1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

The Great Pension Scandal

Discussion in 'Speaker's Corner' started by Stretch, Apr 6, 2015.

  1. The_Abyss

    Capodecina

    Joined: May 15, 2007

    Posts: 11,074

    Location: Ipswich / Bodham

    The mentality is being changed, by automatically opting people in. The opt out rates are still acceptably low, so people are saving. Lethargy and apathy can be positive drivers for change. The intention was that people were originally opted in at the lower more affordable rate, and then when contribution rates automatically rose they'd see the value of saving and want to continue. The first part has worked - we're about to see if the next stage works too.
     
  2. antijoke

    Caporegime

    Joined: Jan 28, 2003

    Posts: 37,497

    Location: Stratford-Upon-Avon

    I don’t think my employer enrolled me in a private fund
     
  3. Stretch

    Capodecina

    Joined: Feb 14, 2004

    Posts: 11,254

    Location: Cambridge

  4. platypus

    Caporegime

    Joined: Jul 25, 2003

    Posts: 38,850

    Location: Rhône-Alpes+Cambridge

    Sorry I meant in the short term.
     
  5. KingOfTheDaves

    Gangster

    Joined: Feb 1, 2012

    Posts: 361

    Location: Manchester

    Think the litmus test for NEST/auto enrolment will be next April when employee conts increase to 5%. I can see the opt out numbers jumping significantly at that point.
     
  6. Mercenary Keyboard Warrior

    Sgarrista

    Joined: Aug 4, 2007

    Posts: 8,225

    Location: Wilds of suffolk

    Very true, problem is thats still a fraction of the amount people need to save
    But small steps and all that
     
  7. KingOfTheDaves

    Gangster

    Joined: Feb 1, 2012

    Posts: 361

    Location: Manchester

    I completely agree.

    I just think people who have very little pensions knowledge (especially lower earners) will just think 'I've got a pension, if I increase my conts I will still only have a pension' They don't understand the difference between paying 1% and 5%, they assume it's like the State Pension where (if you have enough years) it is a flat amount.
     
  8. The_Abyss

    Capodecina

    Joined: May 15, 2007

    Posts: 11,074

    Location: Ipswich / Bodham

    The outlook is pretty bleak. People won't be scared into saving more, and they're already incentivised to save. There's no time to make a change in understanding and education either.
     
  9. Faustus

    Soldato

    Joined: Mar 20, 2007

    Posts: 5,314

    Err! NO, we just receive what the rules state we should receive no more no less. To qualify for a full state pension you have to have 35 years paying full stamp - I have 49 years. Under the old system you could get more pension for the increased amount of years. That changed in 2015 so as a result a great many people (including myself) have paid far to much into the system - in my case 14 years.

    I won't receive the full state pension as I was contracted out and I won't get back those 14 years extra NI contributions either. I think the government are the rob dogs here not the ordinary working man or women.
     
  10. KingOfTheDaves

    Gangster

    Joined: Feb 1, 2012

    Posts: 361

    Location: Manchester

    oh look more Faustus lies

    Under the old system you needed to have 44 years NI conts (for men) and 39 years (for women) in order to get the full state pension. This was then reduced to 30 in order to increase the number of people who qualify for a full state pension. It was then subsequently increased to 35 years as it was felt 30 was too generous. This was absolutely not about screwing over Faustus, it was solely about improving peoples retirement provisions. A good thing too.

    And another Faustus lie, since the state pension switched to single tier in 2015 a check is made when a person reaches state pension age and you get the higher of the single tier or the state pension you would have got under the old basis (basic state pension plus state 2nd pension).

    So if you have a lot of contracted out years you will actually be better off. Google COPE payments.

    Yet another post where Faustus plays hard done by, but is nothing of the sort.
     
  11. Faustus

    Soldato

    Joined: Mar 20, 2007

    Posts: 5,314

    Err no! it's dependent on when you were born and if you were contracted out or not.

    Lie you say, how so? I've paid 49 years contributions when I only needed 35 years - fact. The government has admitted some people will lose out but this was the fairest way to deal with this anomaly.

    If I had been born a bit earlier my pension would have been even less. I will not however get the current £159 per week despite 49 years contributions.
     
  12. KingOfTheDaves

    Gangster

    Joined: Feb 1, 2012

    Posts: 361

    Location: Manchester

    That's because you haven't paid full NI conts. You didn't put the full amount in, you don't get the full amount out.

    Why should you get the same as someone who has paid in more?
     
  13. The_Abyss

    Capodecina

    Joined: May 15, 2007

    Posts: 11,074

    Location: Ipswich / Bodham

    You do realise that National Insurance contributions support quite a lot more than just the State Pension? And that people pay different amounts each year according to their income? Is this also "rob dogs" or losing out? As you say, you contracted out of your full entitlement, so you didn't have 49 years full contribution.
     
  14. Faustus

    Soldato

    Joined: Mar 20, 2007

    Posts: 5,314

    The amounts I paid in (probably higher than average) over 49 years would quite easily match and probably exceed the non contracted out 35 year requirement. So yes I still say 'rob dogs'

    BTW my NI record online does state 49 full payment years - no missing years. I think I've more than earned my retirement.
     
  15. The_Abyss

    Capodecina

    Joined: May 15, 2007

    Posts: 11,074

    Location: Ipswich / Bodham

    Unfortunately for you, the system doesn't work like that. You've subsidised the payment of someone else's State Pension as a result, and your emotive response is to say that you were robbed. How do you think the workers currently subsidising your defined benefit pension feel?
     
  16. Faustus

    Soldato

    Joined: Mar 20, 2007

    Posts: 5,314

    So we can agree then? Not only will I be receiving a state pension that is affordable, I will be subsidising another person's pension both through overpayment of my NI plus income tax which I will continue to pay.

    I do feel better knowing I am helping someone else, so do I feel bitter - NO.
     
  17. Mr Badger

    Soldato

    Joined: Dec 27, 2009

    Posts: 6,011

    So your argument that you are only receiving your entitlement under the rules of the state pension scheme, now includes complaining that you could/should/would get even more if the rules were changed in your favour.
     
  18. Faustus

    Soldato

    Joined: Mar 20, 2007

    Posts: 5,314

    I'm saying that under the pre-2015 rules you would have got more depending on the amount of N.I. contributions. I'm reasonably happy knowing all those extra years haven't been wasted and confirming that my state pension under the new rules is 'value for money' for the taxpayer, of which I am also one. It's a win win for HMRC.
     
  19. Mr Badger

    Soldato

    Joined: Dec 27, 2009

    Posts: 6,011

    Maybe that makes more sense to someone else, however I continue to get the impression from your posts that you don't really understand pensions.
     
  20. Faustus

    Soldato

    Joined: Mar 20, 2007

    Posts: 5,314

    I understand it gets paid into my bank account monthly and it's continuation is my main priority. Do I think it is over generous? Well given it's one of the worst in the developed world, absolutely not.