Shopping & Style0 min ago
Idiots
So what is wrong with Idiot Duncan Smith? he wants to stop the Winter fuel allowance for ex pat pensioners, who have paid into the scheme all their working life, and now we have that prat Cable who wants to tax pensioners on their Bus passes .What planet are they from???
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by BayBoy1. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
if a divorced or widowed person receives payments based on a former or ex-spouse's contributions, are they receiving a benefit then or is it a State Pension. It is not just "[my] DWP" that refers to State Pension as a benefit, it is legislation which refers to Retirement Pension as being one of several contributory benefits i.e it is based upon NI contributions.
As usual arguing over semantics and pedantry.
for those who have paid no contributions of course its a benefit, and theres plenty still coming here that take full advantage of the fact, and like mugs we dish it out to them.
These people should not be getting anything, and it sickens me that even one penny of my taxes go to them.
If someone has been paying into a pot then they are entitled to have back what the law says they are when the time comes, I dont care how much money they may or may not have or where they may now be living.
for those who have paid no contributions of course its a benefit, and theres plenty still coming here that take full advantage of the fact, and like mugs we dish it out to them.
These people should not be getting anything, and it sickens me that even one penny of my taxes go to them.
If someone has been paying into a pot then they are entitled to have back what the law says they are when the time comes, I dont care how much money they may or may not have or where they may now be living.
I would say, in the circumstances you describe, it would be a State Pension, corby. Many private pension schemes (mine included) extend benefits to widows/widowers in the event of the principle pension-holder dying. It is written into the terms of the scheme and the pension which has been funded by contributions into the scheme does not suddenly become a "benefit".
The government’s confusion between a pension and a benefit is perhaps understandable. State pensions are not funded from pensioners’ earlier contributions but instead, along with traditional benefits, are funded by current contributors. This, of course, is nothing more than a glorified Ponzi scheme, a practice that would see anybody in the real world up before the courts.
The DWP demonstrates a number of anomalies between their terminology and the real world as supported by English language. It pays pensions which it calls benefits and benefits which it terms pensions. It suggests that pensions are benefits because it suits their cause, but refuses to treat pensions as they do other benefits in terms of tax as State pensions, for people with other forms of income, form part of one‘s taxable income. Even the DWP itself suffers somewhat from an identity crisis because it deals predominantly with people who are not in work and suggests that it doesn’t pay pensions at all but age-related benefits! The fact that the government has legislated to make these changes official does not mean they are valid because, as far as I know, the government is not empowered to change the English language.
All this confusion has certainly worked its tricks on you. But you will probably find that most people who have contributed heftily to qualify for their fairly meagre State pension may not agree. They do not welcome it being lumped in with the same funds that are available to any work-shy layabout or anybody who has recently arrived on these shores upon their “retirement”.
The government’s confusion between a pension and a benefit is perhaps understandable. State pensions are not funded from pensioners’ earlier contributions but instead, along with traditional benefits, are funded by current contributors. This, of course, is nothing more than a glorified Ponzi scheme, a practice that would see anybody in the real world up before the courts.
The DWP demonstrates a number of anomalies between their terminology and the real world as supported by English language. It pays pensions which it calls benefits and benefits which it terms pensions. It suggests that pensions are benefits because it suits their cause, but refuses to treat pensions as they do other benefits in terms of tax as State pensions, for people with other forms of income, form part of one‘s taxable income. Even the DWP itself suffers somewhat from an identity crisis because it deals predominantly with people who are not in work and suggests that it doesn’t pay pensions at all but age-related benefits! The fact that the government has legislated to make these changes official does not mean they are valid because, as far as I know, the government is not empowered to change the English language.
All this confusion has certainly worked its tricks on you. But you will probably find that most people who have contributed heftily to qualify for their fairly meagre State pension may not agree. They do not welcome it being lumped in with the same funds that are available to any work-shy layabout or anybody who has recently arrived on these shores upon their “retirement”.
For those aprroaching retirement you should be aware the state pension is taxable. The state pension on its own will not make it taxable but if you have any other private pensions these are added to the state pension. As your allowance before tax is £10,500 the full state pension for an individual would be approx £5616pa meaning income from private pensions would allow an income of £4984 before you start to pay tax on any extra.
I think we could argue all day over the meaning of words, corby. I must take the blame for starting that. My point is that no difference is made between payments to people of retirement age who have made no contribution towards the fund and those who have made the full contribution which the government says they must make to entitle them to a full State pension.
This is not so much of a worry until other age-related benefits such as travel passes and fuel allowances come under scrutiny. Then it seems that these additions, which I consider to be parts of the State pension package, will only be available in the vast majority of cases to those who have made no contributions (because the extras will be means tested and by and large those who have made no contributions will have the lowest means). However you look at it, and whatever words you use, this is manifestly unfair. It adds to the general unjust nature of benefits in retirement. Currently someone qualifying for a full State pension but has other income receives about £107pw. Somebody who may have made the full contribution (or perhaps no contribution at all) and who has no other income gets about £167 under the “Pension Credit” scheme.
The government makes great score of encouraging workers to make sufficient NI contributions to “qualify” for their pension. Then, those who go along with that and pay their dues get kicked in the proverbials by receiving less than those who have sat on their backsides all their lives.
Pensions should not be about “need” - that is the function of means tested benefits. The State pension scheme is largely contribution tested and recipients should have their payments - and their “perks” - calculated in direct proportion to their contributions. At present it seems they are calculated in inverse proportion. And they wonder why people get the hump.
I think that's enough from me!
This is not so much of a worry until other age-related benefits such as travel passes and fuel allowances come under scrutiny. Then it seems that these additions, which I consider to be parts of the State pension package, will only be available in the vast majority of cases to those who have made no contributions (because the extras will be means tested and by and large those who have made no contributions will have the lowest means). However you look at it, and whatever words you use, this is manifestly unfair. It adds to the general unjust nature of benefits in retirement. Currently someone qualifying for a full State pension but has other income receives about £107pw. Somebody who may have made the full contribution (or perhaps no contribution at all) and who has no other income gets about £167 under the “Pension Credit” scheme.
The government makes great score of encouraging workers to make sufficient NI contributions to “qualify” for their pension. Then, those who go along with that and pay their dues get kicked in the proverbials by receiving less than those who have sat on their backsides all their lives.
Pensions should not be about “need” - that is the function of means tested benefits. The State pension scheme is largely contribution tested and recipients should have their payments - and their “perks” - calculated in direct proportion to their contributions. At present it seems they are calculated in inverse proportion. And they wonder why people get the hump.
I think that's enough from me!
You have argued the point well, as I have had many years' involvement wi benefits, I know that there is sometimes a confusion surrounding benefits, allowances and entitlements. Many folk think a state pension is a right but it is not the case and lot of folk think that benefits are what others get and not what they themsel get. We may disagree over the definition of "benefit" but when it comes to legal matters, it's whatever the legislation says it means.
