State Pension

There are in this world, those who want everyone to be happy and those who want everyone to be as miserable as themselves.

Frankly, I think most civil servants, whether local or national, deserve all the pay that they get. The only subgroup in public service, which I consider overpaid, are "senior management", who are generally earning between two and four times what I think their contribution is worth.
 
I left my last "permie" so called "secure" job in 2001 and went LTD company Contractor
I then spent the next 23 years until last year until taking early retirement at 54 working my ase off
in the private sector with people that were as above being paid low salaries with good pension schemes
but that is the way things are more risk higher reward, i was working for the MOD in 2016 earning over £70k per
year but with 1 weeks notice, no permies would do that....
 
munch said:
One could argue that my taxes were paying for your children's education. Maybe we are just seeking payback
Click to expand...
Your taxes were paying for your parents pension and healthcare, as are mine.
 
Last edited:
sirch said:
Your taxes were paying for your parents pension and healthcare, as are mine.
Click to expand...
My parents never got to live long enough to draw their pensions. My father certainly used the NHS healthcare as he went through cancer treatment, my mum not so much, as she had to pay for her accommodation, when her Alzheimer's meant she couldn't look after herself.
My taxes as yours do, basically go into a big pot and got used as the government see fit. We don't in reality pay any taxes or make NI contributions that go specifically for our benefit. The idea is the benefit is for everybody. Some do very well out of it others not so. So this thing about "mine and my working children's money" is to be honest laughable.
 
Last edited:
I’m still paying tax although retired (it is strangely beneficial), so I suppose it could be said I’m funding my own pension, seems those 90 hour weeks at work are paying off now in my works pension.
 
The thing is that pensions have changed since they came in - retire at 65, die by 75, lowish cost.

In theory why is our tax increasing and what we get back decreasing. In theory if the pop grows by 10% you have 10% added cost but 10% added in tax etc...

The big issue is that a pension should be available to all - just because you have worked hard, managed a mortgage, saved rather than spent, why should you be 'penalised' with someone who has spent their money getting it?
 
cambsno said:
The thing is that pensions have changed since they came in - retire at 65, die by 75, lowish cost.

In theory why is our tax increasing and what we get back decreasing. In theory if the pop grows by 10% you have 10% added cost but 10% added in tax etc...

The big issue is that a pension should be available to all - just because you have worked hard, managed a mortgage, saved rather than spent, why should you be 'penalised' with someone who has spent their money getting it?
Click to expand...

thats why workplace pensions are now such a good thing
people are forced to pay in from day one, future generations will have good pensions
topped up with the state one being a bonus
 
Mr Bump said:
thats why workplace pensions are now such a good thing
Click to expand...
I think that the Pensions Act 2008 is a mistake, which will come back to haunt us, as it widens the gap between the haves and the have-nots.

Far better to have merged national insurance contributions with income tax. The national pension scheme could be replaced by a payback system. This could take account of people choosing to work beyond pension age and having fluctuating income.
 
Mr Bump said:
thats why workplace pensions are now such a good thing
people are forced to pay in from day one, future generations will have good pensions
topped up with the state one being a bonus
Click to expand...
But you can withdraw from the scheme, I know of loads of people who did, and they did not have private pensions.
 
Mr Bump said:
thats why workplace pensions are now such a good thing
people are forced to pay in from day one, future generations will have good pensions
topped up with the state one being a bonus
Click to expand...
The reality is the most actually won't. Many of these company pensions are set up, just to meet the "requirements"(don't forget most people are employed by small companies, not large businesses, that can use the "good pension" as an incentive to work for them) they are often not well managed and the expected returns are actually not that good.
 
In regard to future planning.....

The job I had in the 1980's had a Pension Scheme that had I been able to or known better, I should have kept paying into it....................why, well it was an Annuity Scheme with a Guaranteed Annity Rate (GAR). Long story short.....I went searching for that lost pension. They had closed at some point and the 'book'/funds changed hands twice but I found the right company and it was very straightforward to get my long overdue pension from them which just about covers my fuel needs of the car each year.

Hence, if it were possible to have continued paying in to it the resultant pension might have been a little more useful ;) But to quote Tesco, every little helps :lol:
 
Pensions are an absolute mine field. There are so many types, so many different ways to get your money out. Niot helped by the government moving the goalposts for when you can get (and how much you will get)your state pension.
 
munch said:
The reality is the most actually won't. Many of these company pensions are set up, just to meet the "requirements"(don't forget most people are employed by small companies, not large businesses, that can use the "good pension" as an incentive to work for them) they are often not well managed and the expected returns are actually not that good.
Click to expand...

you are just such a negative person literally on every subject, christ all mighty
 
Mr Bump said:
thats why workplace pensions are now such a good thing
people are forced to pay in from day one, future generations will have good pensions
topped up with the state one being a bonus
Click to expand...
People aren’t forced to pay into them. In fact many opt out as they can’t afford it.
Those that stay in, don’t pay any more than the minimum which isn’t enough.
 
Craig1912 said:
People aren’t forced to pay into them. In fact many opt out as they can’t afford it.
Those that stay in, don’t pay any more than the minimum which isn’t enough.
Click to expand...

opting out is completly up to the individual but remember your employer has to contribute as below only a fool would opt out of free money

The 8% minimum contribution is typically made up of:

  • 5% from your wages: ( 4% from you +1% from the government in tax relief)
  • 3% on top from your employer.
 
Craig1912 said:
People aren’t forced to pay into them. In fact many opt out as they can’t afford it.
Those that stay in, don’t pay any more than the minimum which isn’t enough.
Click to expand...
Paying into my company pension was compulsory from age 18 and so very glad it was.
Lump sum and and index linked monthly pension, sadly closed to new entrants a fair few years ago.
These modern pensions should also be mandatory so those paying in don't need government aid when they retire.
Also so they can perhaps retire and enjoy life without hanging on to receive the state pension.
Its taken at source so what you never had you don't miss.
 
Last edited:
Mr Bump said:
opting out is completly up to the individual but remember your employer has to contribute as below only a fool would opt out of free money

The 8% minimum contribution is typically made up of:

  • 5% from your wages: ( 4% from you +1% from the government in tax relief)
  • 3% on top from your employer.
Click to expand...
I know what can be paid in (it’s not enough and paid on earnings over £6420) and there are many fools opting out. Even people in a better scheme like the NHS have opted and are opting out.
There needs to be some form of compulsion.
 
tijuana taxi said:
Paying into my company pension was compulsory from age 18 and so very glad it was.
Lump sum and and index linked monthly pension, sadly closed to new entrants a fair few years ago.
These modern pensions should also be mandatory so those paying in don't need government aid when they retire.
Also so they can perhaps retire and enjoy life without hanging on to receive the state pension.
Its taken at source so what you never had you don't miss.
Click to expand...
Completely agree. I’m now retired and have been in compulsory pension schemes all my working life (now retired). I don’t get my State pension for another three years but can easily live without it.
Both my sons have been encouraged to put money into pensions and whilst both in their 20’s have started to build up decent sums and hopefully won’t have to rely on the State Pension (if indeed there will be one in 50 years time!)
 
tijuana taxi said:
Paying into my company pension was compulsory from age 18 and so very glad it was.
Lump sum and and index linked monthly pension, sadly closed to new entrants a fair few years ago.
These modern pensions should also be mandatory so those paying in don't need government aid when they retire.
Also so they can perhaps retire and enjoy life without hanging on to receive the state pension.
Its taken at source so what you never had you don't miss.
Click to expand...

100% we do need to force regulation to pay in to pensions .
my nephew has just started as an apprentice for Hitachi last year and first thing was he said should I opt in to there pension scheme
everyone shouted YES
 
Craig1912 said:
Completely agree. I’m now retired and have been in compulsory pension schemes all my working life (now retired). I don’t get my State pension for another three years but can easily live without it.
Click to expand...
Same here, I retired just over 11 years ago and got my first state pension payment this January.
My wife is still very angry about her pensionable age being changed from 60 to 66.
 
Craig1912 said:
I don’t get my State pension for another three years but can easily live without it.
Click to expand...

I'm 55 so its 12 years till my state I have planned I shouldn't need it but hey will take it when it comes, might just give it to my daughter
 
Mr Bump said:
I'm 55 so its 12 years till my state I have planned I shouldn't need it but hey will take it when it comes, might just give it to my daughter
Click to expand...
That’s what my neighbour does, he splits the SP between his two boys.
 
The Workplace Pension is actually a good scheme for employees as they are effectively getting a minimum 3% growth boost, coupled with the growth from the investment choices of the provider (unless they epically fail). The downside is obviously the cost to the employer and the potential impact it may have on recruitment.

Pensions aren't quite so attractive now that the Exchequer Wrecker has brought them into the estate for IHT purposes. To have applied that retrospectively to a financial mechanism that locks people in with little room to change what will have been life long planning for many was a abhorrent move.

I can envisage the current lot in charge making the State Pension fully means tested.
 
gman said:
I can envisage the current lot in charge making the State Pension fully means tested.
Click to expand...
That's one way of getting the thing under control but I think a single tax and payback system would be simpler and much harder to mess about with, whether by government or by the taxpayer.
 
AndrewFlannigan said:
That's one way of getting the thing under control but I think a single tax and payback system would be simpler and much harder to mess about with, whether by government or by the taxpayer.
Click to expand...

Just throwing it out there, but I wonder if it would be cheaper for the Government to cover the employer's 3% and scrap the State Pension instead? If the employee contributions were high enough it could be made comparable to the SP. Obviously there would have to be provisions for gaps in employment and the full time workshy.

Speaking of payback systems, although not pension related, I'm sure I heard something about Singapore (or is it Hong Kong?) whereby people actually have to contribute into their own pot and then if they become unemployed they draw their welfare from their own pot - which means those in higher paid jobs will have contributed more but in turn will receive more.
 
gman said:
The Workplace Pension is actually a good scheme for employees as they are effectively getting a minimum 3% growth boost, coupled with the growth from the investment choices of the provider (unless they epically fail). The downside is obviously the cost to the employer and the potential impact it may have on recruitment.

Pensions aren't quite so attractive now that the Exchequer Wrecker has brought them into the estate for IHT purposes. To have applied that retrospectively to a financial mechanism that locks people in with little room to change what will have been life long planning for many was a abhorrent move.

I can envisage the current lot in charge making the State Pension fully means tested.
Click to expand...

I get the anger and personally think its wrong (IHT grab, certainly at the level it's at). But I don't think this will affect many people in terms of planning.

If you have 2m in you plan and you stay alive, nothing changes. Die, it all goes tax free to spouse. If no spouse then it does get split between (for arguments sake, 2 kids). Now, if you had assets of 1m PLUS 1m left of pension, that means that 1m is now subject to tax so the kids get a decent chunk less than they would have got. Seeing as many of don't know if we have 2, 10, 20 or 30 years left, it's hard to plan. Even if my pot was at 1m, I can reasonably expect to live 30 years and hopefully die when that pot has withered away!

Unless you specifically arranged your finances to ensure say each child gets 500k each at the end, then it won't affect. What is far worse is that if you have more than 20k you have to pay for care, wiping out what you have worked hard for while lazy Dave who has been on the dole half his life gets it all for free. Morally wrong!
 
Last edited:
cambsno said:
I get the anger and personally think its wrong (IHT grab, certainly at the level it's at). But I don't think this will affect many people in terms of planning.

If you have 2m in you plan and you stay alive, nothing changes. Die, it all goes tax free to spouse. If no spouse then it does get split between (for arguments sake, 2 kids). Now, if you had assets of 1m PLUS 1m left of pension, that means that 1m is now subject to tax so the kids get a decent chunk less than they would have got. Seeing as many of don't know if we have 2, 10, 20 or 30 years left, it's hard to plan. Even if my pot was at 1m, I can reasonably expect to live 30 years and hopefully die when that pot has withered away!

Unless you specifically arranged your finances to ensure say each child gets 500k each at the end, then it won't affect. What is far worse is that if you have more than 20k you have to pay for care, wiping out what you have worked hard for while lazy Dave who has been on the dole half his life gets it all for free. Morally wrong!
Click to expand...

You are changing it to current/future tense. For those who are nearing the end of their lives and already made all of their plans to look after their children/grand children (in particular to have a smidgen of a chance to buy a house), only to have this retrospectively put on them will very much have an impact.

Yes, there is the argument by the Exchequer Wrecker that the pension should be getting used whilst alive. Ok, if that is to be the case then fine, make it applicable to investments from this point on. It's the retrospective aspect that is abhorrent.
 
cambsno said:
What is far worse is that if you have more than 20k you have to pay for care, wiping out what you have worked hard for while lazy Dave who has been on the dole half his life gets it all for free. Morally wrong!
Click to expand...
While I totally agree with the moral argument here, hypoythetically what happens to lazy Dave if he's 75 and has Alzheimers, if the care provision is only based on what he's contributed? We can't just dump him on the street when his money runs out, despite him not being a deserving case. Or in another case: I've worked and contributed all my life but have no family, my pension runs out (except for the state one), my care costs would way exceed £850/month, do I get care?
There has to be a safety net, even for those who haven't contributed. albeit only the basics are offered by it. Have more get more.
 
lindsay said:
While I totally agree with the moral argument here, hypoythetically what happens to lazy Dave if he's 75 and has Alzheimers, if the care provision is only based on what he's contributed? We can't just dump him on the street when his money runs out, despite him not being a deserving case. Or in another case: I've worked and contributed all my life but have no family, my pension runs out (except for the state one), my care costs would way exceed £850/month, do I get care?
There has to be a safety net, even for those who haven't contributed. albeit only the basics are offered by it. Have more get more.
Click to expand...

My issue is not that I think the workshy shouldn't get care, but it's that those who have worked hard all their lives then have to pay for their own care if they have the assets/capital. Although there are ways around it, under the right circumstances and with careful timing so as to avoid the whole Deprivation of Assets trap.
 
gman said:
It's the retrospective aspect that is abhorrent.
Click to expand...
Totally agree with this, but it seems to be the style of all Chancellors to make retrospective tax decisions now: look at the Loan Charge, retroactive they called it, rather than retrospective - semantics, I had to pay over £100k that I wasn't liable for in 2009-12 because they brought that in in 2019 (Tories).
 
Having looked at care options a while back, I can say that the free option is bad. Even a grand a week doesn't get you much.
 
At the end of the day, when it comes to pensions and care, the question that has to be answered is: are we our brothers' keepers?

One would think that, in a supposedly Christian nation, the answer would be "yes". As someone who is an atheist, I am definitely in favour of that response. However, it seems that an awful lot of those who claim to follow the cross aren't so sure. :thinking:
 
Last edited:
gman said:
You are changing it to current/future tense. For those who are nearing the end of their lives and already made all of their plans to look after their children/grand children (in particular to have a smidgen of a chance to buy a house), only to have this retrospectively put on them will very much have an impact.

Yes, there is the argument by the Exchequer Wrecker that the pension should be getting used whilst alive. Ok, if that is to be the case then fine, make it applicable to investments from this point on. It's the retrospective aspect that is abhorrent.
Click to expand...

I know but even if you are 80, most don't know if they will last for 2, 5,10 or even 20 years so it's still hard to plan how much you will have left. I guess people in the past would have downsized house and spent savings rather than pension and left that alone as tax free thought. While I do agree with most of what you say, if I take my kids, they are now 68k worse off if I dropped dead next year than a year ago which is shocking, but they would still have enough to buy a 2 bed house outright each due to death in service and life insurance/house. I think its the 40% thats more immoral
 
gman said:
My issue is not that I think the workshy shouldn't get care, but it's that those who have worked hard all their lives then have to pay for their own care if they have the assets/capital. Although there are ways around it, under the right circumstances and with careful timing so as to avoid the whole Deprivation of Assets trap.
Click to expand...

Yes, this - am not saying Dave should die at home with no care but that I (for example) should not be forced to sell almost everything to pay for it. I mean, in simple terms, I am better off getting to 65 or so, selling everything, going on a 10 year cruise and then getting care for free, rather than living normally and paying for everything at 75
 
AndrewFlannigan said:
At the end of the day, when it comes to pensions and care, the question that has to be answered is: are we our brothers' keepers?

One would think that, in a supposedly Christian nation, the answer would be "yes". As someone who is an atheist, I am definitely in favour of that response. However, it seems that an awful lot of those who claim to follow the cross aren't so sure. :thinking:
Click to expand...

What about people like me, I only have a sister :p :p :p
 
cambsno said:
I know but even if you are 80, most don't know if they will last for 2, 5,10 or even 20 years so it's still hard to plan how much you will have left. I guess people in the past would have downsized house and spent savings rather than pension and left that alone as tax free thought. While I do agree with most of what you say, if I take my kids, they are now 68k worse off if I dropped dead next year than a year ago which is shocking, but they would still have enough to buy a 2 bed house outright each due to death in service and life insurance/house. I think its the 40% thats more immoral
Click to expand...

You still seem to be missing my key point. For many plans will have already been long made to pass on the pension either in full or the majority of it tax free as a little helping hand for the next generation, (because our Governments sure as hell aren't helping us). But now you will now have to start drawing it down as quickly as possible to get as much out as possible at the lower tax rate(s), but the thresholds will restrict how fast (or slowly) you can do this. Average life expectancy in the UK is 82, so the odds are highly against an 80 year old living long enough to fully minimise the IHT hit.

So her retrospective changes will have forced a lot of taxation onto people who have spend decades committing to a locked in mechanism long encouraged by Governments. It's a huge stab in the back and shatters trust.
 
AndrewFlannigan said:
At the end of the day, when it comes to pensions and care, the question that has to be answered is: are we our brothers' keepers?

One would think that, in a supposedly Christian nation, the answer would be "yes". As someone who is an atheist, I am definitely in favour of that response. However, it seems that an awful lot of those who claim to follow the cross aren't so sure. :thinking:
Click to expand...

Reminds me of a quandary that some Catholic people may have. If your son becomes a Priest, do you call him son, or father? :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top