What to do without a pension?

Spencer2009

My sister worked here for 8 years then lived in America, but has no right to claim pension

I lived and worked all my adult life in the UK (left my home country aged 19, straight after school). Now back in home country, I get my UK pension, State and teacher's- which is much much lower (less than a quarter!) + the exchange rate has fallen sharply since our move. I am of course not entitled to my home country pension, why should I. A total pain, but is is what it is.

The problem for you is not only not working long enough in the UK, but probably working undeclared. This is a terrible situation to be in, but, honestly, what did you think would happen? That you could just return and get pension? Truly don't want to be unsympathetic, but I am amazed you didn't think about this before?

Doodledog

The social care system is a disgrace. It seems to me that sorting it out would almost guarantee whichever party did it millions of votes.

Well, it was 'sorted out' - kinda!

An elemental change in the 90s when the NHS and Community Care act demanded that local authorities commission services - rather than provide them directly. Which resulted around 2010 with virtually all previously run LA services - privatised.

The fragmented combination of public and private care is a hugely complicating factor. As is the army of “invisible” (largely female) carers working – unpaid – to support family members and friends at home, without acknowledgement or support.
(Source: online journal CONVERSATION - one of the articles commissioned to mark the 75th anniversary of the launch of the NHS in July last year)

Women, largely, carry the burden of a broken care system.

One of the reasons why this care crisis has not been solved is because of the way that care is viewed. Care has been traditionally done by women in the home. Most unpaid carers are women. The skills and expertise needed to care are not valued within society. In contrast, acute medical care requires expertise that takes many years to acquire and is part of a high-status medical profession.
(from the same journal)

So, there's the starting point.

Doodledog

The social care system is a disgrace. It seems to me that sorting it out would almost guarantee whichever party did it millions of votes.

Sadly, until you need it, you don't really understand how it all works. I was horrified at how we treat people with dementia and other things where so much care is needed. I had a friend who couldn't eat without a tube, couldn't move, couldn't talk and was 4 1/2 stone when she died. Her husband didn't know about CHC because the hospital kept very quiet about it and once he did, the authorities kept knocking him back. At her funeral, the CHC people rang to tell him they would assess her fully now. I can't tell you what he said to them, I'd be banned.

Doodledog I’m not suggesting that pensioners should not pay tax. DH and I pay a lot of it and I’m quite happy to do so. I agree that the threshold should be higher, people on fixed incomes suffer more when tax rises. I was wondering why you appeared to be suggesting that they pay more tax. I see from your post today that you were not.

The social care system is a disgrace. It seems to me that sorting it out would almost guarantee whichever party did it millions of votes.

Are you suggesting that all residential care should be free to all those who pay tax?

No, not necessarily but I do believe there should be a cap on what people have to spend on care. The sums being forked out are outrageous. As I've said before, I don't mind my mother having to pay for her care as much as I mind that she pays 40% extra to pay for other people. That currently stands at £68,400 per annum. So far she has paid nearly double that plus the other 60% for 2 years. A recent resident is complaining bitterly that he has to contribute £1000 per month because he has an earnings related pension. I'd be a liar if I said I didn't want to shout rude things at him. .

What about us retired people who have saved and already pay tax on our pensions and savings? Should we pay higher tax?
I am not in possession of the figures (and wouldn’t know how to project from them if I were), but probably, yes.

I don’t think that pensioners are a special case just for being over a certain age. If people of working age pay tax on income why shouldn’t pensioners? Reaching pension age allows people to stop contributing the fruits of their labour - the goods they produce or services they provide - and to claim the pension they have paid for over time, but not to live tax free. If a pensioner has income over the allowances they should pay tax on it, wherever it comes from. Why not?

I think the threshold for paying tax should be higher for everyone, but I think pensioners should live by the same rules as everyone else.

icanhandthemback

*J52*, would you rather pay some tax which will be a drop in the ocean compared to what care costs will be if you should be unfortunate enough to need them? Or would you rather take a chance and pay £9500 per month to get the care and nursing you might need for years?

I’m in agreement that no one should be destitute, to be clear.

Are you suggesting that all residential care should be free to all those who pay tax?
I doubt if an individual paying higher tax would get the value back in care should they need it.
I am not going into my personal circumstances, but I am prepared to take my chance, regarding care costs.

J52, would you rather pay some tax which will be a drop in the ocean compared to what care costs will be if you should be unfortunate enough to need them? Or would you rather take a chance and pay £9500 per month to get the care and nursing you might need for years?

Doodledog

I get sick of defending myself against accusations of wanting to penalise people who haven’t saved, when nothing could be further from the truth. But how is it fair to take money from those who’ve done without to save it, and give it to those who haven’t? We need higher taxes and more universal benefits, IMO.

I don't believe for a moment that you want to penalise anyone - being a follower of your posts I get the impression you would just like to see a fairer and more just society.

Under our present economic system that is just not possible. Unless we ever get a government dedicated to Corbyn's many not the few (that's not a recommendation for the man himself), then anyone below the very very wealthy elite are going to have to fight among themselves for what remains after they've sucked up money into their offshore accounts, investments and properties. Including those of us who've saved for our future.

inequality.org/research/billionaires-sign-econ-failure/

Doodledog

I couldn’t agree more ichtb. I get sick of defending myself against accusations of wanting to penalise people who haven’t saved, when nothing could be further from the truth. But how is it fair to take money from those who’ve done without to save it, and give it to those who haven’t? We need higher taxes and more universal benefits, IMO.

What about us retired people who have saved and already pay tax on our pensions and savings? Should we pay higher tax?

Doodledog

I couldn’t agree more ichtb. I get sick of defending myself against accusations of wanting to penalise people who haven’t saved, when nothing could be further from the truth. But how is it fair to take money from those who’ve done without to save it, and give it to those who haven’t? We need higher taxes and more universal benefits, IMO.

Part of the problem is the privatisation of care homes.

A very recent analysis funded by the Nuffield Foundation and carried out by researchers at the University of Oxford found that almost all care homes forced to close (England) by the CQC - are run on a for-profit basis.

Yes, I'm banging the drum, but it does raise questions about the role of the private sector in this 'industry'.

The rather 'secret' financial structure of major care home groups seems to indicate that some of the extra funding will leak into hidden profits.

Some of the largest 26 providers use complex company structures to maximise leakage and hide profit extraction.
6 have an offshore owner in a tax haven; 18 split up their operating and property companies; 9 use sale and leaseback; and 12 purchase services or supplies from a related company

(CENTRE FOR HEALTH AND THE PUBLIC INTEREST taken from a report - Plugging the leaks in the UK care home industry)

I couldn’t agree more ichtb. I get sick of defending myself against accusations of wanting to penalise people who haven’t saved, when nothing could be further from the truth. But how is it fair to take money from those who’ve done without to save it, and give it to those who haven’t? We need higher taxes and more universal benefits, IMO.

Usedtobeblonde

Another aspect of this, one which constantly annoys me as I was personally affected.
If they need residential or nursing home care they will get the same care as those prudent people who saved for retirement by paying into a pension fund .
Sharing all the benefits free while others are paying 10’s of 1000’s a year for just the same.
Sorry for the rant.

Yes, it seems very unfair but I would mind less if the fees weren't higher for those paying for their care to subsidise those who aren't. It can be up to 40% more! So, from my perspective we need something in place to make it a fairer system rather than penalising those who were prudent. That is not to say that I want people who were not in the position to buy their own house so they could pay the fees to suffer.

Another aspect of this, one which constantly annoys me as I was personally affected.
If they need residential or nursing home care they will get the same care as those prudent people who saved for retirement by paying into a pension fund .
Sharing all the benefits free while others are paying 10’s of 1000’s a year for just the same.
Sorry for the rant.

Doodledog, thank you for your explanation but I was just wondering what heavenlyheath would do about people who don't pay in. However, seeing other posts from them, I wonder if they are just contentious or under a bridge!

That's been covered upthread, up to a point. If someone is caring there should be a way to register that (to ensure that the person really needs care) and then a decent allowance should be paid, which would include pension contributions.

We can't let people starve and be homeless, as has been said more than once. Nobody would want to do that, which is partly the problem. People know that the state will look after them if they don't pay in, so many just don't bother. Others fall through the cracks for various reasons, but if we had regular reminders and invoices for our contributions that would help those who don't seem to realise that pensions don't come from a 'money tree', but have to be paid for. A spouse or civil partner could pay the contributions of a non-worker if they can afford it - body should be left with no means of support in old age. If that can't be afforded, well, the person can't afford to stay at home, and would have to get a job like the rest of us.

There are so many accusations about two-tier policies, and now that the spotlight is on pensions because of the means-test on WFP it will anger more and more people who realise that paying into a personal pension has made them worse off. If people on the threshold stop bothering to improve their situation, the state will have to fund more and more people who will decide to spend savings and rely on PC. Who can blame them?

heavenlyheath

It isn't fair if you never paid in why should you get anything.

So what would you do with the people who hadn't paid anything for a variety of reasons? Let them starve and render them homeless? As a household we had too much money to be getting carer's allowance so had I not had another way to earn my stamp, I would have not been covered for all the years I looked after my Grandfather or Mother.

If you don't get credited with Universal Credit these days, what happens if you are disabled now it is a single benefit? Does anybody know?

Assuming you don't have a spouse or civil partner/with sufficient annual income, you should still get pension credit if your income is low or non existent, provided you don't have savings above the threshold, which I think is currently about £10k, if you do have savings then part of pension credit is reduced until your savings fall below the limit.

I don’t know what the answer is, as (as I’ve said) we have to have a safety net, but if pensions are at risk of means-testing or generally decreasing in value there has to be a conversation. Too many people (in general) seem to expect to be ‘carried’ by those who work. It’s not just pensions - it’s health, education, roads, defence and all the other things that come with living in a country like ours. There are those who seem to think of these things as rights, based simply on being born British, when in fact they have to be paid for
So true.

It isn't fair if you never paid in why should you get anything.

growstuff

OldFrill

gentleshores

I didn't realise jobseekers allowance didn't give you NI credits either. You're maybe expected to make voluntary ones. If you received any disability benefits you should have had pension credits. I'm surprised the tax office didn't write to you letting you know you didn't have enough contributions and asking if you wanted to make some. I had a shock when they wrote to me saying I had missed a few years (which I disagreed with but couldn't prove it) and would I like to pay £5,000 to cover those years. I didn't pay because I already had 35 years worth of contributions which was all that was needed.

Job seekers allowance does give you Class 1 NI credits. Maybe it didn't used to.

JSA did give pension credits, but it would need to have been for a whole financial year. Otherwise they don't count.

The OP has now stated she received two years of JSA which gave her NI credits. Obviously if you aren't claiming JSA you don't get credits.

Yes of course. I said that upthread- there can’t be any people with no income at all. That doesn’t make it fair to those who pay in though.

My comments weren’t directed specifically towards the OP anyway. They are much more general and about the system as a whole.

I don’t know what the answer is, as (as I’ve said) we have to have a safety net, but if pensions are at risk of means-testing or generally decreasing in value there has to be a conversation. Too many people (in general) seem to expect to be ‘carried’ by those who work. It’s not just pensions - it’s health, education, roads, defence and all the other things that come with living in a country like ours. There are those who seem to think of these things as rights, based simply on being born British, when in fact they have to be paid for.

Again, we can’t have a two-tier system of access to those things, but nor can we continue as we are doing. The WFA debacle has highlighted the fact that there are many people just above PC level who have paid into occupational pensions only to find they are disadvantaged compared to people who haven’t even covered the costs of a state pension, which is a disgrace.

If we want a state pension in future it has to be based on a reciprocal arrangement. I don’t know how we can ensure that everyone contributes but one way or another it is important that we do.

I'm a Waspi. I was never informed of a change to pension age. I was in a union too.

But Doodledog the OP was working.

When people who aren’t working anymore need to have an income to survive, I am pleased there is a way for them to gain an income.