring for 40 years yet so aren't bothered about pensions.  The way things are going I'll probably die before being eligible for one anyway.  Probably best to get interested. Even £25 a month until you retire could make a difference. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Funky_Gibbon   42 #32 Posted April 5, 2016 By the time I reach retirement age they'll be turning us into Soylent Green to save money... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
apelike   10 #33 Posted April 6, 2016 I would not say that is the reason. If it was, then why have they upped men`s retirement age to 66/7 for them that retire in about 10 or 12 years time. I would say the simple reason for increasing the retiring age of women and men is the black hole in the government cash pot.   The female age for retirement was upped under the equality act to make it equal to that of a male and later the male retirement age was then upped to 66. Nothing to do with any black hole in the retirement pot.  It would have been better to have the male retirement age lowered to 60 instead of increasing it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Dr Afzal   12 #34 Posted April 6, 2016 (edited) The "yoof" of today will be retiring at 80. Take what Cameron sprouts with a pinch of salt. Watching them work on a building site in 60 years time will be like walking around the Belsen camp. Edited April 6, 2016 by Dr Afzal Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
ECCOnoob   1,050 #35 Posted April 6, 2016 How about some of those "yoof" spend the 60 years of their career actually training, developing and improving to work their way up the ladder.  How about some of them bother to seek promotion with a route into a more suitable role for their age either by way of management, consultancy, operations or supervision.  You are not going to sit there and say that someone who is a building labourer now will automatically still be one in retirement years. If they are, then that's their problem.  Not everyone stays in the same job for life. Even if there is no actual career progression - people can choose to change jobs if necessary for health, monetary of family reasons. Happens all the time. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
tinfoilhat   11 #36 Posted April 6, 2016 How about some of those "yoof" spend the 60 years of their career actually training, developing and improving to work their way up the ladder.  How about some of them bother to seek promotion with a route into a more suitable role for their age either by way of management, consultancy, operations or supervision.  You are not going to sit there and say that someone who is a building labourer now will automatically still be one in retirement years. If they are, then that's their problem.  Not everyone stays in the same job for life. Even if there is no actual career progression - people can choose to change jobs if necessary for health, monetary of family reasons. Happens all the time.  Yeah, no problem, I'll dash off to university (at what £6k a year?) for 3 years where I'll definately pass (1st class with honours, naturally) and despite being a labourer for 20 years I'll now be a consultant. They'll be queueing round the block for my services I'm sure.  Some people are not going to have the skills to do that, anymore than you can bin what you're doing now and become a professional athlete. You can't just say to someone "get educated" if they have lost or never had the ability to actually learn stuff properly. Putting books in front of someone isn't a guarantee regardless of effort put it, unless decent qualifications can effectivly be googled then God help us all. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...