Flat-rate State Pension - Opinions?

[formant]

My problem is at 50 I'm caught between a rock and a hard place. Too old to retrain in a new career (and make anything meaningful of it), too old to relocate abroad (for anything other than retirement), too old to change my pension plans. I might just as well bend over and prepare to be shafted.

What I bolded there - that's the problem. No, you're probably not going to make a fortune (or anything 'meaningful) from re-training, but if it's a decision between some income or no income, what do you prefer? Doesn't mean re-training isn't worth it at all. But no doubt, this is harder for everyone who's a tad older, than it is for those in their thirties.

[Robinho]

Hehe, isn't wealth a sign of corruption formant?

You seem to be awfully pandering to the corrupt now.

[mudskipper]

Not directly related, but what makes me mad is the way paying for care is funded.

Say you're an elderly person living in a flat worth 150K, and you have 100K in investments/savings.

You see a nice sunrise care home you want to move into - £1K a week.

The council assess your care needs, and decide your care should cost £500 a week. Fair enough.

But what makes me mad, is you have to run your savings dry before they contribute anything.

So you move into your sunrise home, sell your flat, and use up your savings. That covers you for 5 years.

You inconsiderately decide to live for another 2 years on top of that - so you either have to move into a home in the council's funding bracket, or get your family to pay the difference. And even when you do move into the council home, they will take any money in excess of £22.50 a week. Most teenagers get more than that in pocket money!

[formant]

But if that's case why are you so concerned with those that put little into the system and yet are rewarded with Final Salary pensions? Hardly seems fair does it

Those jobs with final salary pensions are commonly paid less than you'd expect for the comparable skill level on the sole basis that they come with the benefit of this final salary pension. In most circumstances it's not so much a 'reward' on top of an already brilliant salary, it's more of a justification to pay less for the work done. Exclude MPs and senior civil servants from my pity-list.

[eek]

It's not. I feel more for my neighbours than I do for my partner. He makes a good enough salary to make up for it and at the end of the day, he'll still have that cushy final-salary-pension, despite paying more in the meantime. But I do think that you shouldn't take money specifically from one particular group of reliable (in some cases 'hard') workers and give it to all those who made the choice not to work enough to qualify for a pension in their own right. If additional money is needed for this system (which allegedly will save us money), take it from everyone in the form of taxes.

I still don't get your argument. the old age pension is a universal pension. All the Government are doing are:-

1) ensuring the base universal pension doesn't need added paperwork before everyone gets an amount that is just about liveable on.
2) tax rises to pay for it. Granted that will hit people but its got nothing to do with the first bit.

[formant]

Hehe, isn't wealth a sign of corruption formant?

You seem to be awfully pandering to the corrupt now.

Way to take something out of context and paraphrase beyond recognition.

[eek]

Those jobs with final salary pensions are commonly paid less than you'd expect for the comparable skill level on the sole basis that they come with the benefit of this final salary pension.

Not for the general public. That state of affairs is only for a certain level of degree holding office worker up to possibly middle management. for the average non degree holding man in the street a public sector job will pay more than the private sector and give you a better pension

Public v private sector pay: who earns more? | News | guardian.co.uk has some data to prove the fact.

[mudskipper]

Those jobs with final salary pensions are commonly paid less than you'd expect for the comparable skill level on the sole basis that they come with the benefit of this final salary pension. In most circumstances it's not so much a 'reward' on top of an already brilliant salary, it's more of a justification to pay less for the work done. Exclude MPs and senior civil servants from my pity-list.

Final salary schemes used to be very open to abuse - don't know if that's still the case. I have seen both the below scenarios in effect in the same organisation.

e.g. person works part time (50%) for 20 years. For the last 5 years, they go full time. The part time years are still credited as 'full years' so they get 25 years worth of pension.

But another person works full time for 20 years, then part time (50%) for 5 years. They negotiate to get the part time years credited as 'half years' on full salary, so will get 22.5 years pension. (IMO, this is how it should work)

[formant]

I still don't get your argument. the old age pension is a universal pension. All the Government are doing are:-

1) ensuring the base universal pension doesn't need added paperwork before everyone gets an amount that is just about liveable on.
2) tax rises to pay for it. Granted that will hit people but its got nothing to do with the first bit.

The problem is that it's not just a basic tax increase for all - instead it hits some a lot harder than others (anyone on a contracted-out pension scheme (not just final-salary, also career-average)). And those that are affected aren't affected in proportion to their income (the majority aren't higher rate tax payers).

[formant]

Final salary schemes used to be very open to abuse - don't know if that's still the case. I have seen both the below scenarios in effect in the same organisation.

e.g. person works part time (50%) for 20 years. For the last 5 years, they go full time. The part time years are still credited as 'full years' so they get 25 years worth of pension.

But another person works full time for 20 years, then part time (50%) for 5 years. They negotiate to get the part time years credited as 'half years' on full salary, so will get 22.5 years pension. (IMO, this is how it should work)

Any scheme of that sort is bound to come with unfortunate loopholes. That's an organisational problem that doesn't really have anything to do with what's happening now. They're not taking away final-salary (or career average) pensions, they're charging those on such schemes additional NI to fund flat-rate pensions for those who haven't worked enough to qualify in their own right.