Which of the major political parties

ballysmate

Wirral_Paul wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

I mean that you are entitled to a pension but directly proportional to the amount of contributions that you make.
ie If you make a full contribution over your working life, you get the full state pension. 50% contribution is halk pension.
Absolute entitlement means that you continue to draw the pension you have accrued, regardless of whether you get 6 numbers in Saturday's lottery.

We're in agreement then mate

Absolutely

lemon63

I mean that you are entitled to a pension but directly proportional to the amount of contributions that you make.
ie If you make a full contribution over your working life, you get the full state pension. 50% contribution is halk pension.
Absolute entitlement means that you continue to draw the pension you have accrued, regardless of whether you get 6 numbers in Saturday's lottery.

Personally i think that regardless of other pension income, if you paid into NI then you have an absolute entitlement to the state pension. If you have never paid a penny in NI through your working life (and importantly are fit for work) - then you have an absolute entitlement to sweet F.A. The first line of my previous post was full of sarcasm.

I agree x2, they can't keep moving the goalposts trying to score politcal points. You pay NI all your life then you should be entitled to receive max state pension regardless of other pension arrangements/savings/own a home etc. If you haven't paid any then you should be entitled to only a basic flat rate, it's part of an incentive to go to work in the 1st place.

freddiegrubb

You've got to remember any income over approx. £10,000 plus any o.a.p. is subject to tax so any oldie who has private pension big pots will still return some to the HMRC. So when you look at the cost of means testing is it worth it?

ooermissus

freddiegrubb wrote:

You've got to remember any income over approx. £10,000 plus any o.a.p. is subject to tax so any oldie who has private pension big pots will still return some to the HMRC. So when you look at the cost of means testing is it worth it?

Cost of winter fuel allowance and free bus travel is a few billion quid a year. That should pay for a spot of means testing.

BillyMansell

lemon63 wrote:

I mean that you are entitled to a pension but directly proportional to the amount of contributions that you make.
ie If you make a full contribution over your working life, you get the full state pension. 50% contribution is halk pension.
Absolute entitlement means that you continue to draw the pension you have accrued, regardless of whether you get 6 numbers in Saturday's lottery.

Personally i think that regardless of other pension income, if you paid into NI then you have an absolute entitlement to the state pension. If you have never paid a penny in NI through your working life (and importantly are fit for work) - then you have an absolute entitlement to sweet F.A. The first line of my previous post was full of sarcasm.

I agree x2, they can't keep moving the goalposts trying to score politcal points. You pay NI all your life then you should be entitled to receive max state pension regardless of other pension arrangements/savings/own a home etc. If you haven't paid any then you should be entitled to only a basic flat rate, it's part of an incentive to go to work in the 1st place.

Where else in life do you pay into an insurance (not assurance) scheme and automatically expect to be paid ? Getting old isn't a good enough reason on its own to demand payment from a system designed to protect the most vulnerable. There are many vulnerable groups who may never pay full contributions due to long term, life long or pervasive disability as well as their carers but the attitude appears to be they should get little or sweet fa and that the beneficiaries of the safety net from penury should be the healthy and financially safe people with an over-inflated sense of entitlement.

It isn't absolute entitlement but absolute greed many seem to be advocating.

Wirral_paul

I think we'd all agree that the cases you refer to - life long illness, disabled etc should get considered as having paid full NI contributions. Its the life long spongers off the state that need their benefits cutting to the bare minimum. Maybe the few billion a year saved from the spongers could then be redistributed to those who actually deserve it more - disabled soldiers etc etc.

As far as i'm concerned - national insurance contributions have always included a proportion to go towards all our retirement - so why is it greedy to actually expect to then receive the entitlements that people have been paying into for 30+years?

https://www.gov.uk/voluntary-national-insurance-contributions/why-pay-voluntary-contributions

Maybe if you feel so strongly about it, then you Billy Mansell can gift your own state pension away to someone more needy.

I dont understand the blanket payment that pensioners get for winter fuel payments, free bus pass for over 60's etc. I agree that this should be means tested. My own father applied for his pass and only uses it very rarely for hospital appointments where they advise him not to drive. God knows how much that is costing the country

ballysmate

Well Paul from the Wirral, we are in full agreement again.

I too can't see why some benefits such as the winter fuel allowance are universal. I believe you still get it even if you retired abroad?

Frank the tank

Ballysmate wrote:

Well Paul from the Wirral, we are in full agreement again.

I too can't see why some benefits such as the winter fuel allowance are universal. I believe you still get it even if you retired abroad?

That's true, you must be gagging for that payment if you live in Belize. :roll:

rick_chasey

In all likelihood I'll be working for the next 50 years even if I do put a fair bit away so pensions aren't really at the top of my agenda. At all.

Frank the tank

Rick Chasey wrote:

In all likelihood I'll be working for the next 50 years even if I do put a fair bit away so pensions aren't really at the top of my agenda. At all.

Is that because you can't afford a pension at the mo or is it a case of "Oh, there's plenty of time for that"?

rick_chasey

Plenty of time for it mainly. I don't have much money lying around and I'd rather be able to save the little I do for, say a deposit rather than locking it up for 50 years.

Doesn't make much sense to tie it up for that long. It's not even as efficient a saving mechanism as it used to be. And private pensions have their own costs to set up too.

daviesee

Rick Chasey wrote:

Plenty of time for it mainly. I don't have much money lying around and I'd rather be able to save the little I do for, say a deposit rather than locking it up for 50 years.

Doesn't make much sense to tie it up for that long. It's not even as efficient a saving mechanism as it used to be. And private pensions have their own costs to set up too.

The only problem with this theory is that after you have property there is a good chance of children coming along.
Then a bigger house. Then the children's education. Then it's too late to be worth starting.

I am not saying that you are right or wrong, especially for your own circumstances, just that there will never seem to be a "right" time.

rick_chasey

Pension is just an investment that gets taxed a little differently.

Frank the tank

daviesee wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Plenty of time for it mainly. I don't have much money lying around and I'd rather be able to save the little I do for, say a deposit rather than locking it up for 50 years.

Doesn't make much sense to tie it up for that long. It's not even as efficient a saving mechanism as it used to be. And private pensions have their own costs to set up too.

The only problem with this theory is that after you have property there is a good chance of children coming along.
Then a bigger house. Then the children's education. Then it's too late to be worth starting.

I am not saying that you are right or wrong, especially for your own circumstances, just that there will never seem to be a "right" time.

Best go and lie down again fella, that's the very thing I was alluding to in my reply to RC. Pensions are a bit like children in the respect that if you wait 'til you can afford one there'll never be a right time. And of course (pension wise) the longer you leave it the more expensive it gets.

Unless you're going to invest big time in property in order to be able to "downsize" and live off of the proceeds in later life. What else realisticly gives you any kind of future security. Could always get "VTech" to advise on which wine to buy.

It is tough on youngsters when incomes for a lot of them are pitiful and living week to week is a job and a half.

daviesee

Frank the tank wrote:

Best go and lie down again fella, that's the very thing I was alluding to in my reply to RC.

No need this time.
I got it, I was just pointing out the pitfalls of thinking, later........

rick_chasey

So what's the advantage of having a pension? Beyond it forcing you to save.

ooermissus

Rick Chasey wrote:

So what's the advantage of having a pension? Beyond it forcing you to save.

Bribes from the taxman, primarily.

daviesee

Rick Chasey wrote:

So what's the advantage of having a pension? Beyond it forcing you to save.

You will need something to fund retirement. A pension is one option. Tax savings are the main, and possibly only reason, for choosing a pension.
What that investment will be is up to you but the earlier you start the more you can gain. Or lose.
It is all a gamble but the fact will remain - You will need something. Doing nothing is not a viable option.

rick_chasey

Right. Pensions are tax free savings right? Only as soon as you draw from them you pay tax on that. Different tax, but tax nonetheless. So it's not like you save a big whack on tax, and you tie that money away for AGES. Literally decades, at which point the rules on pensions and tax will have bound to have changed, and it's unlikely to be positive.

Might as well use that money for an investment I decide ( instead of paying someone else to decide) that gives me more cash over a shorter term. Tying away money has its own costs. It may mean for example my mortgage is more expensive because I have less to put down on a deposit.

I trust myself enough that come 75 I'll have saved enough in whatever investment vehicle I choose. I have a reasonable grasp of personal finance and enough acumen not to be an idiot.

ooermissus

The biggest tax saving is in the tax free lump sum. And if you have a SIPP you can make your own investment decisions.

EKIMIKE

Rick Chasey wrote:

I trust myself enough that come 75 I'll have saved enough in whatever investment vehicle I choose. I have a reasonable grasp of personal finance and enough acumen not to be an idiot.

Totally agree that if this is the case then, in theory, a pension isn't necessary.

Problem is, the majority of people in our society don't have the discipline to save or the acumen to successfully invest their money themselves (myself included) - neither of which is actually surprising.

daviesee

ooermissus wrote:

The biggest tax saving is in the tax free lump sum. And if you have a SIPP you can make your own investment decisions.

This. Plus other options on maturity.
Plus there is a possibility of saving 40% tax now and paying 20% tax later.
Everyone is different, and the rules are subject to change. Choose what you are comfortable with. :P

Frank the tank

I'm fortunate enough to have been in a company pension from the age of 20 and at the time I thought that's ages away. Suddenly (so it seems) I'm all but 52 and I'm bloody glad I started all those years back.

Fair do's pension rules do change I'm now having to pay more in to get less out but, unless the scheme collapses altogether I'll be better off than scraping along on a basic state pension.

As already posted doing nothing is not an option.

None of us can see into the future lots of cyclists get killed/maimed every year so perhaps saving for the future is daft. It's not a risk I would take though, I'd sooner the tax man take a cut out my pension than not have one so he can't.

rick_chasey

Company pension?

Pfft. I wish.

Frank the tank

Rick Chasey wrote:

Company pension?

Pfft. I wish.

I did say FORTUNATE enough.

I don't know you from Adam fella and I'm just trying to give you a bit of advice. If you're able to START making provision for your long term future now, NOW is the time to do it.

Lifes path has many twists and turns in it, some good some not so, and while I admire your confidence in your ability to shape your own destiny; believe me sometimes a card can be "dealt off the bottom of the pack" and all you youthful enthusiasm/optimism/plans can evapourate in seconds.

ooermissus

Frank the tank wrote:

As already posted doing nothing is not an option.

Assisted suicide at 75 makes retirement planning a lot simpler.

Frank the tank

ooermissus wrote:

Frank the tank wrote:

As already posted doing nothing is not an option.

Assisted suicide at 75 makes retirement planning a lot simpler.

Don't be ridiculous, you qualify for free tv licence at 75.

keef66

Frank the tank wrote:

ooermissus wrote:

Frank the tank wrote:

As already posted doing nothing is not an option.

Assisted suicide at 75 makes retirement planning a lot simpler.

Don't be ridiculous, you qualify for free tv licence at 75.

The way the sh1t on TV is degenerating, assisted suicide at 75 is sounding attractive...

Wirral_paul

Rick Chasey wrote:

Pension is just an investment that gets taxed a little differently.

Its not quite that simple Rick. The biggest advantage is the tax relief you get on the pension contributions. You could save into an ISA and that grows (almost) free of tax in the same way as a pension fund would - but you dont get the tax relief on your savings.

You can also pay into a company pension scheme via salary sacrifice, and so save National Insurance contributions (that in part goes towards the State Pension that we wont get if some have their way).

ooermissus

Wirral_Paul wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Pension is just an investment that gets taxed a little differently.

Its not quite that simple Rick. The biggest advantage is the tax relief you get on the pension contributions. You could save into an ISA and that grows (almost) free of tax in the same way as a pension fund would - but you dont get the tax relief on your savings.

That's not quite right. With pensions the money is tax free going in, but taxed when the money comes out after retirement (apart from the lump sum). So, as Rick pointed out, the difference with an ISA is not necessarily as big as people think.