universal pension

[lilyliz]

how do you feel about this,I think the gov will need to be very careful as to the rules as a lot of folk,mainly immigrants (at least be honest here)would be able to work a couplke of years here and then go home and claim this,also the workshy could work as little as poss and claim.The other trap is that a single person will get half a couple claim therefore if you pay £100 per month for utilities thats 1/4 of a single persons income but only 1/8 of a couples,always puzzles me about benefits that they just don't get the reality.

I think you've got it totally wrong.
A universal pension (like universal benefit) will actually reward those who work hard, because the idea is that everyone receives a flat rate, and then anything extra which you pay in, or earn, is added on top. Whereas the problem with the current system, is that often, people's earnings or savings are offset, so that if you've taken the trouble to save up, then you just get penalised for it.

A system which makes it beneficial to work, and to reward people more if they work more hours, is to be welcomed.

However, you're absolutely crazy if you're relying on the state pension to look after yourself in retirement. I welcome a universal flat rate to exist on - but I'm making damn sure I have other means to actually have a life. Do you realise how little a state pension is likely to be?

was hoping there might be a thread on here. the thing i haven't heard about is what happens if you have paid into SERPs - do you get more pension as a result - as i don't think I've heard anyone mention this in the papers or on the news.

If you have spent the last 40+ years paying extra into SERPs, would seem a bit unfair if you get the same as someone who hasn't...even if it is because they have been looking after children.

Anyone without the necessary contributions can claim Pension Credit anyway, so at the moment people who haven't got a full contribution record are not necessarily at a disadvantage.

And the rate for a couple is not double that of a single person - it's about 70% more, from memory (used to be a State Pension adviser)

Im so glad the likes of fred goodwin and rollininit bankers will be able to claim the state pension, they really deserve it. Well, they deserve something..

The rules with regard to State 2nd Pension are still outstanding. As it stands people who have contracted out will be better off as they will get this on top. Those that stayed contracted in will just have the normal £140. The basic and State 2nd Pension (formerly SERPS) will be combined. I think it is fair enough that a couple get double than a single person. Why not? The day they get rid of means testing will encourage more people to save. Currently the system is a great disincentive and confusing to boot.

Also there will be a number of years, currently 30 years before you get the pension, so working a couple of years here will not give you the full entitlement.

Bitsyandbetty: there has been no announcement on how eligibility for the new flat rate pension will be defined and whether or not it will be linked in any way to NI contributions.

Indeed what has been in the press about how the Universal Pension will be a good thing for those with insuffient qualifying years in their NI record suggests strongly this link will be broken.

The incomplete NI records is a SAHM/carer issue is just plain wrong -HRP (or whatever it's called now) credits your NI record for the years you are in receipt of the qualifying benefit. There are some older women for whom the introduction of HRP came too late, but perhaps a restrospective assessment of their time on qualifying benefits (in line with rules for current claimants) would be a more appropriate measure.

meitrina - do you mean unfair? if so why is it unfair - SAHM's won't have paid NI into the system, so why should they get something back?

I'm not saying they should, I'm saying that at present they do.

There is a group of (mainly women) who were a) too old to benefit form the reduction of qualifying years from 39 to 30, and b) also had their children before the current system of NI credits for those receiving certain benefits (Inc CB). My suggestion, of re-evaluating their NI record against history of claiming qualifying benefits, was but a way of putting these women on a par with this slightly younger then them.

But I do quite see that retrospective measures can be unfortunate, even when the only effect would be beneficial to individuals.

Looking after children is a job in itself, and it would be a terrible world if mothers who stay at home to do so (OR who stay at home to look after a sick or disabled relative) were penalised in their retirement because they'd been busy bringing up the next generation when they were younger!

If this were ever to happen, women would be disadvantaged even more than is the case currently (unequal wages etc).

dotnet - if its a job, then they should surely pay into the fund in the same way that others do? Otherwise they are being subsidised by paid workers which hardly seems fair - especially since some of these are themselves quite poor.