What welfare cuts do you think Sunak is about to announce in budget?

[caringcarer]

It's been reported that Richi Sunak said there will be tax cuts in the budget before the election and then more after the election so people who work hard will gain more and the government will curb spending on welfare. So, what welfare cuts do you think he is planning? I wonder whether he will reduce the triple lock on pensions to a double lock. Will he make single parents with DC over 7 work more hours to get UC top up. So maybe make them work 20 or even 25 hours. Do you think the £300 CoL payments will stop, as inflation is now much lower? I'm not advocating for these cuts just curious to what they could be. Can anyone think of others they might implement? Also which tax cuts could he be thinking of introducing? Threshold going up from £12,500 to £13k or inheritance tax go up a bit?

Exactly. Take-up was low because people did not want to forfeit money to pay for their old age. Their choice but it's unfair to expect the working population - who by and large will always have higher outgoings than pensioners - to pay for high increases when the pensioners could have done something about it but chose not to.
I know pensioners are untouchable and it sounds harsh but the fact is harsh decisions have to be made. I am not saying abolish pensions but the triple lock is an unfair advantage that retired people have over working-age benefits claimants and that cannot be fair.

Lots of women did have the opportunity to progress their careers and have pensions. I was employed by a large organisation, around 15,000 employees, day release was a standard offer but not everyone took it. I don't know how many joined the pension scheme, I knew one colleague who decided to leave the scheme as "she could do better herself." I suppose she is moaning now.

A colleagues wife worked in a bank, she had about ten years in the pension scheme and when they got married she was offered her pension money. She took it and it paid their deposit on a house. When she hit retirement age she was outraged that an old colleague got a big pension. Difference was the other woman didn't get a pay out in the 60s and she worked her whole career in the bank so 40 years contributions instead of 11 or 12 as my colleagues wife had a baby and gave up work. Some of us need to take personal responsibility.

I've run payrolls for years, there are still people, men and women, who aren't in the company pension scheme. They need the money now to put a roof over their heads and food in their belly or they just want the money now. It varies now just like it did then although I didn't know anyone in the 60s and 70s who was on a zero hours contract so I suppose that is one difference.

I would imagine that all the women like me don't go on your forum asking for advice so you are dealing with a specific group of women which is not representative of all women. Do you get the ones who chose to pay the "married woman's stamp" and now are upset they aren't getting a full pension? I bet you do.

I hate the "we had it so hard" as much as I hate the "boomers had it so easy."

I started work in 1994 and was not eligible to join a workplace pension scheme. neither were the men. Lots of employers didnt offer them to junior staff. And when auto enrolrment started it was only for over 50 employees. Apparently 2/3 of employers offered a scheme pre auto enrolment. So a third werent. And those that did werent open to all.

I am sure i could have made my own private arrangements without employer contribution but that wasnt widespread and the whole equitable life thing happened around 2000 wasnt it? Which made people quite suspicious of private schemes, plus the 1997 removal of tax relief on dividends to pension funds.

As an aside I have multiple part time jobs and dont meet the criteria for auto enrollment now! I had to ask to be accepted in each job.

It really is still below 100% and when you talk to people opting out they may have good reason to need that money now or they may just feel that 70 is too far away to worry about.

What is the answer? Well wages people can live on and compulsory pension contributions with no opt out would be a start.

You do not get growth on final salary schemes. In real terms money put in at 18 is worse less than when put in at 40.

I am not saying abolish pensions but the triple lock is an unfair advantage that retired people have over working-age benefits claimants and that cannot be fair.

IMO there should be a fair and reasonable calculation for yearly inflation. Benefits, pensions and tax allowances should then go up by the same % each year.

I don't begrudge the triple lock - but the same % needs to be used for all other benefits and allowances. Or a new % calculation devised and that used for all instead.

It's just stupid that so many things keep falling behind in real terms, because random % amounts are used for each of them. (Some being 0% of course). It's a tax increase by stealth.

Obvs not but the reality is that years in a DB scheme are worth far more than any return on investment in DC world.

Are there now any final salary/career average schemes open to new entrants outwith the public sector?

Croda is the only one I am aware of.

Yes some companies still offer these types of pensions.

Can you name any others? Open to new entrants.

I wish the government would stop defined benefit pensions for any that are backed by the government/tax payer/treasury ie private companies can do so at their own cost.

When I began full time work, you had to work somewhere for 2 years before you qualified to be in a pension scheme and no-one talked about the importance of pensions or how they worked when I was at school, so I was very ignorant about them. I also was at a time and in an industry where redundancy was commonplace so my first 3 or 4 jobs at 2-3 years each meant no pension

Pay is low in a lot of government jobs. Without the pension they will find it harder to recruit good people.

They can up the pay to be inline with industry and stop people complaining.

Or maybe just maybe they had to come out of work to look after disabled children and had to give up any hope of continuing their careers because of it… while their now ex husbands carried on them ran away when things got tough…

Hopefully they got a share of his pension in the divorce.

I was pointing out that there were opportunities in the 60s and 70s. It wasn't so different to now in fact, some people have zero hours contracts and some don't, some have permanent contracts some don't. It isn't fair to say it was so hard back then and it is all fine now. There are always variations and you can't just say it is easier now or then, it will vary person to person.

The equality now also includes the zero hours contracts, never heard of that in the 60s or 70s.

I also think we have to take personal responsibility, if women chose not to improve their employment opportunities or join a pension or to pay the reduced stamp they won't have as much as others. There are always consequences to our decisions. If I chose to get qualifications, work fulltime, paid my pension contributions, paid the full stamp is it unreasonable that I benefit from that now?

Nope they didn’t cause life isn’t always fair… my point was that sometimes it isn’t possible to plan for the future when every Penny you have goes on keeping a roof over your disabled children’s head and food in their tummies…

You will absolutely benefit - from your private pension earned as well as your SP.
What was suggested was that (all) women reaching SPA now should get a worse future increase on their SP than other pensioners that’s what I objected to.

The triple lock will probably be stopped sometime, when it has cost too much.

@XenoBitch, you can put in a claim for PIP for MH conditions too. Use medication prescription as evidence. Plus your GP can write you a letter for about £40.

I got my first job in 1978 and I paid into a company pension scheme. Then I became a teacher and paid into the Teachers Pension Scheme. At the same time I opened a private stakeholder pension. They have been available for anyone to open for 40 years. The issue is young people in late teens and early twenties don't often don't think about their pensions because it seems like light years away. I only opened mine because my dear old Dad kept banging on about it and I did it to stop him nagging at me. Now I'm just so grateful he got me to do the second private pension. I also got offered did I want to pay the married woman's NIC stamp, which at the time was much cheaper. I was tempted, but again due to my Dad, opted to pay my own full stamp, again I'm glad I made that choice. Not everyone has a wise old Dad to advise them. Pension/finance advice should be taught in school under PHSE.

@caringcarer you had a professional job. Women in low paid jobs often had no company pension scheme to join. I have a private pension with zero employer contributions until I was about 40. How much did your employer contribute? A whole ton of money.

I fucking hate how older middle class women often seem to think their experience in the workplace was the same as low paid women. It is offensive, and so so common.

Exactly this. If your business can’t pay your employees to a level where they don’t need top up benefits then it isn’t a real business. The minimum wage is too low, the living wage is too low.
On the point of the triple lock on pensions, it will be interesting to see what happens. Labour wouldn’t oppose abandoning it so Hunt may well give it a go. Alternatively the Tories could pledge to keep it, thus putting clear water between themselves and Labour on it.

My first job where I joined company pension scheme was a manual job in a factory. My company at the time paid in 5 percent of my earnings, that was not too bad. John Heathcoat's factory and Coats Paton pension scheme.