State pension - worth it?

inferno

inferno

inferno

Associate
Joined
23 May 2004
Posts
2,185
Hi guys,

I live abroad and enquired about my national insurance contributions, they told me I can pay roughly £700 a year back dated from 2009 and then continue with it, my question is, is it worth it? I think I'll do it, but many people have said it won't be worth anything when you come to retire, I'm 27 now.

How much are we looking at it being worth a month when I come to retire? £700 now for £119 a week seems pretty good going to me?

Cheers
 
It is now 30 or 35 years of contributions you need to have made for full pension?
If you can buy a years contributions for 700, how many years in total will it give you?
Have you zero contributions to date? 2009-2016, 8 years? going for 9 when April Ends.
How will you make future contributions if living abroad, and weirdly how does this work that you are entitled to do so at all?
Can any citizen pay contributions and live anywhere?
You'll likely be 69 or 70 before you can start claiming btw. Fair distance away, depending on how many years for max contributions, might be worth waiting, as you still have the years available in which to contibute.
 
35 years now for a maximum state pension. From what I can remember from my pre-retirement course, if you have less than 10 years (someone might correct me) you don't get any State Pension.

What they also don't tell you is if you've been in full time education between 16 and 18 (i.e Sixth form) you get two years National Insurance contributions credited for those years.

If you want a Pension forecast visit

https://www.gov.uk/check-state-pension

All sorts of details about the State Pension can be found at

https://www.gov.uk/browse/working/state-pension
 
Is there any guarantee that the state pension wont become 'means tested' in the future? Seems an obvious way to slash the deficit and am surprised it hasnt been brought up yet for debate etc.
 
rubberduck said:
Is there any guarantee that the state pension wont become 'means tested' in the future? Seems an obvious way to slash the deficit and am surprised it hasnt been brought up yet for debate etc.
Click to expand...

Hikari Kisugi said:
Singular guarantee, I will publically execute the minister who brings in such an act, if mine's all paid for and they do that.
Personal promise ;) Satisfaction guaranteed.
Click to expand...

i think that's that question answered :D
 
Hikari Kisugi said:
Singular guarantee, I will publically execute the minister who brings in such an act, if mine's all paid for and they do that.
Personal promise ;) Satisfaction guaranteed.
Click to expand...

Considering that they are reducing benefits for the most vulnerable people in society making state pension means tested seems like a fair way for the reasonably well off to do their bit to help society. The state pension is by far the biggest expense that the welfare state has to pay. It is something like 45% of the total welfare state bill.
 
It would be political suicide to make the pension means tested, people have "paid" into their state pension during their working life.

They need to first do away with NI first to break the link between paying tax and earning a state pension. Only once that's done and sufficient time has passed to the point that new workers entering the job market haven't made NI contributions, then they might make the state pension means tested.
 
Cromulent said:
Considering that they are reducing benefits for the most vulnerable people in society making state pension means tested seems like a fair way for the reasonably well off to do their bit to help society. The state pension is by far the biggest expense that the welfare state has to pay. It is something like 45% of the total welfare state bill.
Click to expand...

Yes and if I've paid in for 50 years on the basis I will be getting such, having paid taxes all my life at the higher rate under the guise I was helping society, then no. What are saying is utter rot. It isn't remotely fair. Those who didn't contribute get, and those who did get means tested, catch yourself on, stand beside the minister while I stream this to youtube, google and facebook.
 
i could be wrong on this but if you are unemployed for pretty much all your life then you still get the full state pension. (you get NI credits when you are signing on)
 
You are not wrong. Never do anything, never contribute anything, win.
I don't know too many career job dodgers, but I am aware of a few.
They always manage to be exempt.
 
With the current funding issues and ever ageing population I can see either a new social service / nhs tax top up coming in (national or local) or perhaps the way to go is to get rid of NI, move it to general taxation and have pensions mean tested.

Tbh I'll be amazed if the state pension is still around by the time I retire.
 
Hikari Kisugi said:
Yes and if I've paid in for 50 years on the basis I will be getting such, having paid taxes all my life at the higher rate under the guise I was helping society, then no. What are saying is utter rot. It isn't remotely fair. Those who didn't contribute get, and those who did get means tested, catch yourself on, stand beside the minister while I stream this to youtube, google and facebook.
Click to expand...

Taxation is meant to pay for everything, Your tax has paid for lots of things that you have benefited from. Removing a state pension because you are already rich enough to survive doesn't stop you from benefiting from other areas that your tax has paid for. You get the NHS, education, child care, policing, roads, defence, waste disposal and many other areas that you get the benefit of from collective funding of services. People who are really vulnerable need our help. It is our duty as good citizens to help these people. Even Hitler, Mussolini and Oswald Mosley acknowledged the fact that society had to help the vulnerable and the poor. So if they can accept that fact (and lets be honest they were pretty extreme in their right wing political beliefs) I don't see why other can't accept that fact.

You might argue that because they don't pay they are not entitled to these things but that isn't how the welfare state system works. The whole point of the welfare state system is to help the poor. It is not there to help the rich. They don't need any help.
 
Cromulent said:
Taxation is meant to pay for everything, Your tax has paid for lots of things that you have benefited from. Removing a state pension because you are already rich enough to survive doesn't stop you from benefiting from other areas that your tax has paid for. You get the NHS, education, child care, policing, roads, defence, waste disposal and many other areas that you get the benefit of from collective funding of services. People who are really vulnerable need our help. It is our duty as good citizens to help these people. Even Hitler, Mussolini and Oswald Mosley acknowledged the fact that society had to help the vulnerable and the poor. So if they can accept that fact (and lets be honest they were pretty extreme in their right wing political beliefs) I don't see why other can't accept that fact.

You might argue that because they don't pay they are not entitled to these things but that isn't how the welfare state system works. The whole point of the welfare state system is to help the poor. It is not there to help the rich. They don't need any help.
Click to expand...

When they call it tax, they can claim such.
When they tell me I am getting a state pension credit for each year I pay them copious amounts of national insurance, then they can damn well give me the credit, and in return give me the pension when I reach the age they defer it until.
When I started working I was retiring at 60, now I am retiring at 68, and potentially higher.
I think the extra taxation they get off me in those additional 8-10 years on top of what I've already contributed can afford to fund the state pension for the remaining years of my existence.

How vulnerable can the vulnerable be when they make it to seventy years of age, they've significant experience of not dying all on their own by that point, and I mean comparable people.
I haven't said take it away from them. You might reference Hitler but your strawman means nothing, I didn't say take it away from them, I said don't dare take it from me, when I pay for it.
I might argue whatever I like with respect to contributions, but if I paid and have paid as I do, I expect at the end to get what was promised to me. That is how the state pension works.
You can run for parliament, get elected and introduce means testing if you wish, but you might find someone will end your genetic line when you do.
 
Brenn47 said:
Out of interest, what do all the migrants who come here get who have no hope in getting 35 years of NIC contributions?
Click to expand...
As soon as you past 10 years, you get a proportion of the state pension.
I am not certain if it works out as years/35 of the total, or if there is a sliding scale, but one they've done 10 years, there will be payments by the state for that contribution when the person reaches retirement age. Currently location doesn't affect payout, nor does it factor for the winter fuel payment and hardship payment.
 
Hikari Kisugi said:
When they call it tax, they can claim such.
When they tell me I am getting a state pension credit for each year I pay them copious amounts of national insurance, then they can damn well give me the credit, and in return give me the pension when I reach the age they defer it until.
When I started working I was retiring at 60, now I am retiring at 68, and potentially higher.
I think the extra taxation they get off me in those additional 8-10 years on top of what I've already contributed can afford to fund the state pension for the remaining years of my existence.

How vulnerable can the vulnerable be when they make it to seventy years of age, they've significant experience of not dying all on their own by that point, and I mean comparable people.
I haven't said take it away from them. You might reference Hitler but your strawman means nothing, I didn't say take it away from them, I said don't dare take it from me, when I pay for it.
I might argue whatever I like with respect to contributions, but if I paid and have paid as I do, I expect at the end to get what was promised to me. That is how the state pension works.
You can run for parliament, get elected and introduce means testing if you wish, but you might find someone will end your genetic line when you do.
Click to expand...

That is a fair argument and I would be inclined the agree with it if it weren't for one thing. The government is trying to cut the welfare state bill and in order to do so rather than targeting the rich they are targeting the poor which I think is disgraceful. If the government was trying to reduce the bill by targeting all levels of society I wouldn't have a problem with it but they are not. They are attacking minorities who do not have the power to fight back for themselves. If they said that they wanted to save say 10% on disability payments, 20% on child benefit payments and 10% on state pension payments I would consider that fair (there are other areas which they could save money as well which I haven't mentioned). At the moment all they are doing is attacking people with disabilities.
 
Not entirely accurate, they did take child benefit away from higher earners no matter what household income was. Those earning 100K between 2 get all their benefit, those earning 60k on one, get zero.
It was their first method of cutting, people seem to forget.
 
But surely if someone is getting (let's say) 25k+ per year from their private pension it's fair to say they could probably scrape by without a state pension.
 
rubberduck said:
But surely if someone is getting (let's say) 25k+ per year from their private pension it's fair to say they could probably scrape by without a state pension.
Click to expand...

No, not when you have told them, and they have paid for at least 35 years that they would be getting it.
Not fair at all.
Now if you remove NI, remove contributions to pension, make it all simply means tested, and give a national minimum income, and change the tax bands accordingly, then fine.
Do that, and introduce it, in forty or fifty years time, for those starting now, you shouldn't change it backwards, just, 'because'.
People pay these thing, people have plans and expectations.
Change the rules after, and the minister and his family get executed. No more genetics from that line.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom