Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » People in receipt of state pensions have paid for it over t
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » People in receipt of state pensions have paid for it over the years – they are not on benefits
Eighteen months ago I started to receive my state pension after I’d deferred it for a year. Before this was granted there were checks that I had made the contributions during the 45 years that I was in paid employment. It was only after that check that the money stated to come every four weeks.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Am I first?
That said, there's a political case for the Tories to push a phrasing that would separate out the money they want to pay their elderly supporters from the money they want to stop paying younger non-supporters, in the same way that Republicans have somehow got people routinely talking about "non-defence discretionary expenditure".
There is a element of contributions of course, but that seems to be increasing lessened with pension credits etc, and the state pensions seemingly moving to a more 'flat' basis.
One question though - Would/Is State pension be paid if you were unemployed your whole working life ?
Poor bastard. ;-)
A think tank this morning suggested making the state pension means-tested for gawd's sake!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-25652620
Edit: Found it, and knew that already
Then the govt can't get their filthy hands on it.
I suppose they could have their ROI limited to 5% on the deal by regulators.
And what a 5% it would be. If they screw up. No worries, whichever Gov't is in will have to bail them out.
The bank bailouts have shown us that when push comes to shove the profits are privatised and losses nationalised. I WISH it were the other way round, that companies actually had some risk for their ROI but they don't and that is that.
But I hope I am wrong, they select Paul Nuttall (although a scouser in Manchester?), and win
Saying that, I have been trying to make an excel program for by elections, and if
Lab, Con and Lib all lost 50% of their vote
BNP lost 75% of their vote
UKIP kept all of theirs, and got all the disaffected BNPs, 22% of disaffected Tories, 15% of LDs, and 15% of Labs,
I think it would be a toss up between Lab and UKIP
Lab 32.5
UKIP 32.3
Cons 18.8
LDs 16.4
(obv that comes to 100%)
If we all put our heads together and came up with percentages, the wisdom of the crowd should beat the bookie!!
Voters should be required to show ID at polling stations in Great Britain to tighten up the security of the voting process, the elections watchdog has said.
The Electoral Commission will now develop detailed proposals for how the scheme should work.
Evidence collected by the Commission in its review of electoral fraud revealed that fraud is not widespread in the UK but, despite this, a significant proportion of the public remain concerned that it is taking place.
http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/i-am-a/journalist/electoral-commission-media-centre/news-releases-reviews-and-research/id-needed-at-polling-stations,-recommends-independent-watchdog
Mr. Eagles, that seems like an odd move given postal voting is what really needs addressing.
If the medical advances I read about are even half true, Pensions are going to be a huge and very emotive issue in the future. And not the distant future either.
How about the Swiss idea of giving everyone one benefit and cancelling all others ?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-25415501
Presumably Mike was assessed for the top up portion of the pension he gets. That was at least partially privatised some time ago, I believe (SERPs?)
Doesn't solve some of the postal voting issues though.
Edit: I'm right, no surprise.
Can I vote twice, at home and at uni?
You can’t vote twice in:
a UK Parliamentary, Scottish Parliamentary, National Assembly for Wales or European Parliamentary election.
But you can vote in local government elections at home and at your term-time address, as long as they are not in the same local government area.
- See more at: http://www.aboutmyvote.co.uk/register_to_vote/students.aspx#sthash.B1lsAqbR.dpuf
That might help our decision on what price they should be in W&SE
(Entirely meaningless unless you know the actual make-up of the Labour voters of course - which i don't).
Single parent with 2 children earning £10,000 gross. Net cash in their pocket = £20,000 - ie they get £10,000 of benefits, mainly tax credits.
Contrast with single person on state pension + pension credit who gets £7,000 total.
It's an absolute scandal - numbers are so breathtaking nobody could believe them when I revealed them on this site last year.
The big area to make savings is by cutting Tax credits.
Yet nobody talks about them because the pundits don't understand them. So lots of talk about Child benefit (less than £2,000 for 2 children) when some people are getting miles, miles more in Tax credits.
In any case you can make the same case for Jobseekers Allowance. Someone could pay tax and NI for 20 years ('paying in' in your definition) and then be made redundant and claim JSA. Are they not on benefits - where does that analogy end? What about their housing benefit while they are on JSA?
How over 65s have been affected by benefit cuts I think is now a live issue. Even some Conservatives like Tim Montgomerie were calling yesterday for a more equitable balance between working and retired people. I think this will be a thorny problem that's unlikely to go away.
Under which government spending heading does 'tax credits' come?
The tax people pay over a lifetime does cover expenditure of the state - we run deficits. The money you paid in tax went on teachers, hospitals and debt service. There is no hypothecation so it is entirely correct to say that only a share of all public spending, incl pensions, has been paid for. We borrow. Our children will pay for it.
And rightly so imho. - et al’,so when did pensions first become lumped together in this fashion?
Follow
I agree with Nick Clegg. It would be unjust to balance budget on backs of lower income, working aged people. Hope Tories will clarify soon.
OGH - Do you agree with Nick ?
Or do we tax the rich till the pips squeak Hollandais sauce style. Not an option if the venerable Nabavi is to be believed.
More cuts ?
How do we balance the budget !?
One thing - the state pension age should by now be at 80 I reckon. Life expectancy when it was introduced was ~ 3 years or so (Over 65) I think.
It is a failure of politicians throughout the decades to up the age at all in line with life expectancy that is leading to the shock now.
Younger people may have a wildly different view. We/they will be working for far longer, getting pensions at an older age and receiving far less. People of middling age (say, 50s now) will be in trouble too, paying to look after parents with dementia as well as trying to help out children getting onto the housing ladder or suchlike.
Issues such as tuition fees will also antagonise younger generations, as they see those now 70+ having enjoyed free education and cushy pensions that the youth of today can only dream of.
Would you rather that RBS was allowed to go bust, and people who had their life savings there lost them? Or that businesses who banked their would have been unable to make payroll?
This will change with the introduction of Universal Credit and consequent ONS reclassifications.
But until this happens the existence of the cost of tax credits is 'near invisible' in government accounts.
All politicians have been guilty of creating this ponzi scheme but those that were responsible for borrowing excessive sums as well as running up these contingent liabilities are the most culpable. What moral rights does anyone who voted Labour in the years 2001-2010 have to a pension paid for by a generation coming into work burdened with debts they will not be able to pay off by the time they retired? None. It is a question of consequences.
Think of those that invested their pensions with Madoff. That is what the British taxpayer has been doing for the last 50 years. Like his victims you have no enforceable rights.
It would be better if the money paid was ring-fenced in a fund and properly invested but governments, alas, want to get their hands on the money now.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-25656426
Of course they are. The global warming types remind me of Mr. India from Goodness Gracious Me (who claimed everything good originated in India).
Hot weather - climate change!
Cold weather - climate change!
Floods - climate change!
Drought - climate change!
In what way were losses not taken by the private sector?
What a numpty. What an absolute shower of shit our PM is.
That would solve Mike's problem.
Well, I guess it's a view.
A key consideration.
Taxpayers have never had it so good.
On the broader point of why pensioners should be treated a little differently, people make their decisions on the income they have or expect to have in the future, if you remove benefits or increase taxes from someone of working age they can adjust their spending or expectations accordingly. They can work more hours or stay in work a little longer.
Most pensions take the view that they have the bare minimum they need to live on and are pretty frugal as it is. Some may luxuriate in retirement, but they are the minority. If you cut into pensioner benefits, how are they expected to replace that with future earnings?
Unless you think the state is better at allocating resources than private individuals.
Which as Rcs has pointed out is where communism lies
All this is a bit angels on the head of a needle stuff though as the treatment of the interventions in the National Accounts is markedly different from the way such transactions would be calculated by a corporate financier.
Still,.with Lloyds trading at very near £0.84 per share even Pork would have difficulty claiming the taxpayer had taken a hit on resale.
On Northern Rock, weren't you offering to bet with me some time ago that the government would make a profit?
The real issue is not that pensions are too generous - they are not - but that the numbers of pensioners has risen and will continue to rise. Certainly raising the pension age makes very good sense, and perhaps governments of all stripes and in many countries have been too slow to do so.
Get saving in that pension fund - no future government is going to be able to give you anything more than the barest subsistence allowance.
The utilities were privatised without a major impact for customers, certainly nothing that would compare with having 4 minutes of ads in the middle of Eastenders.
We've only had December so far, and it has been very wet in most of Scotland, and south-east England, though a bit dry in the east of England.
Saying that it hasn't been that wet this winter is rather like those people who said the St Jude's Day storm wasn't that windy. I think many people will think it has been quite wet enough this winter, though most of the flooding has been coastal and caused by winds and storm surges, rather than too much rainfall.
In a perfect market what you suggest would be absolutely right. But we are not dealing in a perfect market.
George is as much subject to fortune, the timetables and the vagaries of the markets as any other major trader. He does have the advantage though of his slippery hands having access to some macro-economic and political levers.
He may be able to walk on water but he can't buck the markets.
Which he can use to bribe people away from Labour with come the pre election budget
Here's a thought: can you sum up what the BBC does in one sentence?
I'll give ITV a go - it's a media enterprise producing and commissioning news and entertainment content delivered via several channels.
F8ck the pension fund, who wants to give their money to a 30-year old fund manager whose only concern is where his next Aston Martin and toot of coke are coming from.
Corby (15.11.12) YouGov 9% Opinium 10% Actual score 14.3%
Rotherham (29.11.12) YG 10% Op 13% Actual 21.8%
Middlesbrough (29.11.12) YG 10% Op 13% Actual 11.8%
Eastleigh YG 11% Actual 27.8%
South Shields YG 10% Op 17% Actual 24.2%
The limit of pension contributions is £3,600 or 100% of your earned income - clearly the state pension isn't that sort of earned income... how strange.
If my company didn't contribute I wouldn't pay in though
Actually, it looks like the eventual loss incurred by the tax payer is likely to be very modest - if there is one at all (it's hard to know for sure, because it was merged with Bradford and Bingley to create UK Asset Resolution).
Let's not forget, the shares were acquired for nothing, the branches were sold for £750m to Virgin, and UK Asset Resolution Ltd made more than £800m profit in the first nine months of 2013.
As for cuts to the benefits, I agree that taking benefits away from the young is not necessarily the best thing. I would aim to prune the benefits bill as follows:
- Oversees workers only allowed to claim benefits when they have been working here at least 5 years
- Housing benefit. Pursue policies that will drive down rents e.g build more houses/flats, taxes on overseas investment buyers
- Better tapering of disability benefits so that people who are able to do some work can do this without being financially worse off.
- Encourage internal immigration i.e. help move workers from employment blackspots to growth areas like the Thames Valley rather than relying on more overseas immigrants
- Limit child benefit to first 2 or 3 kids only
The BBC is a left wing think tank and cabal of activists with unparalleled access to propaganda opportunites across multiple media outlets, which obtains its funds with the threat of force from owners of equipment not necessarily related to it and whose objective is to suck out any remaining free speech or original thought from those upon whom it preys.
You can of course also take out a SIPP and put your own contributions into that with tax relief at your marginal rate (but that's obviously not a good idea if it would mean smaller employer contributions). Also ISAs, which have their own advantages.
The best course depends on individual circumstances, and you might need advice, but the key thing is not to bury your head in the sand and hope the future will take care of itself. It won't.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/07/is-englands-bad-weather-a-sign-of-climate-change/
OK here comes the first of the big Retail Sales predictions: The Visa Europe UK Consumer Expenditure Index compiled by Markit and based on aggregate spending on consumer Visa debit and credit cards.
Some interesting findings. The High Street sector didn't have, in aggregate, a great Christmas but online and non-store expenditure boomed. Overall a reasonable outturn but some worrying omens here for Retail Sales in Q1 2014.
Mr. Brooke will have multiple apoplexies over a 7.3% increase in Hotel and Restaurant Sector.
Headline findings:
• Year-on-year spending rose slightly in December (+0.6%), following the strongest annual increase for five months in November (+1.5%).
• Quarterly spending figures signalled that underlying expenditure improved slightly in December (+0.1%), following a moderate increase in November (+1.1%).
• Month-on-month consumer spending fell by -2.0% in December, following a slight increase in November (+1.0%).
• Non-seasonally adjusted year-on-year expenditure increased markedly through Online spending channels (+6.8%), and slightly in Mail/Telephone Order categories (+0.3%), while Face-to-Face spending declined moderately (-1.9%).
[to be continued]
People used to be paid big bucks with big packages to grow and improve their company during their time of stewardship. We now seem to have reached the point where people are given even bigger packages but who suffer no hardship when they run their company into the ground. They just take the massive pay-off and walk away, perhaps to start again elsewhere. Their shareholders take the hit, the taxpayer rides to the rescue but the people whose negligence/incompetence/greed caused the mess get a big fat cheque.
Frankly, company law needs a radical overhaul in this country, in particular, the powers and duties and terms of remuneration of directors needs a serious look.
Visa Consumer Expenditure Index: December
Jeremy Nicholds, Director of Commercial Development at Visa Europe said:
“It was a tale of two Christmases in December as online and high street retailers looked to woo customers in the final weeks of the year. Overall, consumer spending in December registered a +0.6% annual increase, with much of this rise attributed to online spending with the high street faring less well.
“Mega Monday at the start of December signalled the beginning of a very strong month for e-commerce. Online spending generated a +6.8% annual increase in December compared to an annual drop of -1.9% on the high street. Online demand looks to have been significantly boosted by the unfortunate weather in the run up to Christmas Day that saw consumers turn away from trawling the shops in the wind and rain, in favour of a more comfortable shopping experience on a mobile, PC or tablet. Consumers were also shopping online much closer to Christmas than in previous years which shows they continue to gain in confidence regarding the receipt of goods ordered online as well as taking advantage of services such as click & collect.
“By the end of the month, the performance of the high street had improved considerably. In the final week of the month, consumers returned to the high street to take advantage of price reductions in the sales, helping to close the year on a high. Spending at the tills increased by +11% in the final week of December compared to last year, whilst online spending grew by only + 4% for the same period.”
Paul Goggins got 60% of the vote in 2001, 53% in 2005 and 44% in 2010
LDs gained 9% in 2005, presumably from Labour, those voters stayed with the LDs in 2010
Conservatives have received a steady 22-25% for the last 17 years
UKIP 3-3.5% 2005 & 2010
The BNP got 4% from a standing start last time, probably ex Labour voters
If half the LD, Con and Labour voters stay with them, 15-20% of each go to UKIP along with the BNP vote, it could be a very close thing
What are the factors to look at?
Would Labours vote go up in opposition?
Would previous Goggins voters come back in his honour?
Or would loyal Goggins voters no longer vote LAbour?
There will be no substantial loss or profit: probably a breakeven.
I wonder how many people are relying on taking cash out of their main property and trading down...
That might make for an interesting survey.
My wife has a pension from a previous employer, 18 years service, and she recently asked for a transfer quote, just to see. It says it has a transfer valuation of just over a hundred grand.
My question is, what can she do with it?
She can't draw it until 65ish, I think.
She's 45, so not retiring anytime soon, and works part time, with a company pension. She's probably not going to stay with her current employer for much longer, so doesn't want to transfer it to that.
She's going to see an advisor, but I'd thought I'd ask for your ideas so we can do some research beforehand.