Pension anger

Fact: it is classed as a benefit.

Here we go again:

www.gransnet.com/forums/legal_and_money/1356406-New-State-Pension

Yes it is classed as a benefit and I got annoyed with it. Now I let it wash over me.

Couldn’t care less what they call it as long as I get it

I don't care what they call it as long as it drops into my bank every Monday every week till the day I take my last breath . I don't have to slog myself day after day week and year after year doing 2 and 3 jobs to earn enough to live an ordinary life . Benefit , Pension , whatever just keep it coming

I know they call it a benefit , but it makes me angry when it was something that came off my wages every week, especially now that I'm a carer for my husband who has Alzheimers, but can't get carers allowance, because,you can't get 2 benefits...

But it is a benefit

Well, it's certainly a great benefit to me as it's my only source of income and pays the rent. 😃

Morning Mods - busy day?

Pably15 it is not true to say categorically that you cannot get two benefits, though you are correct to say you cannot get Carer’s Allowance as well as State Pension, because they are overlapping benefits. But it is certainly possible to get for example State Pension and Attendance Allowance.

I was going to say that we get a state pension and my husband gets attendance allowance.
Carer’s allowance is means tested and only available to those under pensionable age because it is assumed they cannot work.

TBH I don’t care what they call it, as long as it’s paid into my account every 4 weeks. They could call it Grumpy Old Bag’s money for all I care. 🙂

That made me laugh Witzend

The name is not going to change, so there is little point getting my knickers in a twist about it. AA isn't taxed (yet) maybe Rachel hasn't noticed that and we "rich" pensioners should be paying our way.

Another one who can’t get in a tiz about what it is called.
Just keep it going and honour the triple lock so we keep up with inflation, well nearly anyway.

FranP

Received a notification of my state pension increase. This is the first one ever, so not sure what happened to any previous ones, but am I the only one who is cross about the title being described as a general increase in BENEFITS. I paid in, I earned this; it is not a benefit.

Amen to that FranP.
I first drew my pension in 2016 and when I saw it described as a"benefit" the steam came out of my ears and nearly blew my head off.
As you say I paid in. I earned this.
It is not a benefit

I didn’t pay in but my ex-husband. I’m sure my pension is based on his contributions, I don’t get a lot, but I can’t complain

Why would you object to it being called a benefit? Didn’t enough notice, just felt grateful the state is supporting me, whether I paid in or not.
But then again, gratitude comes naturally to me these days.

Cabbie21

Pably15 it is not true to say categorically that you cannot get two benefits, though you are correct to say you cannot get Carer’s Allowance as well as State Pension, because they are overlapping benefits. But it is certainly possible to get for example State Pension and Attendance Allowance.

Yes my husband gets A A too

Attendance Allowance is paid to the person who needs assistance with every day living, as well as the state pension, but if it's a spouse who does the caring, they don't get carers allowance if they get state pension.

pably -oh gosh - how awful,. … what has state pension got to do with carer’s allowance. If he/she is a pensioner and a carer
at the same time, he /she should be entitled to both.
It’s so wrong …..

I too was really shocked when I learned that my state pension was a "benefit". Steam also came out of my ears. In my naivety, I genuinely believed that our regular pension deductions went into some large government investment fund, to fund the pensions for all our long-term futures. How stupid was I?

Apparently, as our deductions were being taken each week or month during our youth, our hard-earned money was paying nationally for welfare, social housing and the building of roads, etc.!!! So there was no pension fund.

No wonder they call it a "benefit". It can't be a pension if there was no pension fund!!! We were all conned and scammed.

So it is today's workers who are being robbed every month to pay OUR pensions. When these people realise that, they are bitterly resentful of "old people" - because there are less of them paying into old-age pensions now, than when we were young. And many more of us "baby boomers" to support than our generation had to. Lots of our generation's potential elders were lost in the last war. It's a mess.

As there is no pension fund, that's why various governments keep thinking up ways to keep our pension increases as low as possible. That's infuriating, and scary.

It is not a benefit.

This is such a silly and repetitive argument, discussed at length only last week.

I wonder how many people have company pensions from a defined benefit scheme; how many people have claimed, or their children claim, child benefit_; how many people have claimed _maternity benefit or bereavement benefit, the latter two contributory, just as SP is for most people but not all.

Around 5% of people, some 720,000 people, receive SP having paid no NIC at all. I explained it all in the other thread.

I suspect the people who get upset about this are the same people who think that people who receive certain kinds of benefit paid by government are undeserving. Around 40% of people who receive Universal Credit are working.

The definition of the word benefit just means a money advantage, a profit, a gain.

If you were reaching state pension age now, had a full contribution record and lived another 10 years, assuming an average rise of 4% each year, you would receive total pension of around £145,000. Live twenty years and you would receive £360,000.

Were one to request a working life letter from HMRC which details how much NIC was paid each year throughout one’s working life, I doubt what was paid was anything remotely close to that.

Someone earning £25,000 now would pay just under a £1,000 NIC a year; 30,000 £1,400; £35,000 £1,800 … £100,000 £4,000.

Someone would have had to be a very higher earner over their entire working life to have paid in more than they eventual receive in pension.

NIC is effectively a Ponzi scheme. It pays profits to earlier investors with funds from more recent investors.

25 year ago, for 2001/02, the net receipts from NIC (after the NHS allocation) was £54 billion with £39 billion paid out in SP. The yield includes employer’s NIC.

assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a7c77fce5274a559005a135/1076.pdf

For 2024/25, net receipts were £130 billion with £137 billion paid out in SP.

assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/692f0e3cb3b9afff34e963bc/Great_Britain_National_Insurance_Fund_Account_-_2024_to_2025.pdf

It’s only because the fund has an excess credit balance (£19 billion in 2000, £79 billion now) that it’s managing to cover costs and not having to be topped up with funds from Treasury. That’s come from increasing the SP age for everyone including the equalisation of SP age for women.

Considering that around £760,000 people on old SP are receiving over £300 a week, (some over £400) over £15,600 a year, they are certainly profiting. Of course it’s a benefit.

As I wrote in the other thread, you can buy back missing years, pay less NIC than a working person and be in profit by year three.

Of course, it’s a benefit.

Apparently, as our deductions were being taken each week or month during our youth, our hard-earned money was paying nationally for welfare, social housing and the building of roads, etc.!!! So there was no pension fund.

No they weren't. NIC is ring-fenced. It can only be used to partly fund the NHS, with the remainder used to pay contributory benefits as the annual, report on the National Insurance Fund very clearly shows. 95% of what is paid out in the State Pension.

There is much controversy over the increase in employer's NIC but the money is for the NHS which pensioners use more than most.

I don't dispute that the increase has added substantial costs although smaller employers are protected with an increased annual allowance.