Gransnet forums

News & politics


(16 Posts)
Seeker Sun 12-Jun-16 15:35:26

Please sign and share:



Labour Pensioner Policy:
Pay the same state pension money of 60 per cent of national average wage
to all UK citizen men and women pensioners already retired
to new pensioners from age 60 from 2020
regardless of National Insurance history.

There are around 12 million pensioners currently on the basic state pension. Pensioners mostly with indirect taxes not just Income Tax, contribute £50bn a year in taxes.

Please share this petition widely, as I'm just a one person band. Especially from younger folk who want to help their nan and grandad and their own pensioner futures. The official government poverty level is 40 per cent of the average wage. I'm 1950s born lady who have had their state pension denied for half a decade since 2013, alongside with pension credit and winter fuel allowance. The flat rate reduces the state pension not increases it.

Only permitted to put this petition once on Gransnet and then never more.

daphnedill Sun 12-Jun-16 23:31:05

Sorry, but no.

By the age of 66, I will have paid full NI for 45 years. I think I deserve a bit more than somebody who has not worked for so many years. I will still be a loser, because I will lose SERPS/SP2 and the amount I paid into occupational pension funds over and above NI contributions. Unfortunately, I will almost certainly not be eligible for Pension Credit either.

durhamjen Sun 12-Jun-16 23:42:44

I like the assumption that Corbyn will be in a position to do this in 2020. I think he should, but it's still an assumption.

durhamjen Sun 12-Jun-16 23:43:15

Have you read the basic income thread?

daphnedill Sun 12-Jun-16 23:54:07

If that's addressed at me, dj, yes I have.

60% of the national average wage as a pension is not achievable, especially when some people have not contributed.

Throughout my life I did the 'sensible' thing and saved for my pension (in my own name, not via my husband), often foregoing luxuries such as a social life and extras. I've already seen the differential eroded and I think it's totally unfair to erode it any further.

I was born in 1955 and will be one of the first to have my pension age increased to 66. I don't have much sympathy with women who didn't know it was being equalised with men. They were given 20 years notice, but I am still reeling from having the increased age of 66 brought forward at much shorter notice. I also think that it's totally unfair that the people who have contributed most will get a smaller state pension.

durhamjen Mon 13-Jun-16 00:42:11

I got mine when I was sixty. My husband got his when he was 65, having contributed all his life, then died six months later.
I have a sister who was born in March 53 and got her pension just before the new one came in. I suggested that she wait for a month, but it would not make any difference. It was based on when your retirement age was, not when you retired.

Because my husband died, I got half his pension and some superannuation, my pension, and superannuation from when I was teaching, and I now get just five pound a week more than someone who retires this month, so I understand about the differentials.

daphnedill Mon 13-Jun-16 01:09:33

dj, Most of the people retiring this month won't get the new standard rate pension. That's what people are complaining about. The headline figure of £155 a week will only apply to a tiny minority. My own estimate is £115 a week (give or take a few pounds depending on which 'estimate' I accept as being most accurate). That will be at the age of 66, having had a more than full NI record. That's not what I was led to believe I would get when this new system was introduced.

I won't get anything from my ex-husband's pension or anywhere else. I won't even get some of my teachers' pension until I'm 65.

I really feel that I've fallen in between two systems and try not to be bitter about it.

I think that a citizen's income and pension should be looked at, but it needs to be introduced gradually and people should be confident that they will see a reward for what they've paid in. It's too late now for me to make any great changes.

Pigglywiggly Mon 13-Jun-16 05:37:59

So someone who never worked, or like my mother in law gave up work to have children should have the same pension as DH who has been working since he was 17 and is still working at 63? I don't think so.
With David Cameron threatening to remove the triple lock if we leave Europe now is not the time anyway.

Gracesgran Mon 13-Jun-16 10:32:06

I think this is a sledgehammer in dealing with the very low basic pension. If you look at the thread on basic/citizen's income there is a lot to recommend it. I believe the Labour Party are looking a beginning to bring this in and would be paying £50 to pensioners initially. This would be on top of anything you have earned within the state pension and basically replace a tranche of benefits.

One of the biggest problems in playing about with pensions is that they are so long term and we have seen the problems with the recent changes.

Sunseeker where does the figure of "around 12 million pensioners currently on the basic state pension." come from? No one should be "living" on only the basic SP of £119.30 (or less). If that is all they have they would be entitled to Pension Credit bringing them up to £155.60 unless, of course, they had savings at a level they could reasonably be expected to draw on.

Pension Credit (PC) has been a very contentious benefit and the idea of all pensioners getting the extra £50 Citizens income (in the first instance) and PC disappearing seems a good one to me.

durhamjen Mon 13-Jun-16 10:47:03

I agree about pension credit, gracesgran. The reason there are so many poor pensioners is because many of them do not realise that they are entitled to it.
Bring in a citizen's income for all pensioners, on top of what they get in pension, and anyone who does not need it will have it clawed back through the tax system.
It has been proven time and time again that means tested benefits do not work for those who need them.

M0nica Mon 13-Jun-16 12:31:41

How much would this increase in the state pension cost and how will it be funded?

Please do not say soak the rich. The top 1% of earners already account for 28% of all income tax receipts.

Gracesgran Mon 13-Jun-16 14:07:01

M0nica there is a lot about this on the thread "Citizen's or Basic Income"

It is not an increase in the state pension; it is the beginnings of a Basic Income.

As for the top 1% my heart would weep for them but I don't see anything wrong with progressive taxation. Have you ever stopped to think what percentage of earnings the top one 1% get? If it is any where near the percentage they pay in tax that seems perfectly reasonable. Where did you get the figure of 28% by the way.

durhamjen Mon 13-Jun-16 15:01:08

If the top 1% own more than 50% of the nation's wealth, shouldn't they pay more than 50% of the tax take?

M0nica Mon 13-Jun-16 16:36:30

Wealth is not income. Are you suggesting a wealth tax.

I do not object to progressive taxation. I am merely pointing out that the propportion of wealthier taxpayers income paid in income tax is already high. By the time you add in VAT, capital gains tax and all the other taxes we pay they already are paying out 50% and more of their income in taxes.

However the question is: How much would this pension cost and how would it be funded? This question hasn't been answered. The same question applies to the idea of a basic income.

Gracesgran Mon 13-Jun-16 17:25:46

I thought you were asking Basic Income M0nica and muddling it with a rise in state pension as you asked directly after two posts about BI. I would direct your question if you hope to get an answer.

... and yes I would like a wealth tax smile

durhamjen Mon 13-Jun-16 18:57:22

The poorest pay more tax overall as a percentage of income than the richest, Monica.