Should rich OAPs give back benefits

[YCCMB]

[quote user="NickP"]

[quote user="You can call me Betty"]It's  a sad fact that people are only wealthy when they want to appear so. Another of those examples of the "me first" mentality which keeps coming to the fore when people feel a perceived threat to any part of their income, however it's derived.

And I'm not criticising anyone. It's hard to find many people who wouldn't react in this way under similar circumstances. It's a product of the sort of society we've created for ourselves. No use blaming politicians or anyone else, for that matter. Basic human greed is a primal thing. Quite separate and distinct from basic human need.

[/quote]

Betty; I normally look to you to add a comment or words of sense to most subjects, well you've just blown that expectation out of the water. If getting what I'm entitled to as they promised is greed; then I'm guilty. You say "don't blame politicians"  well if they set up the rules properly as they promise they would when they are begging to get elected, and stopped moving the goal posts when they get it wrong,  maybe you'd have a case.

[/quote]

I'm sorry to have so profoundly disappointed you, but sometimes the truth is quite disappointing. Think about it. There's a whole generation behind us for whom the goalposts keep moving. There are already lots of people who are not going to get what they are entitled to as promised, and more to come. Many women who worked (and paid full NI contributions) for the best part of 40 years, for example, during which time they were told they were going to be entitled to a state pension and all the attendant benefits at 60. And a large (and increasing) number of both men and women who thought that, at the very least, they would be able to retire at 65. The current generation of recent pensioners have managed to get through the door before it closed, and will reap many of the benefits (financial or otherwise) of a system which will provide for them until they die, and they are fortunate to be of a generation where medical advances have made it possible to live and enjoy those benefits for increasingly longer. I've said it before: it's an unfortunate truth that, in times such as these, some of the worst human traits are brought to the fore. Everyone wants to be an exception to the rules. Some have every justification, some don't.

I was listening to a "Money Box" programme a few months ago on Radio 4, just after the new ruling regarding the payment (or rather, removal) of child benefit to families with at least one earner making over the threshold (I can't remember if that's £50K or £60K). There was phone call after phone call to the programme from people whose only concern was that they felt they should be an exception to the ruling. It was sickening. All of them were in a situation where they would lose the money, so at least one parent earned that amount, yet all of them felt their case to be "special".

Look, I'm not saying I think it's right, or good, or anything else. What I am saying, without remorse or apology, is: this is about "rich" people. Why, suddenly, is everyone so scared and anxious that they might be singled out to be considered as "rich"??

[Gardengirl]

I'm one of the lucky ones who has already retired and who has benefitted from many opportunities over recent years - unimaginable from my youth.

I receive WFA, but think it should be part of the pension, so that all older people benefit but those with sufficient income would be taxed on it. I have a bus pass, but rarely use it; no buses run from near my home in UK to my supermarket and if I'm going into town, I'm probably planning to buy something large or heavy, so taking the bus wouldn't work and I need to take my car. I do use the bus in France; no bus pass, but very cheap fares here 1.50€ per journey.

Reading this thread, I'd be interested to know what a 'rich OAP' is.

[dwmcn]

Money Box??!! Oh gawd, have you ever seen some of the jackets Paul Lewis wears?

David

[woolybanana]

Who is Paul Lewis?

[PaulT]

When my OH receives her pension I think she will be very keen to give back the WFA, especially as having contributed 40 years NI the government will make her wait until she is 66 to receive her pension - a subject on which I can easily wind her up on.

[dwmcn]

woolybanana,

Lewis presents Money Box on Radio 4 and talks about 'money' on BBC TV programs.

David 

[idun]

Give back!!!! The way I am feeling today, I will take every last benefit and penny I can. With the new pension rules I will be substantially worse off, to an extent I had not imagined until today. I had thought  that it would be OK as I  had noticed something that said that no one would be worse off............ well I will be!

Apparently, the women 'who chose to forget' that they decided to pay married women's contributions are being treat as a special case, which has made me even angrier. 'Selective' memory is a wonderful thing isn't it!

[NickP]

[quote user="idun"]   Apparently, the women 'who chose to forget' that they decided to pay married women's contributions are being treat as a special case, which has made me even angrier. 'Selective' memory is a wonderful thing isn't it!
[/quote]

 Forgive me but I don't understand this comment, would you care to explain it?

[NickP]

[quote user="NickP"]

[quote user="idun"]   Apparently, the women 'who chose to forget' that they decided to pay married women's contributions are being treat as a special case, which has made me even angrier. 'Selective' memory is a wonderful thing isn't it!
[/quote]

 Forgive me but I don't understand this comment, would you care to explain it?

[/quote]

Still waiting!

[Pickles]

I think that Idun is referring to the following:

Before 1977, married women who worked were entitled to pay reduced rates of NI (on the basis that they were entitled to a pension based on the contributions of their husbands) - indeed, IIRC, there was little point in them making full-rate NI contributions as these would effectively make no difference to their pension entitlement. Some women who opted to pay reduced NI before 1977 are still paying reduced NI now (this has not been possible for those joining the workforce after 1977 , I think). This situation has been represented in some quarters as women "forgetting" that they had been and still were paying reduced NI contributions.

People retiring after 2017 (2016? 2015?), when the new system comes in, will have their pension entitlement determined by their OWN contributions only, and not on those of their spouses.

Therefore, without transitional arrangements, those women who have paid reduced NI contributions since before 1977 would not be entitled to a full pension on their own account - in fact they might be entitled to not much at all.

The Govt has apparently therefore decided to institute transitional arrangements such that this group of women will be able to qualify for a pension on their own account.

[idun]

[quote user="NickP"]

[quote user="idun"]   Apparently, the women 'who chose to forget' that they decided to pay married women's contributions are being treat as a special case, which has made me even angrier. 'Selective' memory is a wonderful thing isn't it!

[/quote]

 Forgive me but I don't understand this comment, would you care to explain it?

[/quote]

Sorry, I had missed this thread. And yes, Pickles has answered about the married women's reduced NI.

[Russethouse]

Surely in some cases at least this is academic ? - if women do not qualify for pension they may be on the breadline and thus qualify for other allowances.......

[Hoddy]

I can't speak for Idun of course but I'm pretty cross about the way women have been treated over pensions.

I always paid my full stamp. Silly idealist that I was in those days I thought it OK to pay in because I could afford to.

I had a double whammy though because when they introduced equal pension rights for women teachers in the 1980s I discovered that the pension I had been paying into would pay me less than it would if I had ben a man. Women were offered the opportunity to 'buy' some credits to even thngs up even though we had been paying in at the same rate as men.

I remember writing to Edwina Currie, my MP about it. She didn't do me the courtesy of a reply and because the NAS in those days was a very sexist organisation there was not enough support within the profession to do anything about it. The result is that a man who started teaching on the same day as me, before whatever date it was in the 1980s gets a bigger pension, even though we have paid the same contributions.

Hoddy

[NormanH]

The result is that a man who started teaching on the same day as me,

before whatever date it was in the 1980s gets a bigger pension, even

though we have paid the same contributions.

That is clearly wrong (in the sense of unjust)

[Rabbie]

I believe this is due to the fact that women in general live longer than men and so if they got equal pensions the women's pensions would be subsidised by the men. There would appear to be injustices whichever way you resolve this.

[Hoddy]

I don’t think that is how it started Rabbie. In those days women who were pregnant were expected to leave teaching before it showed. The expectation was that they would leave and look after the child and most of them did, so even if they went back to teaching later their pensions would have been smaller anyway. Additionally women expected to benefit from their husband’s pension if they were widowed. Under the old arrangements a man did not benefit from his wife’s pension which is another thing that was changed at the same time. It was grossly unfair and for many years approved of by the NAS. I well remember a colleague being told that she was only working for ‘pin money’ because her husband had a decent job.

If the government decides to abolish the winter fuel allowance or decides to tax it so be it. I will not be giving mine back.

Hoddy

[Rabbie]

Not going to argue with you on this. After all you were personally involved and I was not. I still agree it does appear to be very unfair

[Hoddy]

It was not so very unfair in the way society worked in those days. The changes had to be made because of the massive social changes that were happening at the time. I'm not sure when the divorce rate went up .....

It's easy to understand how the NAS members with non-working wives at home resented people like me with two decent incomes in one household.

Hoddy

[Pickles]

There's an article on the BBC website which expands on a news item today indicating that after 2016, the spouses of new overseas pensions claimants will not be eligible for a pension on the basis of their spouses' NI payments:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22423878

Edited to add: at present, of course "overseas" means "outside the EU" ... for the time being ...

[Pommier]

From what I've read Pickles, from 2016 the married couple's pension will be scrapped and widows will no longer inherit their husband's pension rights. The only pensions anyone will receive will be that which they have themselves earned.

[nomoss]

This was proclaimed, in true BBC style, as "preventing foreign wives of UK citizens, who may never have lived in the UK, from claiming pensions", conveniently avoiding mentioning that British wives would be equally affected.

So widows, nor widowers, after 2016, can no longer expect any support earned by their deceased partner unless they move back to the UK.

This government seems to be doing everything it can to avoid possible re-election.

 

 

[Pommier]

[quote user="nomoss"]

So widows, nor widowers, after 2016, can no longer expect any support earned by their deceased partner unless they move back to the UK.

[/quote]

No, even if you move back to the UK, there's no support as the changes will affect UK residents as well as those living abroad. My mother who is 82 will be seriously affected if her husband survives until 2016, from which time she will not inherit his pension rights and will only be entitled to the small pension she earned herself. 

[idun]

Really Pommier, not sure if it is going to happen like that.  It hasn't all gone through yet and there are transitional arrangements. It isn't law yet, and they seem to change what they are going to do all the time.

[Pickles]

[quote user="Pommier"]My mother who is 82 will be seriously affected if her husband survives until 2016, from which time she will not inherit his pension rights and will only be entitled to the small pension she earned herself. [/quote]

My understanding is that the new rules will only apply to new pensioners after 2016: existing pensioners will continue in the current system - that's why they have specifically said that those whose "normal" retirement date arises before the changes come in will get the "old" rates and cannot benefit from the "new" rates by delaying their retirement. Assuming that your mother's husband is already drawing his pension, then my reading is that that will continue as before.

[Jay]

[quote user="Pickles"]

My understanding is that the new rules will only apply to new pensioners after 2016: existing pensioners will continue in the current system - that's why they have specifically said that those whose "normal" retirement date arises before the changes come in will get the "old" rates and cannot benefit from the "new" rates by delaying their retirement. Assuming that your mother's husband is already drawing his pension, then my reading is that that will continue as before.

[/quote]

That is also my understanding of what has been said on the news. I think a panic sets in when you hear this sort of news and you tend to link it to your own situation. I must admit the details given so far are somewhat vague and generalised.