State pension goalposts moved again

[tankplanker]

sidicks said:

We need to be a sustainable society, the 'rich' can't pay for everything!

Agreed, which is why we need the pension changes now not in twenty years.

[Cotty]

Rovinghawk said:

PurpleMoonlight said:

You can currently access private and occupational pensions at age 55, but that is due to increase as the SPA increases. It is intended to always be 10 years before SPA.

Thanks- I wasn't aware of this. Do you have some documentation to support this? (Alternatively I'll do a little digging for myself.)

That's what I thought which is why I asked for confirmation.

[WindyMills]

tankplanker said:

I'm not suggesting that the state pension be scrapped for those with inadequate private pension provision just that it be removed for those who do not really need it. Also that those who are close to retirement age could afford to wait a couple years more if we are expecting those in twenty years time a few more years as well.

Where do you draw the line?

I earn slightly above the regional average and struggle to put 10% into my investments.

On my (very) crude pension spreadsheet, if I assume the same growth from the last decade as indicative, it will be worth slightly more than state pension at 70.

If, because I earned slightly more than average, or, because I struggled to save for a pension, removes the state pension from me, and gives it to those who spunked it away on TVs, holidays, etc, how is that fair?

[Rovinghawk]

WindyMills said:

If, because I earned slightly more than average, or, because I struggled to save for a pension, removes the state pension from me, and gives it to those who spunked it away on TVs, holidays, etc, how is that fair?

Add the fact that those who earn more pay more into the system via tax. Surely they have a greater entitlement to a pension than those who have contributed nothing.

[Hoofy]

Rovinghawk said:

Hoofy said:

If you're talking about 60-somethings in the future ie those in their 30s and 40s, they will probably be able to use whatever new version of Excel exists in 20-30 years' time. And those who are coding apps now will happily be able to code apps for whatever devices exist in 20-30 years' time.

For one start up I'm involved with, I'm both the oldest and the most technically capable. I usually have to provide support when the others are struggling. And our external tech support guy is about 5 years older than me.

We can't all just tap away at computers- someone somewhere will actually have to do something in the real world.

Ha, yes, well, let's see what kinds of jobs are out there in 30 years' time. http://time.com/4742543/robots-jobs-machines-work/

[Digga]

Hoofy said:

Rovinghawk said:

Hoofy said:

If you're talking about 60-somethings in the future ie those in their 30s and 40s, they will probably be able to use whatever new version of Excel exists in 20-30 years' time. And those who are coding apps now will happily be able to code apps for whatever devices exist in 20-30 years' time.

For one start up I'm involved with, I'm both the oldest and the most technically capable. I usually have to provide support when the others are struggling. And our external tech support guy is about 5 years older than me.

We can't all just tap away at computers- someone somewhere will actually have to do something in the real world.

Ha, yes, well, let's see what kinds of jobs are out there in 30 years' time. http://time.com/4742543/robots-jobs-machines-work/

Intelligent machine psychologist. It's the future.

[tankplanker]

WindyMills said:

Where do you draw the line?

I earn slightly above the regional average and struggle to put 10% into my investments.

On my (very) crude pension spreadsheet, if I assume the same growth from the last decade as indicative, it will be worth slightly more than state pension at 70.

If, because I earned slightly more than average, or, because I struggled to save for a pension, removes the state pension from me, and gives it to those who spunked it away on TVs, holidays, etc, how is that fair?

I would expect a sliding scale reduction of state pension based on overall income once you hit retirement age that meant you were still better off for having the private pension (or part time job or similar) than you would be for just having the state pension.

Rovinghawk said:

Add the fact that those who earn more pay more into the system via tax. Surely they have a greater entitlement to a pension than those who have contributed nothing.

A small part of your tax/NI has gone towards paying for your grand parents generation to have a retirement.

See my statement on they got theirs so I want mine. Seems a little telling that as long as it applies to somebody else cuts to benefits and services are welcome.

[PurpleMoonlight]

Rovinghawk said:

Thanks- I wasn't aware of this. Do you have some documentation to support this? (Alternatively I'll do a little digging for myself.)

I think the intention was announced when the SPA was moved from 65 to 67 a few years ago.

[Welshbeef]

State pension
NHS
Police
Fire service

Have to be universal.

This means testing already exists it's called income tax thresholds. Or are people on here actually suggesting in addition to income tax thresholds and LTA thresholds then there is a further tax to reduce it further?

If so who the fk will bother to save for a private pension - is request my employer (currently defined benefit) to simply pay me he % they match currently into my base salary and I can then do as I please with the money.


Some very daft ideas being thrown about here plenty being envy politics.
Others suggesting that it's only "physical" hard workers who should get to retire early/get state pension early but totally overlooking he fact stress is a massive contributor to dementia which is a more white collar worker "less physical/non physical" job.



Also this taxing will hurt our nurses policemen firemen teachers those who have added so much to society you then punish them how bizarre.

[200Plus Club]

my comments about people in "physically destructive" ie labour intensive work is that some planning needs to be done if they are to work to 70 or even 75, because from 60 and up they tend to be falling ill due to joint wear, impairment etc. no one is suggesting they should retire early and just stop, but there should be planning for alternative ways of working to ensure they are still productive if needed rather than having to go onto sickness benefit etc.
Re-training, or other avenues of work need to be thought about. in a 1000 yrs maybe a robot will be doing their job, but until then give that heavy labouring work to the younger able workers and then move these people into work they could perhaps do until 70.

at present, unfortunately there will be a lot of people claiming benefits as they will be unable to continue. i see this daily at present, and the ever increasing pension age is only one aspect.

[sidicks]

200Plus Club said:

my comments about people in "physically destructive" ie labour intensive work is that some planning needs to be done if they are to work to 70 or even 75, because from 60 and up they tend to be falling ill due to joint wear, impairment etc. no one is suggesting they should retire early and just stop, but there should be planning for alternative ways of working to ensure they are still productive if needed rather than having to go onto sickness benefit etc.
Re-training, or other avenues of work need to be thought about. in a 1000 yrs maybe a robot will be doing their job, but until then give that heavy labouring work to the younger able workers and then move these people into work they could perhaps do until 70.

at present, unfortunately there will be a lot of people claiming benefits as they will be unable to continue. i see this daily at present, and the ever increasing pension age is only one aspect.

Or those people could plan for themselves, rather than expect the State to do it for them!

[PurpleMoonlight]

sidicks said:

Or those people could plan for themselves, rather than expect the State to do it for them!

It would help if the state offered some flexibility. It permits state pension to be taken late but not taken early.

[sidicks]

PurpleMoonlight said:

It would help if the state offered some flexibility. It permits state pension to be taken late but not taken early.

Fair enough, but selection effects would be important in how this is priced!

[Welshbeef]

What if medically / genetically Your life expectancy is 68yo can those get state pension kicking in from 48? As is they are saying average age 88yo so 20years in retirement.


How about those who are terminally ill - early in life but at best have 10 years to go (say they are 20yo for example) why shouldn't these poor individuals if they choose to work not pay anything towards state pension as for them it's a known fact they will die decades before state pension age not just a chance of an accident.

[tankplanker]

Welshbeef said:

State pension
NHS
Police
Fire service

Have to be universal.

This means testing already exists it's called income tax thresholds. Or are people on here actually suggesting in addition to income tax thresholds and LTA thresholds then there is a further tax to reduce it further?

If so who the fk will bother to save for a private pension - is request my employer (currently defined benefit) to simply pay me he % they match currently into my base salary and I can then do as I please with the money.

Some very daft ideas being thrown about here plenty being envy politics.

Also this taxing will hurt our nurses policemen firemen teachers those who have added so much to society you then punish them how bizarre.

I'm not the one conflating what is a work derived pension such as Fire Service or Police that is part of the total employment cost for each employee with a universal benefit such as State Pension. How they are funded for pension payments is very different, and there have been significant changes to the way the former pension schemes operate around contributions and level of future benefits. The State Pension remains a straight Ponzi scheme and no changes in sight to address this fundamental issue.

Paying somebody a State Pension then taxing them afterwards is incredibly inefficient as we have two departments managing completely separate systems. Instead it should be operating similar to the personal tax allowance with "refunds" for those not paying enough tax to use all of the allowance.

If we had no sizable shortfall in the public accounts at present but one projected for the future then reducing future expenditure would be the logical thing to do. As we have a sizable shortfall now then why aren't we addressing this now with one of the largest single areas of public expenditure?

[SunsetZed]

tankplanker said:

I would expect a sliding scale reduction of state pension based on overall income once you hit retirement age that meant you were still better off for having the private pension (or part time job or similar) than you would be for just having the state pension.

That wouldn't work though for anyone who had pensions that weren't wholly converted into annuities though. Means testing a pension is a really tricky one with pensions freedom, you have to look at assets rather than income but then which assets do you include, e.g. is a primary house, second home included? Or do you solely look at money held in pension wrappers, and if so at what time, when the person is eligible for state pension or at 55 which (currently) is when it can be accessed.

[superkartracer]

eliot said:

Luckily I will have a house

Don't worry , they will tax you and pass your gift to the ones in need .

[tankplanker]

SunsetZed said:

That wouldn't work though for anyone who had pensions that weren't wholly converted into annuities though. Means testing a pension is a really tricky one with pensions freedom, you have to look at assets rather than income but then which assets do you include, e.g. is a primary house, second home included? Or do you solely look at money held in pension wrappers, and if so at what time, when the person is eligible for state pension or at 55 which (currently) is when it can be accessed.

As a broad brush I'd still expect anybody with complicated finances to be completing a self assessment and the difference collected at that point so anything that is a liability today would still apply. However I expect it is the detail around this that is one of the reasons why means testing hasn't been implemented. If you look at the half arsed way they means test child benefit and child tax credits then I expect them to fk it up the same way with pensions.

[mickmcpaddy]

What I really cant fathom is the government is more than happy to pay millions of dole scroungers every week, these people are young and could work if they wanted it to, some get hundreds of pounds a week, yet they begrudge giving an OAP a measly amount a week. The dole/made up illnesses payment etc should be the payment to be cut off, not the pension.

Surely its better that someone young starves to death because they were to bone idle to do anything about it and not an old person because they couldn't.

[Welshbeef]

tankplanker said:

'm not the one conflating what is a work derived pension such as Fire Service or Police that is part of the total employment cost for each employee with a universal benefit such as State Pension. How they are funded for pension payments is very different, and there have been significant changes to the way the former pension schemes operate around contributions and level of future benefits. The State Pension remains a straight Ponzi scheme and no changes in sight to address this fundamental issue.

Paying somebody a State Pension then taxing them afterwards is incredibly inefficient as we have two departments managing completely separate systems. Instead it should be operating similar to the personal tax allowance with "refunds" for those not paying enough tax to use all of the allowance.

If we had no sizable shortfall in the public accounts at present but one projected for the future then reducing future expenditure would be the logical thing to do. As we have a sizable shortfall now then why aren't we addressing this now with one of the largest single areas of public expenditure?

What 2 teams?

These already exist

1 is called HMRC it collects taxes
2 is called DW&P

We have a system called income tax which is universal and ensures as is in effect means testing.
I'll repeat my question are you and others genuinely suggesting means testing on top of income tax thresholds and LTA ? If so WFt and why?