What would you like to see in the budget.

growstuff

I'm not 100% sure, but I don't think the old state pension was claimed as couples, apart from those who opted to pay the married woman's stamp, which was phased out years ago,

You may be right. I don't know a lot about the old system, but I thought that there used to be a rate for single pensioners and one for couples. Maybe the man was able to claim more if he had a wife, which amounts to the same thing as her having a pension, really.

I find it odd that anyone who has had children gets no pension, as NI is credited for the years they stayed at home, often for decades if their children were spaced out in age.

In any case, the old rate is £141 per week, which you could claim at age 60 if you had 30 years of contributions, whether from work or not. The new pension is £185 per week, which you can't claim until you are 66/67 if you have 35 years of contributions (which are often short if you were 'opted out' at some point).

I have well over 40 full years of contributions, and am still having to pay to make up the shortfall for the years I was opted out by my employer. I have worked since I was 16 and paid tax and NI ever since, with NI only paid in for me for 2 lots of maternity leave, so less than a year in total.

I am not looking to do anyone down, and whether someone has paid in or not, in a civilised country nobody should have no money in old age; but given the huge tax breaks given to single-earner couples, it doesn't seem reasonable to me that those who could afford to opt out of working should be subsidised by those who paid in for decades.

No, I don't agree at all Norah.

Scottiebear

Growstuff. My apologies. You actually responded to something someone else posted. You didn't mention their name so I didn't realise until I just checked and spotted it is in bold print.

Thanks for the explanation. I was puzzled.

Growstuff. My apologies. You actually responded to something someone else posted. You didn't mention their name so I didn't realise until I just checked and spotted it is in bold print.

growstuff

Norah

Doodledog, Nobody wants to see anyone do without

Excellent point!

I think that those who have not worked should get household pensions based on household incomes (ie those who could afford not to work can afford to live on one pension), so they are paid on the principle of being a payment made to retired workers rather than a benefit paid simply for getting older

*Agreed. Precisely what I think.*

I'm afraid I think anybody who could afford not to work (not including disabled) doesn't deserve a penny. If they're truly destitute, they can apply for means-tested Pension Credit and Housing Benefit.

I think basing pensions on household income, in the case of people who haven't worked away from home, covers what you'd approve quite nicely. We agree.

Norah

Doodledog, Nobody wants to see anyone do without

Excellent point!

I think that those who have not worked should get household pensions based on household incomes (ie those who could afford not to work can afford to live on one pension), so they are paid on the principle of being a payment made to retired workers rather than a benefit paid simply for getting older

*Agreed. Precisely what I think.*

I'm afraid I think anybody who could afford not to work (not including disabled) doesn't deserve a penny. If they're truly destitute, they can apply for means-tested Pension Credit and Housing Benefit.

But Norah why should they? Most of those who receive the higher rate had to work until they were older and they paid more.

Personally, I'd like to get the same income as somebody receiving the average for pensioners ... oh! and I'd like a mortgage free house too, please. I haven't actually contributed to them, but what does that matter? I'm sure I'm just as much in need as anybody else.

The other point on the different rates is the yearly rise, those on the new pension will receive more as it’s based on percentage. That’s what I find totally unfair

growstuff

Norah

growstuff

Because Norah most people on the lower rate didn't pay the same contributions (I know there are some who were caught between the two systems).

The bean counters worked out that people living to the age of 82 will have received the same amount. Those who live beyond 82 and receive the new state pension will receive more in total. However, they almost certainly won't be eligible for Pension Credit and won't have benefited from the benefits for people over 60 and below state pension age. People on the new SP have also lost SERPs entitlement. There have been winners and losers for both groups.

I read often about those caught between the 2 systems. Quite unfair. If paying the same rate makes more "winners" and less overall "unfairness" I'm at a loss as to why using one rate is unacceptable.

Because those on the old state pension have in almost cases fewer years of National Insurance Contributions and paid a much lower rate. It's not rocket science.

Means tested benefits are available for those with inadequate income.

No, not rocket science.

Given the question, partial answer - I'd like to see all OAPs get the same pension rate, regardless of the year they were born.

Simple answer really, it's one thing I'd like. The arguments against don't resonate with me during austere times.

Norah

growstuff

Because Norah most people on the lower rate didn't pay the same contributions (I know there are some who were caught between the two systems).

The bean counters worked out that people living to the age of 82 will have received the same amount. Those who live beyond 82 and receive the new state pension will receive more in total. However, they almost certainly won't be eligible for Pension Credit and won't have benefited from the benefits for people over 60 and below state pension age. People on the new SP have also lost SERPs entitlement. There have been winners and losers for both groups.

I read often about those caught between the 2 systems. Quite unfair. If paying the same rate makes more "winners" and less overall "unfairness" I'm at a loss as to why using one rate is unacceptable.

In what way are people caught between the two systems Norah? You are either in one or the other.

Norah

growstuff

Norah

DaisyAnne

georgia101

I'd like to see all OAPs get the same pension rate, regardless of the year they were born. We have the same expenses to pay after all.

But the people on the new pension had to work extra years. How would that be fair?

Life is not fair.

Why not draw a line under current rates, start with same rate (not age determined) for everyone? Life is not improved if others have less.

I'm happy when others can be helped by new policy.

The same argument (Life is not fair) could be used against the people who drew their state pension at age 60 and paid fewer NICs.

Of course.

As a point of interest, what is downside to putting all OAP at the same rate regardless their year of birth?

I've never been employed or worked outside our home, this doesn't apply to me, I can see positives for others.

It's not as if money isn't spent on other "unfairness"

As a point of interest, what is downside to putting all OAP at the same rate regardless their year of birth?

The cost and the appearance of "fairness" that does matter to many.

You are suggesting a Basic Income after State Pension Age. Why not one all though life?

Doodledog, Nobody wants to see anyone do without

Excellent point!

I think that those who have not worked should get household pensions based on household incomes (ie those who could afford not to work can afford to live on one pension), so they are paid on the principle of being a payment made to retired workers rather than a benefit paid simply for getting older

Agreed. Precisely what I think.

Bea65

growstuff yes i find it galling too..I've worked 50 yrs and contributed and find at 66, still have to work as retirement seems out of the question..

I'm 67 and would still be working if ill health hadn't put a stop to that :-(.

I try and tell myself that life is too short to worry about anything other than making the best of things.

Norah

growstuff

Because Norah most people on the lower rate didn't pay the same contributions (I know there are some who were caught between the two systems).

The bean counters worked out that people living to the age of 82 will have received the same amount. Those who live beyond 82 and receive the new state pension will receive more in total. However, they almost certainly won't be eligible for Pension Credit and won't have benefited from the benefits for people over 60 and below state pension age. People on the new SP have also lost SERPs entitlement. There have been winners and losers for both groups.

I read often about those caught between the 2 systems. Quite unfair. If paying the same rate makes more "winners" and less overall "unfairness" I'm at a loss as to why using one rate is unacceptable.

Because those on the old state pension have in almost cases fewer years of National Insurance Contributions and paid a much lower rate. It's not rocket science.

Means tested benefits are available for those with inadequate income.

growstuff yes i find it galling too..I've worked 50 yrs and contributed and find at 66, still have to work as retirement seems out of the question..

growstuff

If you've never worked, I assume you don't receive any state pension.

Correct.

growstuff

Because Norah most people on the lower rate didn't pay the same contributions (I know there are some who were caught between the two systems).

The bean counters worked out that people living to the age of 82 will have received the same amount. Those who live beyond 82 and receive the new state pension will receive more in total. However, they almost certainly won't be eligible for Pension Credit and won't have benefited from the benefits for people over 60 and below state pension age. People on the new SP have also lost SERPs entitlement. There have been winners and losers for both groups.

I read often about those caught between the 2 systems. Quite unfair. If paying the same rate makes more "winners" and less overall "unfairness" I'm at a loss as to why using one rate is unacceptable.

I'm not 100% sure, but I don't think the old state pension was claimed as couples, apart from those who opted to pay the married woman's stamp, which was phased out years ago,

Sounds great Doodledog. I worked and contributed for a total of 49 years. Can I have extra, please?

And, yes, I find it very galling.

If you've never worked, I assume you don't receive any state pension.

I don’t know your situation, Norah, but aren’t ’old’ pensions claimed as couples, so nobody gets them in their own right if they are married? They are a hangover from the days when more households were financed by the man, and were unfair to women who worked.

Many women who never worked do claim a ‘new’ pension, however, often with additional pension credit, covering rent, council tax and other costs.

Nobody wants to see anyone do without, but it is galling for those of us who have paid in, had our pensions delayed and now live with the threat of having them means-tested because there are too many pensioners living longer, when at least some of this money is going to pay non-contributors who are not ‘in need’.

I think that those who have not worked should get household pensions based on household incomes (ie those who could afford not to work can afford to live on one pension), so they are paid on the principle of being a payment made to retired workers rather than a benefit paid simply for getting older, which is used as a reason for cutting payments to contributors. People who have not worked and who find themselves with no pension should be entitled to benefits with no requirement to seek work after SPA.

Because Norah most people on the lower rate didn't pay the same contributions (I know there are some who were caught between the two systems).

The bean counters worked out that people living to the age of 82 will have received the same amount. Those who live beyond 82 and receive the new state pension will receive more in total. However, they almost certainly won't be eligible for Pension Credit and won't have benefited from the benefits for people over 60 and below state pension age. People on the new SP have also lost SERPs entitlement. There have been winners and losers for both groups.

Barmeyoldbat

Forgot, I would like to see Public Schools lose their charity status and pay VAT

Taxing private schools: the truth behind the bluster by David James Tes
27/9/2021
It’s suggested that independent schools educate 600,000 children and save the state £3.5 billion a year.
Introducing VAT is covered in the article. An interesting read.

growstuff

Norah

DaisyAnne

georgia101

I'd like to see all OAPs get the same pension rate, regardless of the year they were born. We have the same expenses to pay after all.

But the people on the new pension had to work extra years. How would that be fair?

Life is not fair.

Why not draw a line under current rates, start with same rate (not age determined) for everyone? Life is not improved if others have less.

I'm happy when others can be helped by new policy.

The same argument (Life is not fair) could be used against the people who drew their state pension at age 60 and paid fewer NICs.

Of course.

As a point of interest, what is downside to putting all OAP at the same rate regardless their year of birth?

I've never been employed or worked outside our home, this doesn't apply to me, I can see positives for others.

It's not as if money isn't spent on other "unfairness"

Norah

DaisyAnne

georgia101

I'd like to see all OAPs get the same pension rate, regardless of the year they were born. We have the same expenses to pay after all.

But the people on the new pension had to work extra years. How would that be fair?

Life is not fair.

Why not draw a line under current rates, start with same rate (not age determined) for everyone? Life is not improved if others have less.

I'm happy when others can be helped by new policy.

The same argument (Life is not fair) could be used against the people who drew their state pension at age 60 and paid fewer NICs.