Flat-Rate State Pension: stop whingeing, start saving

It does not matter when you retire, it is the date when you reach 65 that governs whether you get the new level of state pesion or not! You can defer taking your state pension for as long as you like,it will not make a blind bit of difference with regards to the new pension amounts i 2015/2016. this was stated on national tv by the minister.

We should all worry about the self employed who pay little national insurance and can reduce their tax bill as they do.

I paid more national insurance in one week cards in , than I paid in a year self employed.

Politicians are not fools ( whatever else they are!). They are well aware of the ageing population issue, coupled with the fact that this is the part of the demographic that votes.

They had to do something to deal with the Brown tax credit fiasco, before they get slaughtered at the next election.

It is no coincidence that this change is planned to come in at or about the time of the next election.

Robberd by Brown/Balls/Zanuliebore and scr3w3d by the coalition.

So what is new?

People are moaning because when they save it is taken back by texation. People

started saving for Private Pension, but then since last 13 Years of Labour Government, they took about 5 Billion per year from Pension saving and balance is

taken by Finanacial Industry and advicer in charges.

Shah

A two-tiered system seems pretty unfair.

My wife and I have scrimped and saved for a pension....Our next door neighbours blew the lot, and they're better off than we are.

I'm not envious. I think they they were smart and long sighted. My wife and I were pretty stupid.

Have I got this right that it goes by your age ie: 65

I will be 65 in 2013 and had thought about leaving my state pension alone until the new levels come into play.

Now I have to say this seems a tad unfair unless the levels are equalised somewhere along the line.

Example I have heard the arguement about the less well off well this is the reallity

I have worked all my life and have saved and saved I now own my own house car and so on.

My father in law gets the state pension and the pension credit he always lived in a council house and never a day went past when he didnt visit the local public house to comtribute to their income excessively. Once a year he goes to New Zealand for 3 months because he needs to keep his savings low.

I think I have been brought up with the wrong set of values

Things dont change. They take from those who have worked,saved, and done all the paying and give to those who just sit on there arses and wait to be given money. T`was forever thus in modern Britain.

I have a well educated 50 year old brother in law who lives on state handouts and drinks for England.

I live in Cyprus,Top tax rate for retirees ---5%. Come on in, the waters lovely

Lorna ....get your facts straight before you lecture older people.

You say 'Those who have complained that they have paid their national insurance (NI) contributions all their working lives must understand that however much they paid, it was never enough to fund state pensions plus all the other benefits which are claimed by the elderly, the sick and unemployed.'

Millions of private sector working people paid into SERPs because they did not have ANY other pension scheme available to them - private companies did NOT offer pension schemes to workers only staff and Directors qualiified in 50's 60's and 70's.

For years Governments sold them SERPS as the route to a better pension. It was only when one minister let slip the greatest lie ever is NI contributions don't go into a pension pot - there is no money its spent as tax revenue. Ring a bell - Browns lot.

So do not say 'people must understand their payments were never enough' - people were never told the monies ostensibly saved for pensions had been spent.

These sorts of revelations were made by the likes of Maxwell.

Please do your homework in future.

Everyone knows as soon as a Government starts talking about pension deductions it is just another tax. You wont see anything except if it is necessary to keep you off the streets because you have nothing.

If I am going to die earlier than people working now, I'm not totally clear why my pension should be 97/140ths as much. In normal insurance terms, I should be able to draw the same or higher amount since it will not be paid for as long. And I had to contribute for a longer period since the change in the qualifying number of years. It's nothing to do with the cost, just the will to do so. In my working life I supported a generation who had pensions which were relatively larger than they are now: the current generation just doesn't want to honour the compact.

Looking at it from the cost of provision of basic necessities, if it's judged you need £140 a week, that's what you need. I don't see any sense of fairness in my having to make that up out of my own pocket when others will get for nix.

That's not whingeing - just pointing out the fact.

Arb.

What nonsense comments from P Williams. Did he/she ever read a newspaper?

Good stuff Lorna, as usual.

Most of my points have been made by previous writers. Indeed it is not whingeing to point out the gross unfairness. I have a partial pension of £76 per week, brought up to this level by back payments of contributions. Because I have savings I can't claim pension credit. The rules at the time prevented me from making more than pitiful private pension payments and the three days a week I worked while my children were at home meant I was ineligible for my employer's scheme, so there were no contributions from them. When this was changed after I left to study for a degree (part-time by the way, so not eligible for grant) it was back-dated to the year after I left! I have missed out all along the line yet have always been frugal and saved, done my duty in caring for children and elderly relatives which hasmerely deprived me of potential earnings and pension contributions too. Hard work and provision for the future are penalised instead of rewarded: this is what people are complaining about.

I see we still have far many whingers, life is never fair to them poor dears.

Before the writer of the article spoats off an absolute load of waffle she should get her facts correct as already stated. Women staying home to bring up a family get contribution credits for those years so why indicate that their pension suffers. Many of the writers comments are unfair and she does not appreciate the situation of many people who are trying to get a pension together for their retirement. We are all clearly aware of the general pension situation in relation to people living longer and how it affects both private and state pensions. I have to say I do agree that pension contributions should not warrant 40% tax relief , this is realy an obscenity to allow this relief. As far as the new proposed £155 pesion I do feel that all existing pensioners should be included. Alternatively an additional payment should be made to those existing pensioners who have paid for SERPs and the stae second pension in order to increase there state pension but who may not be getting £155 a week. The original state pension scheme was to provide a pesion based on your contributions and I still fel that a state pension should be paid out based on contribution and credits given for sickness or other agreed circumstances. I have paid into the state scheme all my life and will shortly be retiring so will not get the £155 a week proposed pension. I have paid Graduated Contributions and additional contributions for the SERPs pension and second pension. Why should someone get more pension than myself when they have not paid in contributions during their lifetime because they possibly did not want to work and yet they will now get a full pension. By all means give someone a percentage of the state pension based on their level of contributions but where is the justification in giving a full pension. Anyone who cannot manage on the state pension should be means tested in some form for additional benefit , as in the current system. Why are women so hard done by? They get credits for bringing up children and if they decide not to work for the remainder of their working life then that is their problem. They should make arrangements for their own pension. There are many women who opted to pay the so-called very low rate Married Women's Stamp or contribution and agreed that they would not get a pension . Now however it is felt that they should get a full pesion after opting for not contributing. By all means pay a woman a pension based on her husbands contributions if he dies. This new scheme is full of unfairness for many ordinary low wage workers who have done all they can to obtain a reasonable state pension and now find that many people on much higher salaries will be getting £155 a week whatever their contributions. The state system certainly needed some simplfication but there is no justice in this new system.

If anyone thinks that £140 aweek is alot by the time it kicks in , inflation willhave eaten most of the extra away, this just seems to me like cutting pensions overall.

What people must understand is that relying on the government for a good pension is like putting your arm into abucket full of snakes and not expecting to get bitten.

There are always winners and losers in any society. My wife gains hands down as she is 62 and in full well paid secure employment but does not have to pay any NI as she draws her State Pension (albeit taxed at 40%).

I am already retired, however do not draw my State Pension until 2015 and therefore may or may not receive the new pension. Likewise I was not able to collect my Bus Pass until 6 months after my 60th birthday.

As I said there will always be winners and losers............

Martin

Its obvious you are a SUN reader. I need to say no more.

"In my working life I supported a generation who had pensions which were relatively larger than they are now: the current generation just doesn't want to honour the compact."

Arb, how big was the generation before you and what age did they die?

I'm retiring today age 57,yippeee.

How? Saved all my life worked hard all my life(well,since a teenager),and had good advice from a good IFA.

If the message goes out to the younger person of say less than 40-50 it must be: Save, Save, Save... if you want to have a reasonable standard of living in retirement. What is reasonable is of course down to the individual- as a retired person i find my pensions to be quite adequate for my 'reasonable' standard of living but I am making sure that I have additional provision for when i am less active and will possibly need help and more heating etc.

Being the start of the new tax year today I have just put £2880 into my SIPP (HMRC will add £720). Anyone care to tell me why this figure has not been increased for several years? It used to be £2808 with a larger top up to £3600. I have had a nice run on EM and intend to keep it running past 65 as the £720 is free and the older I get the more income drawdown or annuity.

Who is this idiot Lorna Bourke anyway?

Another load of s***e from her!

What she has failed to mention is what is really going to hit present pensioners with an occupational pension, namely combining NI with Income Tax!

Do you not know Lorna, that at present NI is not paid by pensioners, only by the employed!

How you are still employed beats me! Week after week, drivel after drivel!

Why do people have to be so disrespectful? Shame on you. Disagreeing with someones point of view and presenting an intelligent counter point is called 'debate'.

There is also a word for people who only want to hear their own point of view and make personal attacks on those who do not agree with it.

It is 'bigot' by the way.

Lorna - I do not always agree with all of your articles, but in this case I think you have hit the nail on the head.

P.S. Congrats Big Al - enjoy!

Alan Thorburn - Lorna is one of our journalists. You can argue with what she says as much as you like but insulting her personally is neither big nor clever. Any more personal attacks you post will be removed.

Big Al - congratulations, and I hope you enjoy your retirement!

Mary Hamilton

Your defence of your journalist from personal attacks is understandable but,on reflection,you may both agree that writing about "whingers moaning",which could be taken as a reference to contributors to a previous article on this subject by Ms.Bourke on Citywire,was liable to invite a robust response.

Feelings are running high amongst my age group(60-65) on this subject .Many of us have worked and paid our way all our lives.I ,for one,long ago realised that NI contributions went into current spending and that in the words of Nye Bevan"The great secret about the National Insurance fund is that there ain't no fund." and that contributions were insufficient,on their own,to completely fund a living pension(unless you did the decent thing and popped off before you got to 70.)

Still,it was compulsory and always stressed that if you didn't keep up your contributions,you would get a reduced pension or none at all.Now,having realised how much of our taxes are going to pay for pensions in the public sector,to add insult to injury it appears that we may as well not have bothered paying (in my case by the time I retire)50 years NI contributions.

Many of us have saved as much as we can,in the knowledge that if we want a decent standard of life in retirement we are on our own ,yet fluctuating stock markets and a rapacious investment industry have made the accumulation of sufficient funds to ensure this,like a mirage in the desert:often in sight,but never quite real and ultimately non-existent.

Frankly,I would like to see Citywire spend more time putting the investment industry on the spot in respect of their totally unjustifiable spreads and charges.Achieving a reduction in those would be the best service you could provide for investors and would be a substantial help in achieving the goal of making saving worthwhile.

Sandy, thanks for your considered comment. I understand completely that this is an emotive subject and that Lorna's article invites a robust response - but it is still not acceptable in my view to attack her personally, to call her work "drivel" or to swear at her. That doesn't just insult our journalists - it creates a very hostile environment for other readers who might want to express a dissenting opinion. We enjoy and invite debate here, and as you see on this thread and many others we don't censor honestly held opinions - but there is a difference between attacking the messenger as happened in the comment above, and expressing a strong opinion with respect as you have done.

I'll take your comments about investment charges on board and pass them on to our other journalists, who write more about investment than Lorna does. And if you want to talk more about moderation, you can always email me - mhamilton@citywire.co.uk

I have also saved hard - ISAs etc, stockmarket based private pensions (which might buy me a few litres of petrol if I'm lucky) for my retirement. What angers me is that if I am made redundant, and I can see that coming quite soon, I will be forced to spend most of my savings before I'll get unemployment benefit. So much for fairness. Like other posters have said it seems that hard work, paying your way and saving are a mug's game and I should have just blown it all along the way.

Would Citywire please ensure that, in futre,it's daily news pages clearly show which of the articles have been written by Lorna Bourke so that I can avoid opening them.If she cannot see that it is completely unfair that a person who is 65 before the deadline date gets a basic pension roughly £40 a week less than one who reaches 65 after the deadline then her articles are not worthy of being read. £40 pw. is £2080pa.or £41600 over 20 years! To point out the unfairness is not whingeing at all.

There are always winners and losers in every new system and although I will lose out here, I gained when the 40% tax relief on contributions co-incided with an ability to make contributions of a reasonable size. I think overall I have been lucky. What really upsets me about this new idea is that they were supposed to be simplifying the system and making it less costly to administer. How is adding yet another layer of complexity helping the government to achieve this goal. In addition they are talking about merging NI and income tax but keep saying that it will not cost pensioners anymore. So instead of keeping the current system that simply excludes pensioners from paying NI, they are going to create a new systems and then work out a new way of excluding pensioners. More complexity, more cost and less value for money. When will "simplicity" be more than election slogans for politicians?

I'd just like to support Mary Hamilton's comments concerning rudeness on the board. I do not agree with the point of view in Lourna's article but she does not deserve degrading remarks to be made about her. The defamatory poster is always the loser since his views will not be taken seriously.

I'm sure Lourna and others will not be intimidated but will continue to put some grit in our oyster to stimulate debate.

Arborbridge