Right Honorable Duncan Smith, MP

[Andrea S]

Company pensions, private pensions and savings towards retirement dreams are all based on having good health to be able to continue working. Long term sickness can have a devastating effect.

[Dark Knight]

Andrea
you gotta start somewhere and if I don't get them my wife will be well looked efter, with insurance, death benefits and a reduced pension from me, plus her own

[Quizzical Bob]

I can understand people being very defensive about pensions, but like many other benefits and perks, we as a nation simply cannot afford to carry on the way we are going.
so why not adopt a common sense approach to pensions and have a tired system, depending on you income, not savings etc
This way some would see a reduction, some would stay the same and some would be slightly better off.
My biggest issue with nthe whole scheme is people assuming that all their contributions are just sat there waiting for them to take back, which is way off the mark

Hello again DK;)

The contributions that were paid may not have been put into a shoebox labelled 'pension fund' but the government at the time spent them immediately with the explicit promise that there would be a state pension at the end of it all. To renege on that promise now would be a greater pension fraud than Robert Maxwell.

[Dark Knight]

QB

Round 2 ?
I still maintain a tiered, measured pension system is the way forward, given that many pensioners are much better off than their parents and much wealthier generally, why the need for a blanket paymnet of xx, to everyone, it makes no logical sense
People should be providing for their own future and the state providing a top up, for the lower paid people who could not match the high earners in terms of contributing to a pension.
some people will just not be able to garner a £200-300, 000 pension pot, as they simply could not earn enough in their jobs, some people will have well in excess of that, so why do the 2 recieve the same amount of pension?
by your logic, QB , the people who paid in the most in terms of taxes and NI , should get the most, which is fataly flawed and defeats the object of a state benefit/pension/perk

[Andrea S]

DK, It is vital to get plans in place as early as you can. I see too many young people who put the idea of pension plans to the back of their minds. The longer they leave it the harder it will be to recoup the lost years. Some don't even cover themselves with critical illness which nowadays needs to be high up on their necessity list.

My earlier post was referring to the fact that all good intentions can come tumbling down if long term sickness happens.

Without sounding 'old' , you have to look after number one cos no-one else will.

[Dark Knight]

Andrea, I joined a company pension as soon as I could at 18, when I moved companies after 12 years I put it into that companies final salary, that then closed after 14 years and I now bhave a pension that contributes 13% of my salary plus my own contributions
2 years ago Lady D and I had a major review of pensions, savings, insurance etc and as far as we could ,we were well provided for ,assuming all things are equal, which is a bloody big assumption but it's all we could do
Barring ill health or a major disaster, we have done as much as we could to secure our longer term finances and pensions etc but not everyone is able or willing to do the same

[sumdumbloke]

I can understand people being very defensive about pensions, but like many other benefits and perks, we as a nation simply cannot afford to carry on the way we are going.
so why not adopt a common sense approach to pensions and have a tired system, depending on you income, not savings etc
This way some would see a reduction, some would stay the same and some would be slightly better off.
My biggest issue with nthe whole scheme is people assuming that all their contributions are just sat there waiting for them to take back, which is way off the mark

Hello again DK;)

The contributions that were paid may not have been put into a shoebox labelled 'pension fund' but the government at the time spent them immediately with the explicit promise that there would be a state pension at the end of it all. To renege on that promise now would be a greater pension fraud than Robert Maxwell.

The government spent your taxes providing public services to you and everyone else. You keep restating the fact that you paid into a system with some implicit promises of 'return' and that's just not true. You paid tax at whatever rate prevailed, and probably did everything to keep that sum as low as possible (not just you but everyone)

The reason the issue of pensions raises such emotions is there has been a huge generational shift that is already grossly unfair, and in the next generation's eyes is made worse by the clamour to retain some fringe benefits that seem ridiculous to many of us. Many of the current generation of pensioners retired ridiculously early; some in their early fifties. The result is many will spend more years drawing a pension than they spent working and contributing (as someone else said, contributing at rates 1/3rd of that required).

People born only a decade later are then told they must work until they are 70, and then to expect a reduced pension when they do retire. This is true of state and private pensions (annuities are a joke now). The result is this massive discrepancy (which is so obviously unfair I'm still amazed people step up to defend it) whereby people of a broadly similar generation are treated so differently. The ones lucky enough to retire in their fifties sitting back and being kept for 40-50 years, by people still working longer than their own great grandfathers did.

This is the so-called baby-boomers generational theft, and the ill feeling it creates on both sides (I readily concede no current pensioner chose this calamity) will only get worse.

[Dark Knight]

SDB
you have cut to the heart of the issue, the current crop of pensioners are reaping the rewards, while future genrations will continue to pay long into the future, to support them, whilst getting nothing in return
anyone my age, 45, will be lucky to get anything but still have to pay for people who obviously do not need a state pension and retired early with an I'm alright jack attitude.
The baby boomers have had the best of it for years and it is high time it was curtiailed, as it is costing the state far too much and placing an unfair burdern on later generations

to my mind this is no different to capping any other benefit and they all appluaded when that happened but oddly will not see sense when it affects them, as I said before a tiered system is the only fair outcome

[Quizzical Bob]

I have lost count of my fellow baby boomers who have not survived to collect a pension. Life expectancy now is far higher than it was 30 or 40 years ago, that is to say that those retiring at 65 today will not live as long as those retiring in 30 years time. Today's younger generations are also enjoying the benefits of a society and infrastructure that was created by their predecessors.

I return to this point about contributions to pension through general taxation. It was said at the time that the government would not put the money aside in a separate fund, and judging by the so-called investment performance of the last few shambles that's probably a good thing, but would instead pay out the money later. That is exactly the same as borrowing from a pension fund and leaving an I.O.U. The UK pension system used to be the envy of he world until it was undermined by Gordon Brown's tax raid.

[Quizzical Bob]

QB

by your logic, QB , the people who paid in the most in terms of taxes and NI , should get the most, which is fataly flawed and defeats the object of a state benefit/pension/perk

That seems to me to be the ideal and most equitable system. As I said before, I don't consider a state pension as a benefit or a perk but rather a return for a lifetime of contributing to the running of the state.

[Dark Knight]

QB

I think this is the fundemental difference in our views
I see the state pension as a benefit and like every other benefit needs apportioning to the people who need it most, not to pensioners with an income above the average wage of £26,000 or higher, from other sources
Also you seem to see you taxes and NI as the government borrowing money off you, to give it back at a later date?
every generation enjoys a better standard of living than the previous one and if you use you argument, you benefited from the post war generation paying to rebuild the country , you benefited from their taxes and NI, but you seem intent on making a case that no should benefit from your contribution but you, whilst you have reaped the benefits of yur taxation in a much higher and better standard of living compared to your parents, so why begrudge the next generation the same?
you contributions are long gone and the people paying for your pension are the current working tax payers nobody else, but you cannot seem to accept that, which makes you argument faintly ridiculous

[Quizzical Bob]

So.... what about all those voluntary contributions such as SERPS, additional NI payments in order to reach a qualifying number of years?

[Quizzical Bob]

As to the other point, the clue is in the name: not for nothing was it called 'National Insurance'

[Mo2013]

As to the other point, the clue is in the name: not for nothing was it called 'National Insurance'

Quite.

[Dark Knight]

QB
what are you insuring against with your NI contribution, as to the other contributions been and gone
whatever way you cut it , your pension is a gift not a right and your contributions are long gone, just accept it, if this is the only basis for you discussion, it is a very thin one
bottom line, workers are paying for pensions, not pensioners ans as the number of workers decline, we are having to contribute more than ever to a part empty pot, sooner or later pensions from the state will stop unless they get sorted out properly and sitting back saying I am alright is not the way to solve anything

take a long look at Greece, they are broke, partly because they all retired at 50 and lived off the state and now are skint, that is the model you seem to advocate

[Quizzical Bob]

and SERPS?
and the additional NI?

[sumdumbloke]

and SERPS?
and the additional NI?

SERPS is no more. It was another scheme the baby boomers cancelled once it had paid out for them.

You keep saying NI as if the fact that it had the word 'insurance' in the title it meant 'your' money was being invested on your behalf. It never was. It went to pay for the NHS, the military etc etc. Any private provision you made is your pension as of right. State pension is a benefit like all the others, and like all the others, it has to be paid for by those working today.

[Manoverboard]

The State tells us that the State Pension is a ' right ' ... but not the amount.

The amount everybody gets is linked to the number of full years that the person paid in NI, NI is also income related so in this way the sums paid are fair and those that are poorer will have their contributions paid for them of course.

Changes and clawback will be cranked up over many many years and beyond my lifetime so the worker bees of this Country will just have to grin and bear it and the reason is simple .... State Pension since it's introduction is a vote winner, or loser.

ps ... thanks in anticipation DN but can you work a little bit harder next year cos my increase was a bit naff this year

[Quizzical Bob]

and SERPS?
and the additional NI?

SERPS is no more. It was another scheme the baby boomers cancelled once it had paid out for them.

You keep saying NI as if the fact that it had the word 'insurance' in the title it meant 'your' money was being invested on your behalf. It never was. It went to pay for the NHS, the military etc etc. Any private provision you made is your pension as of right. State pension is a benefit like all the others, and like all the others, it has to be paid for by those working today.

Insurance. That's exactly what it was when it started. The fact that successive modern government have purloined the money to pay for other pet schemes is irrelevant. Oh, and it predates the NHS by some 37 years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_I ... d_Kingdom)

[Dark Knight]

Well QB
you have just shot yourself in both feet ,as the first line of you defence says NI is used to pay for state BENEFITS

I rest my case

[oldbluefox]

Thank goodness for that DK!!!

[Quizzical Bob]

Well QB
you have just shot yourself in both feet ,as the first line of you defence says NI is used to pay for state BENEFITS

I rest my case

'and later state pensions and other benefits'

You may read that your way, I might read it another.

Have a good weekend!

[Kendhni]

QB
what are you insuring against with your NI contribution, as to the other contributions been and gone
whatever way you cut it , your pension is a gift not a right

There is a lot of misinformation on this thread. The state pension is NOT a 'gift' it is something we pay for through out our working life in the form of national insurance ... and those on welfare are deemed to have paid for it as well.

You are correct that our 'contributions are long gone' .. but the promise from the government (a contract?) that we are contributing towards our state pension remains. At the minute those paying NI or on welfare (?) do have a 'right' to the state pension. That money will come out of general taxation at the time.

However that is not to say that by the time we retire that will remain the case. There is growing evidence to suggest that within the next 10-20 years there will be a revolt by the next generation as they suddenly realise that they can not afford anything because they are paying for: our pensions; our debts; our abuse of the worlds resource. They may struggle to pay government commitments to our generation while maintaining their own standard of living. In particular the many of the public sector pension schemes are not currently funded and no provision has been made to fund them (plus Labours tactic of dumping the unemployed ontot he public sector has made things much worse ... when everybody was calling fro them to sort it out).

I am led to believe that in at least 2 other countries now the government has seized all pension assets. This should not be underestimated. This has meant all those that took a smug attitude thinking they had personal pensions (money purchase, final salary etc.) lost ALL their pension rights and ALL the money they had saved towards them ... and all those sitting smugly thinking they had bought their annuity suddenly found those assets seized as well.

In these instances there is only one pension and that is whatever the government decides to hand out.


My understanding is that this has also been discussed within the UK, but, so far, none of the parties consider it as a viable option ..... currently! That is not to say that it will not be considered necessary in the (not so distant) future

[Kendhni]

BTW, that is also why there is a cap on the maximum amount of NI that is paid ... those on higher salaries will probably have their own pension schemes and private medical ... such people contribution will be disproportionately high compared to what they will actually receive, so they already subsidise those on lower wages and benefits.

[sumdumbloke]

QB
what are you insuring against with your NI contribution, as to the other contributions been and gone
whatever way you cut it , your pension is a gift not a right

There is a lot of misinformation on this thread.

And more coming all the time....

That a Western government would confiscate private assets is a scare story too far. That's just never going to happen. I'd be interested to hear which countries have done it already, and what your evidence is for it having already been considered by UK government?