What would you like to see in the budget.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

No, I don't agree at all Norah.

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.

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.

The old state pension was based on fewer years because the retirement age was 60. And women who were due to retire at 60 didn't pay a different rate of NICs from anyone else. We paid whatever the going rate was.

Of course, we do know, don't we, that NICs have never had the 'insurance' function which they were initially envisaged as having. If anything paid for anything, it was our contributions when working which 'paid for' the then retired persons pensions. We weren't paying into any sort of 'pension fund'.

But I have exactly the same take on this as I have on taxation. Neither taxation nor NICs fund spending...

I agree with Norah.

I'm keeping quiet about the fact that years in receipt of child benefit count towards pension entitlement (or has that been stopped now?) I can see whole new avenues of 'unfairness' opening up there...

Maizie The going rate for NICs was much lower than it has been for the last few years.

Yes, I know NICs have never contributed towards an individual pension pot.

However, how do you think those of us who worked full-time all our lives until 66 and paid thousands in NICs (apart from income tax), in addition to childcare, feel when those who could afford to stay at home think they have the right to receive the same? Frankly, I think I earned what I receive.

No, years in receipt of child benefit still count, but I don't get them because I was working at the time, in addition to being a single parent and paying childcare out of my income.

Norah

growstuff

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

Correct.

But somewhat annoyingly you won't end up penniless as there will be a basic state pension disguised as Universal Credit along with whatever pension credits you can apply for!! So not too much suffering to have to live through!!

Those who plan, pay their way, save and so on are the ones who fall through the net when things like the cost of living payments are allocated. But it doesn't necessarily make them better off than those who manage to receive everything going and very often their need is greater monetary wise but their prudence penalises them.

growstuff

Maizie The going rate for NICs was much lower than it has been for the last few years.

Yes, I know NICs have never contributed towards an individual pension pot.

However, how do you think those of us who worked full-time all our lives until 66 and paid thousands in NICs (apart from income tax), in addition to childcare, feel when those who could afford to stay at home think they have the right to receive the same? Frankly, I think I earned what I receive.

I agree (although I confess to being discombobulated by what seems to be your change of heart, growstuff ), and I would add that cries of 'pensioners are relatively well off' come to pass because there are people who see a SP as 'pocket money' given to older people who don't 'need it' or as a benefit akin to UC or JSA.

I don't see it that way at all - I appreciate that contributions were never used in a traditional insurance manner, but that is the fault of the respective governments who managed the scheme, not the people who paid in year on year. I see it as a contributory pension, and a pension is what you get when you have to give up a job because of old age, not a present for reaching 60 or 66. It doesn't matter if you have made other arrangements by saving or contributing to another pension, and more than it matters if you have life insurance as well as a funeral plan.

If the SP went to those who paid for it (in recognition of their contributions and the fact that the years of working also contributed in tax and in the production or service their work brought to society) then maybe fewer people would see it as similar to Universal Credit or JSA, and wouldn't want to see it means tested.

I'm sorry, but if people who didn't work got pension credit paid for out of the means testing of those who also have occupational pensions I think I would combust. I mentioned my MIL on here a while ago and was called 'superior' or similar, which was rather hurtful at the time. MIL had paid enough NI to get a very small pension on top of her SP, and her neighbour did not work so paid nothing. Both are now widowed. MIL gets just over the (old) SP, and the neighbour gets pension credit, which means no council tax, no rent, no dental charges and so on. How is that fair? If saying I think it is wrong makes me 'superior' I don't understand how.

Doodledog It's not really a change of heart. I've always thought those people who contributed very little should get very little. My problem has always been those who would otherwise have absolutely nothing. The figures have never added up.

It seems to me that some want to see an across-the-board Basic Income Pension, and some want an across-the-board Income Related Pension. In either case they seem to want them tomorrow.

I cannot see either happening, but we haven't long to wait and see. If it does it will be put in place for the future not for those currently on pensions. Thinking they will change the one you are now on is very, very unlikely. As such things change people do not (rarely?) move on to the new scheme but are left on "legacy" benefits.

Sources suggest the state pension will rise 10.1% in April 2023. A 10.1% rise will take the New State Pension from £185.15 to £203.85 a week. The Old State Pension would go from £141.85 to £156.18. Pension Credit may (should if the pensions go up) rise by 10.1%.

More than 12 million state pensioners face a real-terms cut if the triple lock isn't honoured in this way.

Incidentally, pensioners are on average well off compared with those of working age. Look at the ONS stats, if you don't believe me. Please note on average!

PS. I'm glad I wouldn't be the only person who would combust if those who retired at 60 suddenly started receiving the same as those of us who had to wait until 66 (or 67). That's exactly what I was thinking - and I'm usually quite relaxed about people who get more than I do, but have worked less.

growstuff

PS. I'm glad I wouldn't be the only person who would combust if those who retired at 60 suddenly started receiving the same as those of us who had to wait until 66 (or 67). That's exactly what I was thinking - and I'm usually quite relaxed about people who get more than I do, but have worked less.

Me too, but my time on GN has coincided with the years I have been living on savings and a very small pension to bridge the gap between 60 and 66, and have realised just how much of a difference the raised SPA has made to my standard of living, and how devastated my retirement plans have been.

Hearing from the media that this is necessary because there are too many pensioners, and simultaneously on GN that women who worked were 'farming out' their children to others - from those who have never contributed money to the system - has hardened my otherwise bleeding heart. I am all in favour of benefit rises for those who can't work (for whatever reason) but resent being told that I am entitled or greedy for objecting to the very idea of means-testing my pension so I can continue to subsidise those who chose not to do so, even after I have retired.

swampy1961

Norah

growstuff

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

Correct.

But somewhat annoyingly you won't end up penniless as there will be a basic state pension disguised as Universal Credit along with whatever pension credits you can apply for!! So not too much suffering to have to live through!!

Those who plan, pay their way, save and so on are the ones who fall through the net when things like the cost of living payments are allocated. But it doesn't necessarily make them better off than those who manage to receive everything going and very often their need is greater monetary wise but their prudence penalises them.

Of course I'd not be penniless (I think). We've planned and saved carefully, my husband has pensions, we've a home to live in and sell, we'll be fine.

If I understand correctly I'll never receive a basic state pension. I've not paid in. I don't have 30 years of contributions, regardless of child raising years.

I'm not the only person in their late 70s who has never worked outside her home. I'm not the only person who values fairness for others.

If your husband gets a State Pension, is he able to claim for you (if you don't mind answering - I'm not being deliberately intrusive, but you mentioned your own situation)?

I was under the impression that the new pension replaced the system where a couple were paid more than a single person. If that is the case (and I may, of course, be wrong), then as well as only paying one lot of tax and NI, a single-earner couple are getting a pension for the non-working partner.

I also believe that under the old scheme a widow can claim at least some of her husband's pension, whilst under the new scheme they can't.

But it's not fair for those who have contributed nothing to receive the same as those who have worked for years and paid in many thousands of pounds. Those on the higher state pension had to wait years longer than those on the "old" pension.

And many died before getting a penny. It is also likely that many more will leave a shorter life than if they had been able to retire when younger, so they will also 'save' the state by dying before getting many years of pension.

Not only that, but people between 60 and 66/67 had to work longer hours before they were eligible for Universal Credit. Before the change, people (men, because women were already retired) could work reduced hours and receive UC if they worked part-time. They were therefore denied the opportunity to cut down their hours.

I worked at a University back in the 70s/80s. I was given no choice but to be opted out of SERPS. As a result I don't get full state pension. I get a little extra in my university pension. And paid less NI during those years. But only realised when I claimed my pension that my univ pension is non incremental. My univ pension is only small, but can't help wondering if I've lost out overall.