The potential of no longer paying National Insurance.

But state pensions are not means tested benefits

No, they’re not, but that’s where the government is heading in my opinion.
That’s why they want to get rid of NI, so that no one has an unwritten contract to draw state pension at a certain age, currently 66.

Because it means that permission does not have to be sought every time. If people apply for a means-tested benefit, they would need to be told that their bank accounts might need to be scrutinised without further permission.
But state pensions are not means-tested benefits. Yet. I have ‘nothing to hide’ either, but that doesn’t mean that I understand why anyone should be able to look at how I spend my own money.

It is still called National Insurance. Whatever pot it goes into, it is an insurance which entitles you to benefits and a state pension.

Those earning less than £242 per week do not pay it either.

Exactly! As NI is just another tax, they are paying a lower total rate on the same income.

growstuff

maddyone

I don’t accept the argument that pensioners shouldn’t contribute towards health care

They do. They pay tax.

They pay tax at a significantly lower rate than people of working age.

Surely they pay tax at the same rate?
It's just that they don't pay NI.

maddyone

^I don’t accept the argument that pensioners shouldn’t contribute towards health care ^

They do. They pay tax.

They pay tax at a significantly lower rate than people of working age.

We will have to agree to differ. I have no problem whatsoever with my bank accounts being subject to surveillance. Anything which helps to combat fraud is fine by me.

Doodledog

*I can't honestly see that the DWP would have the time or resources to access the bank accounts of anybody who isn't receiving some kind of means-tested benefit.*

So why is the right to scrutinise accounts of pensioners and others in their households being brought in? The new powers will also extend to the scrutiny of bank accounts of child benefit claimants.

I wrote to my MP (Labour) to ask if the LP would oppose this legislation and he replied to say that yes, both he and the LP were against it, and he agreed with me that there was no obvious reason why the accounts of State Pensioners not in receipt of means tested benefits should be scrutinised. I don't think that those in receipt of such benefits should be scrutinised either, unless there is reason to suspect fraud, in which case existing legislation would cover it.

Because it means that permission does not have to be sought every time. If people apply for a means-tested benefit, they would need to be told that their bank accounts might need to be scrutinised without further permission.

In my case, I would much rather the council just accessed my bank accounts every six months to access the required information. I have nothing to hide. As it is, I have to print off my statements every six months and wait for them to be scrutinised.

Germanshepherdsmum

Try getting some on GN to accept that …

Speaking as one of 'some on Gransnet', I'm not sure what I am supposed to accept. I am happy to accept that TinSoldier sees the new powers as an extension of existing ones. In fact I am happy to accept that anyone sees them as anything. That's up to them, but I can only speak for myself, and I don't accept that they are innocuous.

I have read the paper that Terese Coffey submitted, which does say that and also, in the budget speech, Jeremy Hunt mentioned that the new Child Benefit rules will require HMRC (or was it the DWP?) to access accounts at a household level, something that the government will put in place (if they stay in power). Again, this reduces privacy, and suggests means testing is going to become more widespread. Why else would the accounts of household members be collated if one person is in receipt of a benefit?

Currently there has to be suspicion of a crime before accounts can be scrutinised. Under these powers that will not be the case, which is a huge shift in the ethos with which the justice system is underpinned. If the assumption is that all claimants are criminally inclined, why not assume the same about all taxpayers and access all taxpayers' accounts in case they are not paying enough tax? They could be collated with business accounts to ensure that there are no excess profits being squirrelled away, or paid to family members, but AFAIK that is not in the pipeline - why not, if the intention is genuinely to prevent financial fraud?

The ability to access my accounts because Mr Dog gets a SP (I don't yet) is a huge difference - and however other posters see it, I do not see it as a extension of existing powers, any more than I would see public executions as just an extension of the powers of the existing powers of the judiciary.

I believe that if they stay in power the Tories would love to abolish payouts and subsidies of any kind to anyone but the poorest, and this would include pensions, child benefit, much of the NHS, and ultimately post-16 education. Of course the poorest should be supported, but I also believe in universal benefits, and IMO pensions and child benefit should be among them.

Try getting some on GN to accept that …

This was another petition that gathered enough signatures to require a goverment response:

petition.parliament.uk/petitions/650940

DWP responded on 5 February 2024. Among other things, it says:

There are a number of misconceptions about this measure, namely, it does not grant DWP access to any bank accounts and it does not allow DWP to see how claimants are spending their money.

What this measure will do is require third parties to look within their own data and provide relevant information to DWP that may signal where claimants do not meet the eligibility criteria for the benefit they are receiving. DWP will only receive data on accounts matching criteria DWP prescribe, these will be linked to eligibility criteria for benefits that, if met, may require further consideration to ensure a claim is correct through our business-as-usual processes . For instance, some benefits have rules regarding how much money a claimant can have in a bank account and remain eligible for that benefit. This is called the capital limit and claimants breaching the capital limit is one of the largest causes of fraud and error in the welfare system, accounting for almost £900m in overpayments just in Universal Credit in 2022/2023.

Banks already notify HMRC of the annual interest received on accounts.

I see the new DWP powers as an extension of what already happens.

That’s true GSM, but I suspect that fewer people will be able to afford to retire early in the coming years. The retirement ages for many public sector workers have risen and rather a lot of younger people apparently haven’t made any private pension arrangements. Many more people will have to work longer in the future.

Please excuse typos.

Germanshepherdsmum

A lot of centenarians have retired before the age of 60. Many at 55, or they may have opted to retire even earlier. Police officers, teachers years ago - you have to think back to the 70s. Reaching 100 used to be newsworthy - not so nowadays. A former policeman who retired at 55 and who is now 100 would have retired 45 years ago. He may be over 100 - not uncommon. He would receive a nice pension in addition to his SP.

Nobody gets their State Pension before 66 today and Occupational Pensions have been significantly reduced in most professions but were paid for in one way or another either through poorer working conditions or by giving up a percentage of salary. Only 0.2% of people live until they are 100 and the average age of death in the UK is under 82 years. The life expectancy in the UK is also falling. Looking at the facts seems to demonstrate that 50 years of claiming pensions are quite limited!

NUPI NI

growstuff

I've seen an argument about pensioners having to pay "more taxes" to explain why successive governments have backed away from changing the system. It would be reasonable for pensioners to pay a reduced rate because they're no longer contributing to a pension. It would be a vote loser amongst pensioners for whichever party introduced it. However, I don't accept the argument that pensioners shouldn't contribute towards healthcare.

It wasn't so bad when it was only a few percent of gross salary, but when it jumped to 13%, it was a major chunk taken out of pay.

I did suggest ages ago that perhaps those of pension age should pay a reduced rate of NUPI but only one other poster agreed with me (and I don't think she's on here any more).

Of course, many pensioners do not receive the high rates of pension if they retired the old State Pension and those who paid the Married Women's Stamp do not get a pension in their own tight.

Many people live for upwards of 50 years after retiring, and few are without health issues. The NICs they paid whilst working pale into insignificance - especially if they paid the ‘married women’s stamp’.
The PM was on the West Country News this evening and if I heard him say that the State Pension had gone up by £900 once, he must have said it 5 times. No, it hasn't, for many if not most pensioners.

As for health issues, younger people needn't worry about pensioners being a drain on society, 'voluntary' euthanasia is in the planning.

I can't honestly see that the DWP would have the time or resources to access the bank accounts of anybody who isn't receiving some kind of means-tested benefit.

So why is the right to scrutinise accounts of pensioners and others in their households being brought in? The new powers will also extend to the scrutiny of bank accounts of child benefit claimants.

I wrote to my MP (Labour) to ask if the LP would oppose this legislation and he replied to say that yes, both he and the LP were against it, and he agreed with me that there was no obvious reason why the accounts of State Pensioners not in receipt of means tested benefits should be scrutinised. I don't think that those in receipt of such benefits should be scrutinised either, unless there is reason to suspect fraud, in which case existing legislation would cover it.

Many other countries means test benefits, you have to prove your assets before you get the state pension or ANY other benefits, they might even restrict the tax relief on pensions. I’m sure this will be phased in in stages but there is a massive amount of untaxed wealth, restricting state pensions is one way to access it, more of us will have pay the living costs of later life.

A lot of centenarians have retired before the age of 60. Many at 55, or they may have opted to retire even earlier. Police officers, teachers years ago - you have to think back to the 70s. Reaching 100 used to be newsworthy - not so nowadays. A former policeman who retired at 55 and who is now 100 would have retired 45 years ago. He may be over 100 - not uncommon. He would receive a nice pension in addition to his SP.

Germanshepherdsmum

But we are not being threatened with means testing !

Yet!

I’m thinking our children will be.

I don’t accept the argument that pensioners shouldn’t contribute towards health care

They do. They pay tax.

Germanshepherdsmum

I agree, growstuff. Many people live for upwards of 50 years after retiring, and few are without health issues. The NICs they paid whilst working pale into insignificance - especially if they paid the ‘married women’s stamp’.

Fifty years? Most people retire at 65/66, but some are able to retire at 60. Even assuming a person retired at 60, they would then have to live to 110 if they were to live a further fifty years.
Perhaps you meant thirty years. That would be more realistic.

Exactly - even with AI, they don’t have the resources to check accounts of anyone who isn’t receiving means-tested benefits.

Doodledog

Maybe not, but I feel threatened by the way it keeps being introduced to discussions on pensions, by the fact that people in receipt of SP will soon have their privacy invaded when their bank accounts can be scrutinised, and by the fact that there is clearly something afoot as regards NI.

Doodledog I'm not eligible for Pension Credit, so I don't know what checks are already carried out. However, I do receive Housing Benefit and have a fair idea what checks are done.

I have to submit two months' bank statements every six months. Not only that, but the council "communicates" with HMRC and the DWP. I know that because the council already knows the figures I'll be entering for taxable pensions in January 2025 (even before I'd checked them myself). The council has also populated my form with the amount I'll be receiving in state pension next month - I haven't even been notified officially by DWP.

My guess is that similar checks are already being done for people receiving Pension Credit. I can't honestly see that the DWP would have the time or resources to access the bank accounts of anybody who isn't receiving some kind of means-tested benefit.

It’s posters here that keep on introducing it, absolutely without foundation. I don’t buy this fear of pensioners’ bank accounts being scrutinised, unless they are claiming pension credit and the more that can be done to detect false claims, the better. As regards NI, yes there is something afoot - an aim to get rid of what is now a pointless second tax on employees and also an unfair tax on employers. I really, truly, don’t feel threatened by any of this. It feels very much like adding 2+2 and making 5+.