Major (Stealth) pension changes to penalise mixed aged couples

Caporegime
Joined
18 Mar 2008
Posts
32,747
The only demographic to have a triple locked financial and they dare to moan about this? Pfft.

Maybe it'll stop all these awkward 50 year gap "marriages" that seem to be hip for some particularly gross men.
 
Soldato
Joined
1 Mar 2010
Posts
14,371
Location
5 degrees starboard
As has been said, this is nothing to do with state pensions, it is solely to do with people who do not have pension entitlement due to lack of workplace national insurance contribution. Most pensioners will get £150+ per week based on contributions, I do. Because I have also made workplace provision, I have my own additional pension income.

I agree with the changes on the basis that it is made on.
 
Permabanned
Joined
3 Nov 2018
Posts
708
Location
The other side of The Gap
Why should someone who is working age and not in gainful employment (claiming benefits) not be required to 'look for work' just because their partner has reached state pension age? There will be no work conditionality for the person who has reached state pension age.
What makes you think they find "gainful" employment? Chances are they are nearing retirement age themselves and find that if they are out of work there is no"gainful" employment. There maybe some zero hours or part time work but "gainful"?
 
Soldato
Joined
30 Aug 2006
Posts
8,317
Triple lock of a pathetic state pension? Big deal.
The "pathetic" state pension costs the government £75bn a year so a rise of only a couple of percent costs billions. The introduction of the triple lock made absolutely no sense during a time where cuts were being made to government expenditure. The state pension should be tracking inflation and that's it. Fortunately since its introduction in 2011 I suspect inflation has outstripped or was very close to the other two measures so I would guess the triple lock hasn't cost us too much in reality, but that doesn't take away from the policy being nonsense.
 
Soldato
Joined
19 Oct 2008
Posts
5,951
The indications are there for a long time. If you want to retire at a reasonable age, you need to save your own money.
Many are in for a shock when they become unwell, or unable to hold a full time job leading up to their retirement age. But worse than that, many just psychological won't want to work anymore yet will be forced to. In many cases it'll be because they failed to prepare for their own future
 
Last edited:
Associate
Joined
11 Apr 2006
Posts
827
Location
Yorkshire
The indications are there for a long time. If you want to retire at a reasonable age, you need to save you're own money.
Many are in for a shock when they become unwell, or unable to hold a full time job leading up to their retire age. But worse than that, many just psychological won't want to work anymore yet will be forced to. In many cases it'll be because they failed to prepare for their own future
Ditto.

As the son of a immigrant who came here with £7, he learnt the state would do nothing/the bare minimum. He taught us to shape our own destiny. Why do people not plan their own safety net? People just make bad decisions and point the finger at the government instead. Pathetic attitudes.
 
Permabanned
Joined
3 Nov 2018
Posts
708
Location
The other side of The Gap
The "pathetic" state pension costs the government £75bn a year so a rise of only a couple of percent costs billions. The introduction of the triple lock made absolutely no sense during a time where cuts were being made to government expenditure. The state pension should be tracking inflation and that's it. Fortunately since its introduction in 2011 I suspect inflation has outstripped or was very close to the other two measures so I would guess the triple lock hasn't cost us too much in reality, but that doesn't take away from the policy being nonsense.
It's still pathetic.
 
Soldato
Joined
11 Nov 2009
Posts
4,784
Location
Edinburgh
I think somewhere that the DWP say that if your partner is under pensionable age then they should either be working or looking for work which is a joke.
After getting through cancer at the age of 55 I found that ageism is alive and well in Britain or at least Scotland where I am and I never even got to interview stage let alone an actual job. I was prepared to work for a lower wage and of course have much experience but it counted for zilch.
It used to be that you could get a job as a security guard or similar but now you need so many expensive certificates that it really becomes impractical.
Fortunately I am now 65 so no longer need to think about working though I do a bit of voluntary down my local cat and dog home.
 
Soldato
Joined
7 Nov 2005
Posts
4,955
Location
Widnes
We say government, really it's how much would you like your fellow working age citizens who are paying tax to dish out
Well, that was kind of my point. Unfortunately we have always spent whatever we bring in (or more), unlike countries like Norway which banked its oil tax and then use it to generate long term income via a sovereign wealth fund.

The Government are pushing private pensions so much because they need people to save.
 
Soldato
Joined
10 May 2012
Posts
10,062
Location
Leeds
Well, that was kind of my point. Unfortunately we have always spent whatever we bring in (or more), unlike countries like Norway which banked its oil tax and then use it to generate long term income via a sovereign wealth fund.

The Government are pushing private pensions so much because they need people to save.

It's not really fair to compare pretty much any country to Norway, they have a small population and are very rich in natural resources. There's no way the UK could be like Norway if we just "banked our oil money".
 
Permabanned
Joined
3 Nov 2018
Posts
708
Location
The other side of The Gap
How much would you like the Government to dish out?
The government? Dish out? The pension is a contributory benefit, it's not dished out, it's yours, it's not money for nothing.
What we're all worth, in line with equal european countries would do...

alternative.jpg
 
Soldato
Joined
10 May 2012
Posts
10,062
Location
Leeds
The government? Dish out? The pension is a contributory benefit, it's not dished out, it's yours, it's not money for nothing.
What we're all worth, in line with equal european countries would do...

alternative.jpg

https://fullfact.org/europe/pensioners-eu-uk/

You're quoting maximum figures for each country, so essentially in France and Germany you can pay more into the state pension and you'll get more out of it, where as in the UK most people pay into a private pension to top up their state pension.
 
Caporegime
Joined
29 Jan 2008
Posts
58,912
The government? Dish out? The pension is a contributory benefit, it's not dished out, it's yours, it's not money for nothing.

Well it sort of is for the people these changes are going to affect it seems... I suspect if it was simply based on the money they'd paid in then they'd be substantially worse off.
 
Soldato
Joined
1 Mar 2010
Posts
14,371
Location
5 degrees starboard
https://fullfact.org/europe/pensioners-eu-uk/

You're quoting maximum figures for each country, so essentially in France and Germany you can pay more into the state pension and you'll get more out of it, where as in the UK most people pay into a private pension to top up their state pension.

Quite, my state pension is £163pw, my total pension is ~£500pw including private pensions.
 
Soldato
Joined
7 Nov 2005
Posts
4,955
Location
Widnes
The government? Dish out? The pension is a contributory benefit, it's not dished out, it's yours, it's not money for nothing.
What we're all worth, in line with equal european countries would do...

The State Pension is a benefit. It is not a contribution scheme. You don't get a pot when you retire based on what amount you have contributed (though the level is based on how long you have contribution). You have no say as to how it is invested or can you range your payment based on the amount you have put in. In reality, taxes pay current pensions rather than contribute to a pot.

Your map is easily dismissed as it is based on state pension PLUS additional contribution schemes. Not comparable at all.
 
Back
Top Bottom