Deferring State Pension

That's why I said it was very unfair.

Deferred without any compensating rise in the amount eventually paid out.

Their pensions have been deferred for them?

??????

Waspis don't have any choice, though, but to defer.
Very unfair.

www.waspi.co.uk/

I shouldn't defer if I were you.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-40826562

I did defer my pension for a couple of years and this came in very handy as it improved my income when it came to applying for a new mortgage.

That's one of the reasons I decided not to defer when i was eligible but still working part time. You don't know with successive governments what could happen with your accrued pension pot.

Same here, grannyticktock. My husband was diagnosed with a brain tumour two months after he started receiving his state pension - although he wasn't particularly fit and well before that.
He died four months later, and I started getting a bit more pension from his funds.
I always think take it when you can, because you never know what is going to happen.

The government, in offering this choice, is taking a calculated risk, and the pensioner likewise. You're taking a gamble on living long enough to get the enhanced pension. If everyone who chose to defer the pension had the right to claim the money for their estate if they died, the system would collapse - it relies on those who die early subsidising the pensions of the long-lived.

You don't have to do it. When we were offered the choice, we thought, "Do we know we'll live long enough to benefit? No. Do we trust future governments to honour the agreement? No. Do we want to end up paying more tax (because the money is coming in a lump or at a higher rate, rather than being spread thinly across all the years)? No. We decided to take what was offered as soon as it was available.

In fact, my husband - despite being a fit, well nourished and otherwise healthy man for his age - died of prostate cancer at 68 - so it turned out to be the right decision for us, as the deferred money would have been lost to us..

sadly no pension fund ,the government are now hoping we all die before they have to pay us...I've worked since 1970,never had time off for kids or illness ,always paid the "big stamp" and still do so the government has done me out of tens of thousands of pounds by bringing forward the age rises .My friend who NEVER paid NI EVER gets the equivalent of a full pension .I realise its a social security thing and everyone must have an income ,this just seems very unfair ...I'm now 63 and I STILL haven't had any communication from the DWP .I WONT be deferring my pension IF I ever get one !

Thanks for taking the time to explain elegran.

I knew that actuarial tables would be used as in in the private systems. However, I did expect that there was a section in the government's coffers for pensions - I can now see that this is obviously not the case.

I won't be deferring my pension - I'll invest it elsewhere.

I deferred mine for 7 years, and now benefit from a considerable extra amount at a time I need it. When I was working it would have gone in tax. I had the choice of extra each week or a lump sum, I chose the extra weekly amount.

You say you don't understand how pensions work. With workplace pensions, the firm has to have a certain amount of money put aside in a pension fund to cover the pensions it expects to be paying. This fund is invested and gains interest so it keeps up with inflation and so on. Robert Maxwell infamously used his firm's pension fund for other purposes and couldn't pay it back, which led to a tightening up of regulations.

State pensions are paid out of general funds. There isn't a bank account labelled "Pension money, do not touch", so there isn't any interest gathering on the money you don't get - it just doesn't exist.

Actuaries work out life tables on the total amount people would get if they started receiving their pension at the earliest opportunity and lived to an average life expectancy for someone of that age, and the total if they started at different ages and lived to the average age of someone the age when they start it. The pension you actually receive is calculated using those tables. The average total cost to the government per person is about the same whichever way you do it.

But surely it shouldn't be a gamble. It's a financial deal. I give the government my pension for them to invest and gain interest. They give some of that interest to me for allowing this. So far so good. But then they keep my accrued pension if I die, How is that fair?

Can you imagine any other pension provider getting away with this?

The state pension is to keep you in your old age. It isn't for your children, it is for you. By deferring it you get a higher rate for (on average) a shorter time. If by deferring it you wish to gamble that your old age will last long enough to make the delay worth while, that is your own choice.

Rigby46 I know it's a choice. I still don't understand why it should be seen as 'not having it both ways'.

By deferring I am giving the government my pension to invest and for them to gain interest from it - they give some of that interest to me. That's the deal. Why then should the money be given back to the government if I die. Where else would that be seen as being fair? To date I have paid full national insurance for 47 years. Surely it's a case of it's wrong for the government having it both ways?

Iam64. I feel exactly the same as you about the retirement age. I too thought I'd be retiring at 60 and whilst I don't mind being on a parity with men and retire at 65 I can't get my pension until age 66! I too have worked all my adult life since the age of 16.

There was a bit of an outcry when it was announced yesterday that people will be waiting an extra year for their pensions. But SIX years extra!! And there seems to be no dissent about it either. I just don't get it.

I was still working when I qualifified at 60 for the state pension I'd paid into from age 17 with a two year break when my first baby was born. A friend who had worked in Pensions told me I'd have to live to age 84 if I deferred for a few years because I was still earning. I decided to take the pension. Within a couple of years I had to retire because my health went. I'm well currently and hood to make 80 but it seems that is unlikely. So glad I took the cash
I am so angry that women born on the 50's have been robbed imo. The worked and saved, expecting to retire at 60 and will now have to work to 66

I meant that you can't lose if the money still goes to your family or if you get an enhanced pension later on.I think Rigby explains it better than I do.You cannot have it both ways.

But Oriel it's a choice you make - you don't have to do it. If you lived long enough, you'd do well out of referring, if you don't you don't - you can't have it both ways.

Greenfinch - can you explain please? Why having my cake and eating it too?

If I defer my pension with a view to taking it in a lump sum at a later date I assume the government will benefit from investing it. They would have paid these monies to me monthly if I had chosen to take it straight away - so why would that money be wiped out at my death, though I believe that my husband will be eligible to recoup 50% of it.

It seems very one sided to me! I think I'll be taking my pension as it comes... if indeed it ever does - not till I'm 66 years old and counting - but that's another bone of contention...!

We were thinking of deferring our pension and read all sorts of articles. We decided in the end not to as it appeared that we would be about 80 something before we started to benefit.
We decided to take it asap and enjoy it while we can.

It would seem like having your cake and eating it if someone else could inherit it .Surely the deferred pension is a reward for taking the risk factor involved.

devongirl that is exactly what I meant.