What would you like to see in the budget.

Just in case anyone else has seen this and wants to sign up to one of the subscriptions, do sign up for the email first as there is always a discount offer in them.

DaisyAnne

Pammie1

I’m concerned by rumours that the government is looking at introducing means testing for disability benefits like PIP/DLA/AA and carers allowance. I feel as though disability benefits are at the forefront of any round of cuts and are considered the low hanging fruit. I know it’s been leaked that pensions and benefits will rise by inflation, but this has to be paid for somehow and like everything else, the devil is in the detail. Mel Stride was asked about it in parliament last week and would not confirm or deny, saying he couldn’t comment on what may or may not appear in the budget.

Like others, I would also like to see House of Lords attendance allowances reduced along with in house subsidies on food and drink. Would be nice if the annual payments to ex PM’s were either stopped after a period of time or reduced. About time MP’s shouldered some of the ‘burden’ as they possess the ‘broader shoulders’ the government are looking for.

I don't know if you use "Benefits and Work" as a source Pammie but if you go to www.benefitsandwork.co.uk/ you can scroll down the page and subscribe to their email newsletters (you don't have to take out a subscription). The next one is due on 23 November so will cover what has been said in the Budget.

If you click on the "News" tab at the top of the home page you will see a recent article headed "PIP and DLA will not be means-tested, minister finally confirms".

Thank you for this DaisyAnne. Will have a look now. I used to have a subscription to the service but it lapsed last year. Time to renew I think.

They were upthread, when someone said that the old and new pensions should be merged.

growstuff

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.

Nobody has expressed a wish for people who "contribute nothing to receive the same as those have worked for years and paid in many thousands pounds".

Doodledog

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.

Doodledog, Are you asking me?

I'll ask. I don't know or I'd tell you.

It's not intrusive, I brought it up when I gave my opinion.

The SERP addition was I think a quarter of what he would of got on retirement. About £12 a month😬

Doodledog

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.

If you mean State Pension the only bit I got from my husbands contributions was from the SERPS additional contributions that he paid for a few years.

There was a one year only of Widows payment of I think £100 per month. It was a long time ago.

Nothing else. I’m not grumbling though because his medical treatment would have cost hundreds of thousands probably🤔

I'm in the same situation Scottiebear. I don't get a full state pension, despite working for many years than the minimum. I paid more in occupational pension contributions than I did NICs and I sometimes wonder if I should have found myself a rich husband instead, who could have kept me.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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...