SINGLE OAP PENSION

[Annie Bynnol 612]

9 hours ago, Ms Macbeth said:

As a woman in my 70s, I get nothing for the years I looked after my children, there were no credits back in those days.  I also worked in part time, low paid employment for several years, and paid 'the married woman's stamp'/reduced contributions.  Nothing for those years either.  My state pension is around £80.   I worked full time from 16-23 , then again from my early 30s until  I was fortunate to get a state pension at 60.  Around 33 years of contributions, but I was also contracted out for part of the time.  My occupational pensions (which amount to nothing near 40 years in a final salary scheme) preclude me from any add-ons, and of course as part of a couple, our pensions are assessed together.

 

The new scheme rewards those with small extra pensions, the old one, because of Pension Credit, penalised those savers.

 

 

 

 

Winners and losers but also swings and roundabouts.

You have benefited by at least  £25 000 by being able to get your pension through the old system at 60 ( 6years X 52weeks X  £80)

 

A 59 year old woman will have lost up to £30 000 since the 2009(not the 1981) changes (4years X 52weeks £150.)

A difference of £55 000. That that will take about 800 weeks ie at least 16 years before the 59 year old catches up with you and passes.  

(fag packet reckoning).

[Cyclone 10]

Ah, I think that you could have been more clear there.

 

The change in pensionable age for women having moved from 60 to now 66 or 67 means that women who are now in their early 60's or approaching 60 have (largely unexpectedly) lost out on 5 - 7 years of pension compared to what they were expecting and compared to other women who might only be a few years older  (In fact this includes my mum, having been delayed to 65.5 and my aunt, being maybe 3 years older and having been receiving pension since 60).

I'm not sure, but I suspect that in this case, both receiving full state pension for the date they retire that my Mum will never catch up.

 

The way this change has been administered has seemed particularly detrimental to women who's birthdays span approx 5 years.  Waspi are fighting it though and it's up for a judicial revue in June I think.

[Anna B 1,401]

8 hours ago, ez8004 said:

I have no idea what you are talking about.  When you mean the new scheme, I am assuming the current scheme.  It can actually work out.  I have over a decade's worth of contributions in a final salary scheme that is deferred until I retire.  My current employee scheme contributes the equivalent of 18% (which is still relatively low compared to something like a final salary scheme) of my gross salary into a pension scheme.  I have been prudent in having various investments since I started working so I have built up a regular income outside of work which will contribute to my pension income.  My wife claims child benefit, so she gets 12 years of NI for free effectively.  We should both max out our NI requirements (I have 19 years contributed so far, so need another 16 years from 30 years of work lol).  Total pension income when we retire in today's money will be about £40k. This is not the same as the income I get from working, but then again I shouldn't have outgoings like a mortgage to service.

 

It is not all doom and gloom.  You lot need far better financial planning.

This may well be true, but in my day there was no such thing for the likes of us. We had very little money to manage a family on and plenty of other things to worry about. Finacial planning for old age didn't come into it. You did your best with a little works pension, and thought you were secure (as they told us,) then they started messing about with those. The financial industry has crucified pensioners, I hope they don't do the same to you.   

 

We used to have one of the best systems in the world. Look at it now.

[spilldig 188]

17 hours ago, Cyclone said:

Okay, now that you've listed some random statistics, tell us how much of government income already goes on pensions and how much that would be if it was increased to the amount you've proposed.

I have no idea, but if The Netherlands can do it then we should be able to as well, if priorities were right.

[Cyclone 10]

12 minutes ago, spilldig said:

I have no idea, but if The Netherlands can do it then we should be able to as well, if priorities were right.

I think you really should look the numbers up.

[Cyclone 10]

https://www.economicshelp.org/blog/12133/economics/uk-social-security-budget/

 

This one is a little old 2011/12, but the proportions are what is important.

Quote

Total public spending 2013/14 – £686 billion.

• Social security budget- £251 billion 37% of 2013/14 spending
• State pensions account for £83 billion
• Welfare spending of £168 billion or roughly 25% of budget
• Benefit spending – of the £205 billion or so spent on tax credits and social security benefits, the IFS calculate about £111 billion is spent on those over pension age and £94 billion on those of working age.

 

So we have 25% of all government expenditure on welfare, of which approaching 50% of that is on state pensions, but 2/3rds of the welfare spending is on those >pension age.

You've proposed approximately doubling the state pension, so that's an increase of national expenditure by 12.5%.

 

Now you might have heard, but the NHS is underfunded.  Teachers are underfunded.  Capital projects are underfunded (with the exception of in London).  And in those 3 things we've basically covered 3/4rs of all government expenditure.

 

How is it to be paid for?  What do you want to cut?

The netherlands pays a more generous pension, but you'll note if you investigate that it has a higher rate of tax.  Increasing taxation on those still working in order to double state pensions for those who no longer pay tax (or at least don't if they are reliant on the state pension) won't be very popular will it.

[Cyclone 10]

Was your earlier claim even correct?

 

Quote

The full AOW pension is tied to the minimum wage, with married or cohabiting couples each receiving 50% of the minimum wage, while those who live alone are entitled to a pension worth more than 70% of the minimum wage.

Perhaps you've misunderstood household for individual earlier when you've read something about the dutch pension being equal to the minimum wage.  It appears that a couple get as much as the minimum wage BETWEEN them.

18 hours ago, spilldig said:

That's the way I interpreted it, but anyway let's have a look about this business of bankrupting the country. Well perhaps if they had thier priorities right.  Croatia give 129% of earnings, so if the same was applied here every pensioner would get £33,862 per year.       The Netherlands and Turkey are  ext at over 100%, then India, Portugal,Italy Austria,Argentina , Hungary, Bulgaria,luxombourg, Slovakia,China, Cyprus, Spain,Denmark,Brazil,Iceland,Israel,France,Lithuania,European u,nion 28 countries,Belgium,Indonesia Saudi Arabia,Finland.Oecd, Czech Republic,LatviaEstonia,Slovenia , Sweden,Greece Canada,Rumania,Germany,USA,Norway Korea,Switzerland,New zealand,Australia,Ireland,Malta,Chile,Japan,Russia,Poland Mexico, and then, in a disgusting 49th place comes the UK on 29%. As i say, the government should be ashamed.

Perhaps you should provide a source for this, as it doesn't appear to match up with what I've found regarding at least the Netherlands.

[Cyclone 10]

Lets check Croatia.

Quote

From January 1, 2019, the value of the minimum pension for one year of retirement is 64,34 kn

 

 

I guess this was your source for that earlier post

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/02/retirees-in-these-countries-receive-100-of-a-working-salary/

It doesn't appear to be correct with regards to the Netherlands though.

 

Supposedly that article is based on this OECD report

https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/docserver/pension_glance-2017-en.pdf?expires=1555661624&id=id&accname=guest&checksum=58134D3066E5215D6EFB51918B72819A

 

But if you scroll to page 133 (yes, it's a big report) the Netherlands is listed with an average income for pensioners of 83.4% of the national average, and that's entire pensioner income, not just state income.

The UK is listed as 82.6%, so really very similar.

 

Interestingly I literally cannot find the word Croatia in that OECD report at all, nor can I find a value of 129% anywhere...

I've no idea what the article is supposed to be showing, but it doesn't appear to match up with the underlying report.  They've included a graph, but given the size of the underlying report I'm afraid I can't find it.

In fact, I've scrolled through the entire thing and that graph isn't there and Croatia simply isn't included in the report, so there's something fishy going on.

 

I think I can see the problem

 

Quote

The net replacement rate from mandatory pension schemes for full-career averagewage earners entering the labour market today is equal to 63%, on average in OECD countries, ranging from 29% in the United Kingdom to 102% in Turkey. Replacement rates for low-income earners are 10 points higher, on average, ranging from under 40% in Mexico and Poland, to more than 100% in Denmark, Israel and the Netherlands

The author has fundamentally misunderstood this and massively misrepresented the stats.

[Cyclone 10]

In fact, I've looked up the author and tweeted him, I'll see if he's open to a conversation about what he's written, as I think it's fundamentally wrong and misleading.

Edited April 19, 2019 by Cyclone

[ez8004 10]

2 hours ago, Anna B said:

This may well be true, but in my day there was no such thing for the likes of us. We had very little money to manage a family on and plenty of other things to worry about. Finacial planning for old age didn't come into it. You did your best with a little works pension, and thought you were secure (as they told us,) then they started messing about with those. The financial industry has crucified pensioners, I hope they don't do the same to you.   

 

We used to have one of the best systems in the world. Look at it now.

The fundamental issue here is not what was it is what is relevant now. It’s doesn't matter how things worked before. Nowadays people need to have a far more proactive approach to planning one’s retirement. If you are just starting employment in your early twenties now, I would say you need to put away at least 25% of your gross salary (a combination of employer and employer contributions). 

 

If you’re not doing this, then don’t complain about the poor provisions of retirement income because quite frankly you have no right to if you don’t or didn’t help yourself. 

 

 

[francypants 441]

3 hours ago, Cyclone said:

Ah, I think that you could have been more clear there.

 

The change in pensionable age for women having moved from 60 to now 66 or 67 means that women who are now in their early 60's or approaching 60 have (largely unexpectedly) lost out on 5 - 7 years of pension compared to what they were expecting and compared to other women who might only be a few years older  (In fact this includes my mum, having been delayed to 65.5 and my aunt, being maybe 3 years older and having been receiving pension since 60).

I'm not sure, but I suspect that in this case, both receiving full state pension for the date they retire that my Mum will never catch up.

 

The way this change has been administered has seemed particularly detrimental to women who's birthdays span approx 5 years.  Waspi are fighting it though and it's up for a judicial revue in June I think.

Exactly.

Wish I could draw my pension of which I was promised to be able to do at age 60.

I was born in 1955 so I'm now 64 this year and I get  SOD ALL.  I do not get a penny for another two years yet !!!   That's 6 years money I've been done out of which is a hell of a lot.      I'm livid.

 

 

 

 

 

[ez8004 10]

25 minutes ago, francypants said:

Exactly.

Wish I could draw my pension of which I was promised to be able to do at age 60.

I was born in 1955 so I'm now 64 this year and I get  SOD ALL.  I do not get a penny for another two years yet !!!   That's 6 years money I've been done out of which is a hell of a lot.      I'm livid.

 

 

 

 

 

I can’t be sympathetic with this at all. The disparity in pension ages between men and women needed to be reigned in. There was absolutely no justifiable reason for there to be such a difference in the first place. So with men and women pension ages being aligned it is only fairer. Why should women end up contributing less but claim more by virtue of a longer life expectancy. If you have to work longer then so be it. 

 

The line in the sand needed to be drawn somewhere. Unluckily you fell on the wrong side of it. 

Edited April 19, 2019 by ez8004