skip raider   10 #1 Posted October 29, 2018 Government legislation may have crept in under the radar of many. When I say legislation I am referring to the real reason behind the compulsory obligation of employers to offer these pensions, and the automatic registration of employees.  There will be many that still believe that the old age state pension as we know it is a guarantee from retirement age to end of life. Think again.  The introduction of the scheme, and scheme or scheming is quite an appropriate description. At some time not too far away, it is highly likely that employees that have paid in to a workplace pension scheme during their working life will lose up to 50% of their state pension.  Of course, the government are not going to tell you this. If they did, employees would not pay in to the scheme. You can refer to it as means testing. A rose by another name or whatever.  It should be clear to all by now that the government cannot sustain state pension payments to all. A situation that is going to get worse.  Under the Pensions Act 2008, every employer in the UK must enrol their eligible staff into a workplace pension, and pay into it. If you employ at least one person, that means you’re an employer, and by law you have responsibilities that you need to act on.  Anyone that pays into one of these workplace pensions scheme is paying twice to receive less.  Make a decision that is right for you. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
truman   10 #2 Posted October 29, 2018 Government legislation may have crept in under the radar of many. When I say legislation I am referring to the real reason behind the compulsory obligation of employers to offer these pensions, and the automatic registration of employees.  There will be many that still believe that the old age state pension as we know it is a guarantee from retirement age to end of life. Think again.  The introduction of the scheme, and scheme or scheming is quite an appropriate description. At some time not too far away, it is highly likely that employees that have paid in to a workplace pension scheme during their working life will lose up to 50% of their state pension.  Of course, the government are not going to tell you this. If they did, employees would not pay in to the scheme. You can refer to it as means testing. A rose by another name or whatever.  It should be clear to all by now that the government cannot sustain state pension payments to all. A situation that is going to get worse.  Under the Pensions Act 2008, every employer in the UK must enrol their eligible staff into a workplace pension, and pay into it. If you employ at least one person, that means you’re an employer, and by law you have responsibilities that you need to act on.  Anyone that pays into one of these workplace pensions scheme is paying twice to receive less.  Make a decision that is right for you.  Do you have a link anywhere for any of this or is it just your opinion? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
willman   10 #3 Posted October 29, 2018 I've been getting told for the past 30 years that i'll be lucky to get a state pension,my daughter may get less than i will and i doubt my grandson will recieve anything at all.  I think all pensions,benefits should be means tested - afterall 25% of any pension pot has been gifted as an incentive to the investors throughout their lifetime from the public purse. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
truman   10 #4 Posted October 29, 2018 I've been getting told for the past 30 years that i'll be lucky to get a state pension,my daughter may get less than i will and i doubt my grandson will recieve anything at all. I think all pensions,benefits should be means tested - afterall 25% of any pension pot has been gifted as an incentive to the investors throughout their lifetime from the public purse.  If means testing is introduced there'd be very little point in saving for a pension... why should the prudent be punished...? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
willman   10 #5 Posted October 29, 2018 If means testing is introduced there'd be very little point in saving for a pension... why should the prudent be punished...?  Probably because the prudent will have more than £114 a week to spend. If not they weren't very savvy. Then again 25% of there "prudency" has also been given to them from everyone elses taxes. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
truman   10 #6 Posted October 29, 2018 (edited) Probably because the prudent will have more than £114 a week to spend. If not they weren't very savvy. Then again 25% of there "prudency" has also been given to them from everyone elses taxes.  Looking at it that way 100% of other people's other benefits comes from other peole's tax..That 25% will go back to the government when the "Prudent" spend their cash or ,as happens now,when they take a cash drawdown from their pensions..infact the government will get more back 'cos the amount available to draw down will have increased..so instead of getting 25% (why 25 shouldn't it be 20?) of £1000 for instance they'll get the same percentage back of the amount that that £1000 has grown to... again..if i'm going to be means tested I may as well not save and enjoy my money now and let the gov. support me later on.. but I reckon this one is one that we'll have to agree to disagree on Edited October 29, 2018 by truman Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Ontarian1981   10 #7 Posted October 29, 2018 I've been getting told for the past 30 years that i'll be lucky to get a state pension,my daughter may get less than i will and i doubt my grandson will recieve anything at all. I think all pensions,benefits should be means tested - afterall 25% of any pension pot has been gifted as an incentive to the investors throughout their lifetime from the public purse.  Means testing for something that you have paid into? So you have to be treated like a welfare recipient for trying to secure your future? Bad idea. Not that I am belittling welfare recipients, by the way( there but for the grace of god go I etc....), I was just using a welfare scenario as a comparison. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
willman   10 #8 Posted October 29, 2018 Looking at it that way 100% of other people's other benefits comes from other peole's tax..That 25% will go back to the government when the "Prudent" spend their cash or ,as happens now,when they take a cash drawdown from their pensions..infact the government will get more back 'cos the amount available to draw down will have increased..so instead of getting 25% (why 25 shouldn't it be 20?) of £1000 for instance they'll get the same percentage back of the amount that that £1000 has grown to... again..if i'm going to be means tested I may as well not save and enjoy my money now and let the gov. support me later on.. but I reckon this one is one that we'll have to agree to disagree on  I agree - i save now because i can afford too. I had years when i couldn't afford to. I genuinely think it unfair that people who have more than they know what to do with claiming money just because someone else has it - whether it be bus passes,tv licenses or whatever. (not that i'm putting you in that category as that type of person) Someone retiring now with no pension and living a further 20 years would get 118K roughly,in comparison someone getting £50 a month tax incentive for 40 years would have had £105k plus all the profit from it,before achieving retirement. (i used £50 as an average across the 40 years btw). Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
max   13 #9 Posted October 29, 2018 I agree - i save now because i can afford too. I had years when i couldn't afford to. I genuinely think it unfair that people who have more than they know what to do with claiming money just because someone else has it - whether it be bus passes,tv licenses or whatever. (not that i'm putting you in that category as that type of person) Someone retiring now with no pension and living a further 20 years would get 118K roughly,in comparison someone getting £50 a month tax incentive for 40 years would have had £105k plus all the profit from it,before achieving retirement. (i used £50 as an average across the 40 years btw).  The main disincentives for any government to means test what are currently universally distributed are:  it would be political suicide; it would cost more to implement than would be saved; those "who have more than they know what to do with" would find a way to cheat the system  If it had been possible to clear these three hurdles do you not think it would have been done by now? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
tlangdon12 Â Â 13 #10 Posted October 29, 2018 ... When I say legislation I am referring to the real reason behind the compulsory obligation of employers to offer these pensions, and the automatic registration of employees. ... Â You are quite wrong. the real reason is that all the political parties know that people will not save enough for their retirement (which is seen as being a remote and distant event) UNLESS they are compelled to do so. It is not a precursor to demise of the state pension or a reduction of it if you have saved. The electorate have the power to ensure that this does not happen if they do not want it to. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
apelike   10 #11 Posted October 29, 2018  Under the Pensions Act 2008, every employer in the UK must enrol their eligible staff into a workplace pension, and pay into it. If you employ at least one person, that means you’re an employer, and by law you have responsibilities that you need to act on.  But an employee can also opt out of the scheme. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Janus   28 #12 Posted October 29, 2018 The main disincentives for any government to means test what are currently universally distributed are: it would be political suicide; it would cost more to implement than would be saved; those "who have more than they know what to do with" would find a way to cheat the system  If it had been possible to clear these three hurdles do you not think it would have been done by now?  The government has already means tested something that was universally available, with no apparent consequences as far as I am aware. All they had to do was change the name of Incapacity benefit to esa work&activities group. This benefit is means tested. Incap or sick pay was never means tested. Was you aware of this max? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...