Time to get on our bikes and mopeds to earn extra money to live on?

Doodledog

No she didn’t!

She said that they entered into a contract, which is about trust and tacit agreement. We all know there is no signed deal, any more than we have signed for any of our rights, yet this lack of a paper contract is brought up with tedious regularity as though we are all too dim to understand the pension system. We aren’t - we know that ‘our’ money paid for the previous generation- but the ‘contract’ we have is the basis of rule by consent in the absence of a constitution. It’s about an understanding that if we do what we are asked, live within the law, pay what we owe etc then we will be protected, have access to education, health and pensions (amongst other things). That contract is perilously close to being shattered these days, but it forms the basis of our relatively peaceful society. If governments continue to renege on their side of the deal there is no incentive for citizens to stick to ours.

Generally the Brits don’t go in for revolution or rioting as much as countries which do have legal contracts, but that’s because generally governments have kept to their side of the (implicit) deal. If they water that down too far, there are no guarantees.

Thank you.....for understanding what the tacit agreement was.

Up until somewhere in the 60/70s, women could pay what was then called a "married woman's stamp" and get a reduced pension, or opt to pay for a full pension.

I chose to pay a full stamp.

No, I didn't sign a contract, because that's not how it works - in those days you relied on what the government was telling you.

It works the same now with JSA and ESA - if you pay in for the qualifying period, you can claim the contributory element, which is non means tested.

Other benefits, or the above if you haven't paid in enough, rely on nothing, other than income/savings.

growstuff

The government didn't get you sign any such contract when you were 16.

The agreement was then that if a woman paid a full stamp, for the required amount of years, then she would be entitled to a full pension, in her own right, instead of relying on her husbands pension, at age 60.

They moved the goalposts with the age 60 thing. No need to alter anything else for existing pensioners.

I think that most people who can afford to do pay into occupational or private pensions. The problems arise when those who haven't done so resent that and suggest that state pensions should be treated as means-tested benefits, and only paid to those on the breadline, meaning that it is a race to the bottom for older people. This is encouraged by governments who foster intergenerational conflict and point to the low level of benefits for young people, as though it is not possible to both manage a state pension scheme based on contributions and a benefit scheme for those unable to work. Those who do work should, IMO, have a legal right to pay that keeps them above the level where benefits are necessary.

I think we are going round in circles a bit though.

Doodledog

They do, for those who can afford them. But those who have worked and paid compulsory NI for decades have a right to some return, wouldn't you say?

Yes, I would say.

However, the thread seems to be about pensions perhaps being a bit low - I think maybe saving privately could be part to an answer, for some.

Because private arrangements are vulnerable to scammers? Because they are major investments with various possible outcomes? Because legislation is complex?

State pensions, OTOH, are simple - everyone who works pays in, whether they like it or not, and everyone who qualifies takes out. Even pensions advisors give advice based on the assumption that those who have stumped up NI for decades will get what they can see on a government website as their projected pension as well as other arrangements they have made. Pulling the rug from under them by means-testing the SP element of their planning would ruin the plans and lives of those who have done the best they can to look after their own loves as they get older.

If the SP is going to be means-tested in future, it should be made voluntary, so that people can choose to invest it how they choose. I'd rather that didn't happen, as I prefer the tacit contract system where we all look after one another according to ability and need, but when that is broken on one side it is not reasonable to expect the other side to hold the line.

Written contract or not, I can't honestly say I thought about my pension when I received my first pay cheque. I just accepted that a certain amount had been taken off to pay for government stuff. I'm afraid I was far too dim to understand anything about the pension system. In fact, if it's so easy to understand, why do we have pension advisors?

No she didn’t!

She said that they entered into a contract, which is about trust and tacit agreement. We all know there is no signed deal, any more than we have signed for any of our rights, yet this lack of a paper contract is brought up with tedious regularity as though we are all too dim to understand the pension system. We aren’t - we know that ‘our’ money paid for the previous generation- but the ‘contract’ we have is the basis of rule by consent in the absence of a constitution. It’s about an understanding that if we do what we are asked, live within the law, pay what we owe etc then we will be protected, have access to education, health and pensions (amongst other things). That contract is perilously close to being shattered these days, but it forms the basis of our relatively peaceful society. If governments continue to renege on their side of the deal there is no incentive for citizens to stick to ours.

Generally the Brits don’t go in for revolution or rioting as much as countries which do have legal contracts, but that’s because generally governments have kept to their side of the (implicit) deal. If they water that down too far, there are no guarantees.

Doodledog

growstuff

The government didn't get you sign any such contract when you were 16.

Nobody is saying they did! That’s another trope that is used to suggest that people are ill-informed. It’s condescending, particularly when people have explained their views several times.

I don’t have a state pension yet. I am perfectly capable of caring about that, and also for the generations behind mine.

DiamondLily did say that!

They do, for those who can afford them. But those who have worked and paid compulsory NI for decades have a right to some return, wouldn't you say?

Doodledog

*We don’t know that that is their plan, but all the talk of generational inequality and the way they turn young against old means I wouldn’t be surprised*
From the post you quoted

Noted.

However, nobody actually is asking for such, correct?

Good reason to save more for our AC and GC old age.

Tax savings plans exist for reasons!

We don’t know that that is their plan, but all the talk of generational inequality and the way they turn young against old means I wouldn’t be surprised
From the post you quoted

Doodledog

But if we roll over and accept cuts to our pensions, things will be worse for future generations. We have to resist them with full force so that governments know that there is a line that they can’t cross. It is the government (of all persuasions) who have sat back and let this happen. They have access to demographic trends and have known for years that people are living longer. If we have to pay more in, fine. But pulling the rug from under people’s plans would be despicable IMO. We don’t know that that is their plan, but all the talk of generational inequality and the way they turn young against old means I wouldn’t be surprised, and it’s disheartening to hear people who retired at 60 and have been in receipt of a pension for decades supporting the idea.

I admit to being confused. Who advised cuts to pensions?

Contact local secondary schools, they use external invigilators. I'm paid £13 per hour. Also, electoral registrar, they use people to canvas, issue and open postal votes, acting as polling
clerks for elections or counting the votes over night.

I am 70, just been made redundant so started looking for another part tine job

But if we roll over and accept cuts to our pensions, things will be worse for future generations. We have to resist them with full force so that governments know that there is a line that they can’t cross. It is the government (of all persuasions) who have sat back and let this happen. They have access to demographic trends and have known for years that people are living longer. If we have to pay more in, fine. But pulling the rug from under people’s plans would be despicable IMO. We don’t know that that is their plan, but all the talk of generational inequality and the way they turn young against old means I wouldn’t be surprised, and it’s disheartening to hear people who retired at 60 and have been in receipt of a pension for decades supporting the idea.

I agree Norah. I’m not sure why *Monica thinks I’m implying that people are more concerned for themselves than their children, because I’m not. All I meant was that they will have it tougher as retirees than we have.

Casdon

It’s highly unlikely that existing pensioners would be affected if they did go down this route, it will be people who are still currently working. We should be more concerned for our children than for ourselves.

I can't imagine means testing of basic pension, cost is deterrent. If pensions are called benefits or not doesn't matter to me.

We do care about our children and grandchildren. We're putting money into age appropriate savings for them, such as Jr ISA until they age out. I think setting money aside (saving), apart from pension is the answer.

However, I'm a saver, not a spender - may be why I think as I do.

Casdon What makes you think we are more concerned for ourselvs than our children?

DiamondLily Longevity has grown substantially since you were 16. Isn't it reasonable to expect you to pay extra years, or extra contributions to cover providing the extra pension needed to fund these extra years? Or should your pension just be cut off at 80, or whatever.

When the state pension was first introduced in 1909, the qualifying age was 70, only 25% of he population lived to that age, and longevity would have been biassed towards the better off and the pension was drawn by most for less than 9 years.

In 1961, when I first worked life expectancy for a women over 15 years old was 75.7 years. It is now over 83, and if you reach 80, as I have this year, my life expectancy, statistically, is 90.

growstuff

The government didn't get you sign any such contract when you were 16.

Nobody is saying they did! That’s another trope that is used to suggest that people are ill-informed. It’s condescending, particularly when people have explained their views several times.

I don’t have a state pension yet. I am perfectly capable of caring about that, and also for the generations behind mine.

Doodledog
I agree with you completely.

Call it whatever you like I am still waiting longer than I should be for something I have worked for since 17.

The government didn't get you sign any such contract when you were 16.

It’s highly unlikely that existing pensioners would be affected if they did go down this route, it will be people who are still currently working. We should be more concerned for our children than for ourselves.

I look at it that the government, of the day, made a contract with me when I was 16.

They told me that if I paid a full "stamp" (as opposed to the old "married woman's" reduced stamp, which was still around when I got married). all of my working life, I would get a state pension at 60, until I die. So, I did pay it.,

They reneged on the first bit by making me wait an extra 6 years, but I expect them to keep their part of the bargain.

The fact that I've got private pensions and savings is irrelevant - I obtained them, independent of government. I've got a civil service pension, my late DH had a work pension, and we both had endowment pensions. All of which we paid for.

Of course, I accept that I can't claim any "means tested" benefits, such as Pension Credit etc. but I don't think they would get away with means testing the basic pension.

There would be riots, and the admin required with assessing claims would be horrendous.

There's never been a pot, as such. We all pay towards one another. Younger people fund my pension. Out of taxes I still pay, I help fund things like their children.

At one times, State Pension used to be separated out from "benefits" as a descriptor. The government have chosen to lump everything in now - but there still are two types of benefits - contributory and income related.

If you've contributed for enough time, you should get the payments of whatever, without having to prove your income.😗

As I said, that aspect of it doesn’t bother me one way or the other. Call it what you like. The facts as I stated them remain though. Pot, no pot - the bottom line is that the mechanism by which the government takes our money and gives it back in the form of a pension is not something we as citizens have had any say in. It’s not as though we have made unwise investments or put our contributions on a horse - we have done as we were asked to do in the expectation of a pension. It’s bad enough that they have reneged on giving it to us at 60, but means-testing it would be a huge betrayal of trust, and be another case of keeping the average person in their place.

People have spent their whole working lives paying in, and planning based on the expectation of getting a state and an occupational pension if they have paid for both. For someone to decide that they have ‘too much’ (which is even more insulting given the amount that ministers and high-ranking civil servants get) is spiteful and IMO deeply unfair. Trotting out ’oh but there is no pot’ (as if we are all idiots) in support of their contempt for ordinary citizens is tedious, and doesn’t add to the discussion.

Doodledog

I get so bored with that - sorry. I don’t care if there is a ‘pot’. I care that everyone who works has to pay in, and does so in the expectation that they will get out. If the scheme has been managed so that nobody has a ‘pot’ that is not the fault of the public, who have contributed in good faith.

Norah, what’s the point in setting aside for yourself if that is going to be used against you? I don’t mind paying for those who are unable to work, and would very much like to see higher wages all round and a more progressive tax system; but I do object to the idea that my contributions be given to someone who has chosen not to work because someone somewhere has decided that my occupational pension (for which I paid a significant amount each month) puts me over a threshold that they deem suitable for someone in my position, so their ‘need’ is greater than mine.

Sorry, I don't care that you're bored. The state pension is a benefit.