ChatterBank6 mins ago
Public 'confused' Over State Pension Changes
http://
This is very confusing ! If you are due to retire soon, are you sure exactly what you are going to get ?
This is very confusing ! If you are due to retire soon, are you sure exactly what you are going to get ?
Answers
1 to 14 of 14
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by mikey4444. 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.
Interesting link here :::::
http://
http://
//Being contracted out for even a short period of time could leave people with a much smaller pension than they were expecting.
Only 18% knew if they had ever been contracted out of the state pension. //
That's nothing new. There's always been confusion over the state pension. I know people receiving small pensions now because they were contracted out - and didn't realise it.
Only 18% knew if they had ever been contracted out of the state pension. //
That's nothing new. There's always been confusion over the state pension. I know people receiving small pensions now because they were contracted out - and didn't realise it.
"Contracting Out" was only allowed if you were paying money into a qualifying pension scheme (separate to the State Pension).
Effectively you were diverting cash from the various State "second pension schemes" (including superannuation and serps) to your own private or company pension. It is entirely reasonable that you then get only the basic pension from the State when you retire.
I was made aware of this every time I contributed to a Contracted Out scheme - the fact that people don't read the paperwork is hardly the Government's fault.
Interestingly, because Contracting Out is now ended, many people will pay more NI from April 2016 - now that will come as a nasty surprise if you haven't read the small print of the current changes ...
Effectively you were diverting cash from the various State "second pension schemes" (including superannuation and serps) to your own private or company pension. It is entirely reasonable that you then get only the basic pension from the State when you retire.
I was made aware of this every time I contributed to a Contracted Out scheme - the fact that people don't read the paperwork is hardly the Government's fault.
Interestingly, because Contracting Out is now ended, many people will pay more NI from April 2016 - now that will come as a nasty surprise if you haven't read the small print of the current changes ...
If you log onto the DWP site as I did a couple of years ago - confirm some basic details it will give you your state pension date and a projection, based on current legislation and best known figures, of your state pension when you reach that age. Mine was below the larger figures mentioned but I was contacted out for a number of years. I`m more concerned that they keep mischarging my tax deductions from my other 2 pensions.
CrapAC...If you last had a pension forecast that long ago, my advice would be to get another one, as your previous one will now be out of date.
But there are huge changes coming in a few days time, and they will be swamped with requests for a month or so, so leave it until May. A forecast is easy to do on line, and in ordinary times, you should get a reply within a week or so.
But there are huge changes coming in a few days time, and they will be swamped with requests for a month or so, so leave it until May. A forecast is easy to do on line, and in ordinary times, you should get a reply within a week or so.
its very simple you go here: https:/
I have just done an online forecast for OH this morning and thankfully it shows he will be entitled to the new full amount when he is 65 end of May. The new forecasts have to give more information due to the new rules and some not being entitled to what they are expecting. It shows all the contributions made during working life and any missing years.
Of course the utter iniquity of the new scheme is that someone retiring today (having made the full NI contributions) will receive about £40 per week less than somebody retiring next week (having made the same contributions).
As well as this, many of those retiring on the lower rate will have spent much of their working life in the belief that they needed 44 (men) and 39 (women) years of NI contributions to qualify for the full pension. Some of them will have made voluntary contributions to make up for years when they had a shortfall. It was only in 2010 that the number of years required was reduced to 30 for both genders so only people retiring between then and now (when the minimum goes up to 35 years) will have benefited from that change (and only then if they were short of years). Among those, any who made additional contributions will have wasted their money.
These changes are extremely unfair. They were said to be made to simply the system (which they barely do) and they are prejudicial to those already retired. These iniquities were pointed out when the new arrangements were being planned but, as usual, they were brushed aside. Running a fair pension scheme (one where contributions relate to payments) is not that difficult but the government (not just this one) seems to delight in making a pig's breakfast of it. Much of this stems from the fact that they insist on treating people who have made little or no contributions in the same fashion as those who have contributed fully. They even call the former group "pensioners" when they are not pensioners at all.
As well as this, many of those retiring on the lower rate will have spent much of their working life in the belief that they needed 44 (men) and 39 (women) years of NI contributions to qualify for the full pension. Some of them will have made voluntary contributions to make up for years when they had a shortfall. It was only in 2010 that the number of years required was reduced to 30 for both genders so only people retiring between then and now (when the minimum goes up to 35 years) will have benefited from that change (and only then if they were short of years). Among those, any who made additional contributions will have wasted their money.
These changes are extremely unfair. They were said to be made to simply the system (which they barely do) and they are prejudicial to those already retired. These iniquities were pointed out when the new arrangements were being planned but, as usual, they were brushed aside. Running a fair pension scheme (one where contributions relate to payments) is not that difficult but the government (not just this one) seems to delight in making a pig's breakfast of it. Much of this stems from the fact that they insist on treating people who have made little or no contributions in the same fashion as those who have contributed fully. They even call the former group "pensioners" when they are not pensioners at all.
I think it's more to do with when you get to qualify for a pension than when you retire.
I do not know what changes they are making except to know that if it is so that the State saves money it can only mean that they are reneging again on those who were told years ago what future benefit entitlement they were paying in for, and the pensioners will get a worse deal.
No doubt the government website will have a calculator for it all soon and then we can see what damage to us, those we voted in are prepared to inflict.
I'll check you link now. Which usually wants a subscription to look at stuff !
I do not know what changes they are making except to know that if it is so that the State saves money it can only mean that they are reneging again on those who were told years ago what future benefit entitlement they were paying in for, and the pensioners will get a worse deal.
No doubt the government website will have a calculator for it all soon and then we can see what damage to us, those we voted in are prepared to inflict.
I'll check you link now. Which usually wants a subscription to look at stuff !
NJ makes a sweeping generalisation by claiming someone retiring today will get £40 less than the same retiree next week. That is the maximum and is only true of someone earning so little that they have no lifetime contributions into the second state scheme, or SERPS before that. Many people, me included, end up with more when they retire after April 2016, because they get the higher of two ways of calculating it. The new scheme always was going to benefit those on smaller lifetime wages. A true Socialist scheme for which Mickey could be proud instead of whingeing about whether the average retiree has been bothered enough to understand it.
Going back more than eight years I know I am not alone in arranging affairs not to earn enough in direct pay to have to pay NI. There has been little point if one has 30 contribution years. One just has to be bothered enough to work the system for advantage.
Going back more than eight years I know I am not alone in arranging affairs not to earn enough in direct pay to have to pay NI. There has been little point if one has 30 contribution years. One just has to be bothered enough to work the system for advantage.
1 to 14 of 14
Latest Posts
ChatterBank7 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles46 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles56 mins ago
News71 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.