Pension theft

Doodledog, I couldn't agree more, with pretty much everything you wrote.

Growstuff, why should people who have worked and contributed NI for decades on the understanding that they would get a pension have to claim benefits?

Being on benefits involves other people deciding what you 'need', and ensuring that you never get out of poverty because any money you have above the threshold is taken from you by a reduction in your benefit. It also involves being accountable to others, who check that you have spent your time looking for work. It is absolutely not an equivalent to a pension. Saying that 'people of working age' are 'entitled' to this lifestyle is deliberately ignoring the fact that until recently women of 60+ were not expected to be of working age.

Whataboutery just plays into the hands of a government that is determined to keep working people in a state where they are grateful to work for any wage, as the alternatives are too awful. We absolutely do need to overhaul the benefits system to make it fair for all who need it; but trying to drag everyone down by making dubious comparisons is not the way to start.

All of us who contributed NI have paid the pensions of older generations. There is nothing unusual or new about that. Younger people who pay for pensions now are being told that this is unfair, but who do they think will pay for theirs?

Finally, I get so fed up with those who go on about pensions only going to those who they decide are in need of it. It is not about that. Just because people are older should not mean that they should only have what they need. People who have set aside a bit of money for their retirement should be able to enjoy it without having the state pension part of it (for which they have paid!) reduced.

I just don't understand the desire that some people have to keep others on the breadline - 'if they can save they don't need it' is a remarkably arrogant way to think. Some people do without quite a lot in order to put aside money as security against poverty, and if they have earned the money it is not for others to say that they shouldn't so this, or be penalised if they do.

People may as well just spend every penny while they are young, if anything they have over the very basics is going to be resented in this manner. It's so vindictive.

You're right about the Specified Adult Childcare credits system, storynanny, they're not well publicised and not enough people are claiming them. I've mentioned them a few times on GN, but have no idea whether anyone affected has noticed the posts.

www.gov.uk/government/publications/national-insurance-credits-for-adults-who-care-for-a-child-under-12-fact-sheet/specified-adult-childcare-credits-fact-sheet

It was introduced like that Evie.

Chardy The so-called National Insurance fund has always worked like that. There have also been years when the Treasury has had to subsidise it. It would be stupid not to have a surplus because any unforeseen change in the country's economic circumstances would mean that either NICs/taxes would have to increase suddenly or that the government would have to borrow more. Given the uncertainties in unemployment which are inevitable over the next few years, it really would be foolish not to have a surplus. Investing it in paying down the national debt is a sensible way to use the money because it is the Treasury which will have to make up any future deficit. In effect, money is being provided to pay back bond holders and others, who have lent the government money.

If a person is genuinely in need after the age of 60, he/she should be able to claim working age benefits. The problem is that working age benefits are totally inadequate.

Why should younger people, some of whom are struggling themselves, be forced to pay for people, who should have known 25 years ago that their pension age would increase? It is a fact that more working age people are in poverty than over 60s.

What about men in poverty after the age of 60? What about people born on 1st January 1960? What about all the younger people paying far more in NICs than we ever did and face unaffordable house prices and are paying back student loans?

It is inevitable that some people live longer than others and will receive more before they die. It has always been thus. That's why it's insurance.

There has never been a good correlation between what people pay in NICs and what they receive.

Do you know what the current interest rates are? In any case, if people can afford to save the money, they don't need it.

The underlying issue is working-age benefits, but that seems to be ignored because a very vocal group is only interested in themselves.

Whilst it is true that the new state pension is higher it actually doesn’t make up for the lost 5 years. Firstly if you get the the lower amount you will be entitled to pension credit and not everyone gets the full rate. Not to mention that not everybody will live until they are 80 and what about any interest you would have earned?

Evie it was introduced on a very gentle sliding scale to start with then the 2010 Government escalated the speed of change and brought in a cliff edge

Freedom of Information request response 18 Jan 2019

The National Insurance Fund (NIF) Accounts present the receipts, payments and balance of the NIF at the end of each financial year. This information for 2017-18 and previous years is published by HM Revenue and Customs and is available online here:
www.gov.uk/government/publications/national-insurance-fund-accounts
The latest NIF Accounts show that the balance of the NIF increased by £2,286,469,000 in 2017-18. In addition to the previous balance, this resulted in a closing balance of £24,221,220,000, which was paid into the NIF Investment Account and, in practice, used to reduce the national debt.

From current government website
The National Insurance Scheme was established on 5 July 1948 to provide unemployment benefit, sickness benefit, retirement pensions and other benefits in cases where individuals meet the contribution and other qualifying conditions.

The National Insurance Fund Accounts present the receipts and payments for the financial year, as well as the balance on the Fund at the end of the year.

Any of you under state pension age ladies with missing years of n i contributions like me, don’t forget that if you are looking after your grandchildren whilst a parent works, you can claim n i contributions
Via government gateway, easy to apply for, it is not advertised!
It is claimable for any number of hours per week, no minimum, and is available because that parent is paying n i contributions through employment and not through home responsibilities protection.
Apparently about one tenth of eligible grandparents applied last year. I’ve just claimed for a year of one day a week and hope to save over £700 by not having to buy one of my missing years.
Spread the word!

I was born in 1955. should have got my pension at 60 but now need to work until the day before my 66th birthday before I get it. Feel cheated. They should have introduced it on a sliding scale, get it at 61, 62, 63 etc. dependent on when you were born? Not rocket science is it?

Growstuff: I agree totally about men living in poverty. Single men who are not working are often the least well served by our benefits system in regard to access to accommodation etc. I feel strongly about the many injustices in our society, which is why I am a volunteer adviser with Citzens Advice. We help people access the benefits they are entitled to, deal with creditors, know their employment rights etc. I agree with Doodledog that we can't conflate all these issues. We can't fight on all fronts at once. The Waspi women aren't saying their grievance is worse than anyone else's. Just that the change to SPA is their focus. I'd like to see a similar group focused on the disastrous impact the roll out of Universal Credit has had on so many people. I think it's an outrage that our MPs have stayed silent on this issue. How many of us could do without any money for up to 13 weeks as it was sometimes at the start. Even 5 weeks is hard to manage. We can feel helpless in the face of so many needs and injustices. I guess we just have to pick the one that troubles us the most and do what we can.

Sorry, that should say 50's women above.

WASPI (of which I am not member) do not argue against the equalisation of the pension ages - in fact they expressly state this in their mission statement.

I do think that there is an argument for it to remain at 60 for 60s women, because of the fact that we were legally discriminated against in myriad ways that prevented us from making suitable arrangements (as compared to men). The gender pay gap is outrageous, but testament to this inequality.

Younger people have a much more level playing field - they can share parental responsibilities so much more easily, for instance, and pension schemes are open to part-time workers in a way that was not the case in the past.

As for fake news on FB - of course there is. Social media of all types are places where people repeat rumour and misinformation. It's not all deliberate, but of course vested interests will use it to their advantage. So do 'mainstream media', however, and it always surprises me when people claim not to believe anything they see online, but swallow all manner of nonsense if it is in the paper or on TV.

I have found so much fake news on Facebook. Most you can check easily. I never believe any of it.

Lily there is no fair argument in the world for unequal pension ages for men and women

Also as for trust and fairness - again, it’s not just WASPI women. Think of men ( and women) now in their late 50s worked all their life, paid NI and now have much less generous NI related benefits for eg long term sickness and unemployment than they had when they first joined the scheme and for their first few decades.
Because we are so atomised now and generally so ill informed, most people don't realise how the NI principles have been attacked and undermined to the detriment of many, of whom Waspi women are one sad example. Finally, it has to be acknowledged that all the worst attacks on NI benefits and tge WASPI women have been by Tory Governments

There is no pension fund as such as has been noted above. The increase in pension age for women from 60 to 63, then 65 and now 66 has been excused as an evening out of the discrepancy between male and female pension age but really has more to do with an ageing population and the overall cost of pensions.

The new pension is higher than before but requires 35 years of contributions. I retired early but am paying class 3 NI contributions to bring my pension up to nearly but not quite the full amount as teachers were deemed to have a decent pension scheme.

My two children have differing views of pensions. One thinks the pension bill is a drag on the country’s finances and the other is busy piling as much as she can into her own employers’ pension. I dare say their view might modify when they near retirement.

Divide and conquer playbook in action.

What I would say about the WASPI issue is how it was implemented was wrong ,not the basic principle of equalisation upwards of pension ages for men and women. I think the two issues get conflated. The implementation had two aspects - informing women from the get go and secondly the pace at which women were affected. It should have stayed as it was at the beginning but that was accelerated and cliff edges came into play. Women were let down on both fronts. But going back to the bigger picture, WASPI women are one set of victims and if we all realised who’s side we should really be on, we all could have done more for each other - instead we were and are being played and will continue to be.
NI is a very unfair tax and needs a complete rethink. I know this doesn’t help the WASPI women. But no one is going to help them - it’s a complete lost cause. Completely.

I see what you are saying, suziewoosie, but with sort of thing is not about emotion - it is about trust in the government, without which a society based on consent can't operate.

50s women were told that we would get a pension at 60, and made arrangements accordingly. If people are not able to expect the government to keep their part of the bargain, then how can they make plans and provide for themselves?

If we start allowing others to decide what constitutes 'need', we are on a slippery slope when it comes to compulsory payments such as NI. We all need to know what to expect so that we can do what we can to live our lives the way we want to. Some save every penny, and others spend. Both are valid choices, and IMO should not determine what we are given in old age - that should be based on contributions (number of, not amount of - I'm not suggesting that State pension should be earnings related).

Disability benefits, along with other social issues are a separate fight (and a worthy one). I think it would be a mistake to conflate them, as the basis of the injustice is different, and the same applies to people on pension credit. If people are not earning enough to make contributions, that is the fault of the employers, who should have to pay a minimum wage that allows everyone to save for old age. If they don't, then the rest of us are contributing to the profits of the companies who pay low wages.

For any government to decide that people's expectations should be just pulled away is very wrong, IMO, and is the sort of thing that destabilises consensual government. It's not about selfishness, or thinking about one group over another, it's about trust and fairness.

Underpinning so many issues ( this one, that of low wages and the classifying of skilled/unskilled work on the points thread)are fundamental questions that never really get addressed properly. The relationship between the state and the individual, the extent of individual responsibility and where the state should guarantee a minimum whatever, our moral responsibility for each other ( not just close families) how we treat the vulnerable, the criminal, the inadequate and our social responsibilities to such people. We just don’t have these ‘big’ conversations. Most WASPI conversations I’ve heard never discuss men in their late 50s worn out after a lifetime of hard manual work yet forced to soldier on. Or the way in which disability benefits have been slashed and the hoops people have to go through to claim them. Or how disabled people who could work just don’t get the support to do so. A bit more solidarity and addressing of the big picture would make all groups in society stronger by coming together but instead, time after time, we retreat to our own little group and swallow the argument of the real ‘haves’ in society that it’s another group that are to blame for our misfortune. As I’ve posted elsewhere today, they, them, the others

Doodledog I agree that the initiative to raise the NI threshold could cause problems later. Hopefully, threads like this will encourage people to research their own situation. That's why I have paid voluntary contributions, even though my income from self-employment hasn't reached the threshold. It really has been worth it (provided I live a year beyond my 66th birthday).

grow exactly.