Work till you're 71! Millennials face longer wait for state pension, experts warn

The younger generation face working until they reach 71, official forecasters warn.

The state pension age will need to rise by about a year every decade, a report by the Government Actuary’s Department said.

It means those millennials who are aged around 20 will have to work to 71 before being getting the state pension. Those in their 30s must wait till 69.

To cope with an ageing population, the Actuary’s Department also said National Insurance (NI) rates may have to soar to keep the pension pot sustainable. It said the fund would not remain in balance unless NI rates rose by 5 percentage points, adding £1,000 to the average worker’s annual tax bill.

Ministers announced last summer that the state pension age would rise to 68 from 2037 – a decade earlier than originally planned. This change affects people currently around the age of 50.

Ministers have not said what will happen after 2037, and any changes will need to be approved by Parliament.

But raising the age again would be controversial as it would force the young to work longer to fund the pensions of those who are already retired.

Former pensions minister Baroness Altmann said: ‘Difficult decisions will need to be taken to deal with the future increases in state pension costs that are forecast for coming decades.’

The Actuary’s Department said that between 2047 and 2049, the pension age would have to rise to 69, which would affect people aged around 39.

Between 2057 and 2059 the age will have to hit 70, affecting those around 29 and younger. And in the two years from 2068 it will have to increase to 71, affecting those aged around 20. On top of this, taxes would have to rise to ensure the NI Fund is topped up.

The department warned that the 5 percentage point rise on NI which may be required to balance the fund would see payments go up to 17 per cent – equivalent to almost £1,000 a year for the average worker on £28,000.

A spokesman for the Treasury said: ‘We expect the fund to have a surplus for the foreseeable future.’



http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5318707/Millennials-wait-71-state-pension.html

I'm not sure how they expect a 70 year old to work full time in the same job they did at 30? And I'm not sure a 70 year old would ever get a job in the job market either. It's hard enough when you're in your fifties! How on earth would say, a widow of 70, be able to work and support herself? It's madness. The elderly would just end up drawing benefits of some kind anyway.

This country wastes so much money on things it shouldn't while ignoring other things that could be better dealt with.

More one-upmanship from the British guvm'nt...

The Pension age for millenials is only 70 down here..

Anything to finance those corporate tax cuts.

HoratioTarr wrote:I'm not sure how they expect a 70 year old to work full time in the same job they did at 30?   And I'm not sure a 70 year old would ever get a job in the job market either.  It's hard enough when you're in your fifties!   How on earth would say, a widow of 70, be able to work and support herself?   It's madness.   The elderly would just end up drawing benefits of some kind anyway.

This country wastes so much money on things it shouldn't while ignoring other things that could be better dealt with.  

Maybe governments hope people will die of fatigue before they are old enough to retire and draw a state pension.

Also...if all these old ones are holding on to their jobs, where will the younger ones work?

The irony is...for millions of people who have worked from leaving schools; colleges and universities, their state pension will not be higher than the people who haven't worked and have not paid NI, so don't qualify for a pension.
Those people  get the same amount or more in benefits anyway,

The government has raised the age because people rant dying quick enough. Those in their sixties are not popping off, enjoying their pension, government can't have that.

Working til 70 is disgusting imo.

The old get blamed  for everything.
They don't die, they have the nerve to live on after retirement and enjoy their lives, they bleed the NHS dry, they had it SO much easier compared with the youth of today blah blah blah.

The truth is many of the people now in their 60's and over have worked since leaving education...paying in with NI and taxes, to support the newly arrived or the lazy bastards who breed and scrounge.
They paid sky high interest rates for their mortgages...if they worked hard enough to save they are being screwed because banks pay sod all in interest, expected private pensions were drastically cut due to the greed of others...in short they are paying for everyone elses mistakes, laziness and greed.

Thank you...over and out.

I had to smile, don't hold back Syl, lol.

I agree with everything, gave you a greeny

The over 70s are being selfish not dying! How very dare they pay all their lives and living long lives to reap the benefits, not on eh? Lol

magica wrote:I had to smile, don't hold back Syl, lol.

I agree with everything, gave you a greeny

The over 70s are being selfish not dying! How very dare they pay all their lives and living long lives to reap the benefits, not on eh? Lol

Thank you Mags.

I intend to live till I am 80 plus God willing...holidaying, kayaking, laughing, dancing, and generally having a good time without whinging.
Pity others...including the person who gave me a red then sneaked off without saying why (probably wetwipe) don't get the same joy out of life instead of always looking for imaginary fault in others.

Something has to give.  Tjere are too few workers supporting more people, who are living longer.  

Japan is in the worst shape because they really dont do immigration very well.  Their child birth numbers have been way too low.  

Government pensions are a ponzi scheme that require an ever expanding work force to make them work.  Most western countries are not expanding their work force fast enough.  It's why immigration is important. Those workers are needed to support the elderly who are no longer working.

I don't think it's a bad idea. But I have a negative view of retirement, anyway. Statistics reveal that you retire, you die seven years later. What's good about that?

Retirement was sold as an infinite vacation at the end of your useful life...emphasis on not being useful anymore! Not very flattering.

I'm of the opinion that, except for the ill and disabled, retirement serves the young...get the mom and dad out of the way so you can take over the castle. I've worked for a 'senior' law firm and most of the work was fending off the greedy children.

Many elders cannot take care of themselves, but even more are quite capable. A sizable portion of the 'senior status' works to hasten the grave. A little thing like forcing a later retirement might work to give more meaning to seniors.

Maddog wrote:Something has to give.  Tjere are too few workers supporting more people, who are living longer.  

Japan is in the worst shape because they really dont do immigration very well.  Their child birth numbers have been way too low.  

Government pensions are a ponzi scheme that require an ever expanding work force to make them work.  Most western countries are not expanding their work force fast enough.  It's why immigration is important. Those workers are needed to support the elderly who are no longer working.

Our benefits system is screwed. There's way too many sitting on their arses using it as a lifestyle choice. It should be a safety net not an entitlement. Also, it's not that easy to get a job these days, the amount of hoops you have jump through and all the 'qualifications' you've got to have. It's all bollocks. Years ago, you could walk into a job without a CV or a reference but on the strength of an interview alone. Why the hell do you have to have GCSE's to be a bloody 'sandwich artist'?

Original Quill wrote:I don't think it's a bad idea.  But I have a negative view of retirement, anyway.  Statistics reveal that you retire, you die seven years later.  What's good about that?

Retirement was sold as an infinite vacation at the end of your useful life...emphasis on not being useful anymore!  Not very flattering.

I'm of the opinion that, except for the ill and disabled, retirement serves the young...get the mom and dad out of the way so you can take over the castle.  I've worked for a 'senior' law firm and most of the work was fending off the greedy children.

Many elders cannot take care of themselves, but even more are quite capable.  A sizable portion of the 'senior status' works to hasten the grave.  A little thing like forcing a later retirement might work to give more meaning to seniors.

It's a good point, as I do believe you have to stay active into old age. And that's ok if you can stay active and have reasonably good health. But what about those who don't? Not all elderly are sick or frail enough to go into a care home, but that doesn't mean they're also fit enough to work full time, and you have to work full time in the UK to live, and even then, you have to be earning over a certain amount to have a reasonable lifestyle and comfort.

HoratioTarr wrote:

Original Quill wrote:I don't think it's a bad idea.  But I have a negative view of retirement, anyway.  Statistics reveal that you retire, you die seven years later.  What's good about that?

Retirement was sold as an infinite vacation at the end of your useful life...emphasis on not being useful anymore!  Not very flattering.

I'm of the opinion that, except for the ill and disabled, retirement serves the young...get the mom and dad out of the way so you can take over the castle.  I've worked for a 'senior' law firm and most of the work was fending off the greedy children.

Many elders cannot take care of themselves, but even more are quite capable.  A sizable portion of the 'senior status' works to hasten the grave.  A little thing like forcing a later retirement might work to give more meaning to seniors.

It's a good point, as I do believe you have to stay active into old age.   And that's ok if you can stay active and have reasonably good health.  But what about those who don't?    Not all elderly are sick or frail enough to go into a care home, but that doesn't mean they're also fit enough to work full time, and you have to work full time in the UK to live, and even then, you have to be earning over a certain amount to have a reasonable lifestyle and comfort.  

People who are sick and disabled are cared for in other ways...here, we have SSDI. But that's for anyone, from 21 to death. That's the point: treat seniors like anyone else, and give them the respect that you give anyone else.

This idea that you have to set them out to pasture at a certain age works against their psyche, and in some cases, actually imprisons them (ask me about my father someday). Let them be; as as and when any disabilities or illnesses come up, treat them as incidents, not a status. Ideas like old age and retirement are mandatory impositions on them, made more for our convenience then theirs.

How people look upon retirement is a personal thing.
I have known some hard workers retire and sort of give up on life.
Others cant wait...and discover a whole new world with lots of time to enjoy it.

My OH was self employed, he planned his retirement and couldn't wait...so far five years in, he is loving every minute of it.

Original Quill wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:

It's a good point, as I do believe you have to stay active into old age.   And that's ok if you can stay active and have reasonably good health.  But what about those who don't?    Not all elderly are sick or frail enough to go into a care home, but that doesn't mean they're also fit enough to work full time, and you have to work full time in the UK to live, and even then, you have to be earning over a certain amount to have a reasonable lifestyle and comfort.  

People who are sick and disabled are cared for in other ways...here, we have SSDI.  But that's for anyone, from 21 to death.  That's the point: treat seniors like anyone else, and give them the respect that you give anyone else.

This idea that you have to set them out to pasture at a certain age works against their psyche, and in some cases, actually imprisons them (ask me about my father someday).    Let them be; as as and when any disabilities or illnesses come up, treat them as incidents, not a status.  Ideas like old age and retirement are mandatory impositions on them, made more for our convenience then theirs.

But you're not putting them out to pasture. Pensioners can work and draw a pension. My point is, working full time isn't something you want to have to do at 70. I'm not talking about the sick and disabled. I'm talking about those who don't have the energy of a 30 year old and who perhaps have rickety joints or can't stand all day. People like that are not considered sick or disabled. The aches and pains and lack of energy are just age related.

Syl wrote:How people look upon retirement is a personal thing.
I have known some hard workers retire and sort of give up on life.
Others cant wait...and discover a whole new world with lots of time to enjoy it.

My OH was self employed, he planned his retirement and couldn't wait...so far five years in, he is loving every minute of it.

I think a vital point is being missed here. Not everyone has either the qualifications or the education to have a job that's relatively easy to do from a physical point of view. What if you've worked in a highly physical job most of your life and can't do anything else? What do you do then?

I've just read an article about this and when you look at the jobs these 'sprightly' 70 and 80 year olds are doing it's stuff like 'cloakroom attendant, and 'university lecturer'. There's no builders or firemen. Nothing remotely physical.

Syl wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:I'm not sure how they expect a 70 year old to work full time in the same job they did at 30?   And I'm not sure a 70 year old would ever get a job in the job market either.  It's hard enough when you're in your fifties!   How on earth would say, a widow of 70, be able to work and support herself?   It's madness.   The elderly would just end up drawing benefits of some kind anyway.

This country wastes so much money on things it shouldn't while ignoring other things that could be better dealt with.  

Maybe governments hope people will die of fatigue before they are old enough to retire and draw a state pension.

Also...if all these old ones are holding on to their jobs, where will the younger ones work?

The irony is...for millions of people who have worked from leaving schools; colleges and universities, their state pension will not be higher than the people who haven't worked and  have not paid NI,  so don't qualify for a pension.
Those people  get the same amount or more in benefits anyway,

Of course people who haven't built up enough NI payments/credits will get benefits anyway, but they will be means tested, whereas a State pension is not. The answer is to build up your own pension from an early age. Then at least people can retire earlier or perhaps work part time when they're older.

From the OP:

But raising the age again would be controversial as it would force the young to work longer to fund the pensions of those who are already retired.

That's already happening, and not just to young people. People who retire under the new pension have to work longer than those who retired under the old pension.

Maddog wrote:Something has to give.  Tjere are too few workers supporting more people, who are living longer.  

Japan is in the worst shape because they really dont do immigration very well.  Their child birth numbers have been way too low.  

Government pensions are a ponzi scheme that require an ever expanding work force to make them work.  Most western countries are not expanding their work force fast enough.  It's why immigration is important. Those workers are needed to support the elderly who are no longer working.

People in the UK are constantly being advised to take out their own pension, or join their workplace pension because the State pension can't be guaranteed or that they will have to wait for their pension. It's the law here that companies must automatically enrol employees in a work place pension if they earn over a certain amount. The minimum legal contributions are pretty low but employees can top them up themselves and get tax relief.

So if we need immigrants to go to work to fund the pensions of more people living longer were does it end, we'll need more immigrants when the immigrants and the others get to pension age then we'll need more immigrants to pay for theose increased numbers, then more - I'm sure you get my drift. I also wonder where all the jobs for the increase in population are coming from?
Manufacturing is practically extinct in Britain, our local industrial estate which was once flourishing enough that you vcould finish a job on Friday and get another on Monday even without qualifications, these days its full of empty factories. I can't see how people can contribute if they are low paid, zero hours or unemployed. I'm still working should have had my pension 4 years ago, my job has been and is still fairly physical on times. As another poster said if you are in physical work all your life you are going to be hard pressed to stay in that work, where as a shop or office worker has a better chance unless their head goes of course.

Vintage wrote:So if we need immigrants to go to work to fund the pensions of more people living longer were does it end, we'll need more immigrants when the immigrants and the others get to pension age then we'll need more immigrants to pay for theose increased numbers, then more - I'm sure you get my drift. I also wonder where all the jobs for the increase in population are coming from?
Manufacturing is practically extinct in Britain, our local industrial estate which was once flourishing enough that you vcould finish a job on Friday and get another on Monday  even without qualifications, these days its full of empty factories. I can't see how people can contribute if they are low paid, zero hours or unemployed. I'm still working should have had my pension 4 years ago, my job has been and is still fairly physical on times. As another poster said if you are in physical work all your life you are going to be hard pressed to stay in that work, where as a shop or office worker has a better chance unless their head goes of course.

Retail workers often have physical jobs actually but I take your point about office workers. Those on low pay do pay NI or they're credited with NI as long as they earn a certain amount. Those claiming benefits are also credited.

Vintage wrote:So if we need immigrants to go to work to fund the pensions of more people living longer were does it end, we'll need more immigrants when the immigrants and the others get to pension age then we'll need more immigrants to pay for theose increased numbers, then more - I'm sure you get my drift. I also wonder where all the jobs for the increase in population are coming from?
Manufacturing is practically extinct in Britain, our local industrial estate which was once flourishing enough that you vcould finish a job on Friday and get another on Monday  even without qualifications, these days its full of empty factories. I can't see how people can contribute if they are low paid, zero hours or unemployed. I'm still working should have had my pension 4 years ago, my job has been and is still fairly physical on times. As another poster said if you are in physical work all your life you are going to be hard pressed to stay in that work, where as a shop or office worker has a better chance unless their head goes of course.

It ends like all ponzi schemes.

Original Quill wrote:I don't think it's a bad idea.  But I have a negative view of retirement, anyway.  Statistics reveal that you retire, you die seven years later.  What's good about that?

Retirement was sold as an infinite vacation at the end of your useful life...emphasis on not being useful anymore!  Not very flattering.

I'm of the opinion that, except for the ill and disabled, retirement serves the young...get the mom and dad out of the way so you can take over the castle.  I've worked for a 'senior' law firm and most of the work was fending off the greedy children.

Many elders cannot take care of themselves, but even more are quite capable.  A sizable portion of the 'senior status' works to hasten the grave.  A little thing like forcing a later retirement might work to give more meaning to seniors.

How do the greedy children get the parents out of the way if the parents are perfectly OK?

The Danes have even done commercials about the problem. They know their system requires new worker bees.  

Many people do try and provide for the future, My oh and I have payed our NI for the required number of years, we paid into our works pension, my huband's employer declared themselves bankrupt, so he never got hios pension, we both saved before and after we got married and at first the interest was good and we could see ourselves managing on the state pension and some of the interest to see us through in our retirement,the capital? would be there for any emergencies, then of course the bottom fell out of the interest rate, so when we retire we'll probably be digging into our capital to make ends meet if we want to eat regularly heat our home and have a reasonble but not extravagant lifestyle, anyway that's what its there for at the end of the day. My father worked from 14 to 75 he and my mother didn't benefit from that, in fact they were taxed on his works pension, which was a silly amount of £3 a month, after all those years of work, my father in law worked from 14 to 80, yep taxed on his meagre savings, grandparents also, one worked in the pit from 14 to 84 actually cutting coal, none benefitted from this, you won't if you are in low paid work and can't manage to save.

Vintage wrote:Many people do try and provide for the future, My oh and I have payed our NI for the required number of years, we paid into our works pension, my huband's employer declared themselves bankrupt, so he never got hios pension, we both saved before and after we got married and at first the interest was good and we could see ourselves managing on the state pension and some of the interest to see us through in our retirement,the capital? would be there for any emergencies, then of course the bottom fell out of the interest rate, so when we retire we'll probably be digging into our capital to make ends meet if we want to eat regularly heat our home and have  a reasonble but not extravagant lifestyle, anyway that's what its there for at the end of the day. My father worked from 14 to 75 he and my mother didn't  benefit from that, in fact they were taxed on his works pension, which was a silly amount of £3 a month, after all those years of work, my father in law worked from 14 to 80, yep taxed on his meagre savings, grandparents also, one worked in the pit from 14 to 84 actually cutting coal, none benefitted from this, you won't if you are in low paid work and can't manage to save.

I agree about the savings interest rates - they suck! Sorry about your husband's pension - that was unfortunate, but it's still good to have a work or private pension. The State pension is just about enough to live on if you don't have housing costs, but one would have to be pretty frugal to live on it.

I'd do the same again pay my NI, save and pay a private pension from scratch. The thing that irks me is people who haven't worked or hardly worked are better off than me and to be honest there's nothing actually wrong with them, they live their lives with no more difficulty than anyone else so they should have worked for what they want like the rest of us. The work I've done has had consequences for me, really bad wear and tear on my joints so I'm beginning to be very cramped up and get problems walking any distance (my choice so I don't want to complain really) but it gets my goat when I see stereotypical people with large amounts of benefits, high end mobility cars and very nice caravans at our local resort that cost £6000 per annum and can walk, drink, dance and live with no obvious disability, some of whom have boasted of playing the system .

Maddog wrote:

Another piece of pure bullshit, origionally created by corporatist lobbyists with one goal in mind...

Halving the corporate tax rate from 30% to 15%..

If Amerika were to only close a few tax loopholes and dodges, collect all of the business and millionaire taxes currently owing, and cut down on wasteful milotary spending, you could have both universal healthcare and a healthier welfare system.

Just shows how far the financiers, business "leaders" and lobbyists have manipulated people over the past 70 or so years..

HoratioTarr wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

People who are sick and disabled are cared for in other ways...here, we have SSDI.  But that's for anyone, from 21 to death.  That's the point: treat seniors like anyone else, and give them the respect that you give anyone else.

This idea that you have to set them out to pasture at a certain age works against their psyche, and in some cases, actually imprisons them (ask me about my father someday).    Let them be; as as and when any disabilities or illnesses come up, treat them as incidents, not a status.  Ideas like old age and retirement are mandatory impositions on them, made more for our convenience then theirs.

But you're not putting them out to pasture.   Pensioners can work and draw a pension.   My point is, working full time isn't something you want to have to do at 70.    I'm not talking about the sick and disabled.   I'm talking about those who don't have the energy of a 30 year old and who perhaps have rickety joints or can't stand all day.   People like that are not considered sick or disabled.   The aches and pains and lack of energy are just age related.  

I've seen pleanty of 70-year olds with more energy than a 30-year old. And If the joints ache, get a stool.

You still have all the presumptions that these people are on the back-slide of life. Leave them alone. Don't make presumptions. That's the cover under which the kids put mom and pop in conservatorships, and rip off their assets.

"If the joints ache, get a Stool"! what a fucking stupid statement.

Vintage wrote:I'd do the same again pay my NI, save and pay a private pension from scratch. The thing that irks me is people who haven't worked or hardly worked are better off than me and to be honest there's nothing actually wrong with them, they live their lives with no more difficulty than anyone else so they should have worked for what they want like the rest of us. The work I've done has had consequences for me, really bad wear and tear on my joints so I'm beginning to be very cramped up and get problems walking any distance (my choice so I don't want to complain really)  but it gets my goat when I see stereotypical people with large amounts of benefits, high end mobility cars and very nice caravans at our local resort that cost £6000 per annum and can walk, drink, dance and live with no obvious  disability, some of whom have boasted of playing the system .

You see people who are clearly not disabled getting disability benefits? It's supposed to be very difficult to play the system these days.

For those who are not able to play the system and have not bothered to save up, they just get the basic pension and possibly housing benefit.

Original Quill wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:

But you're not putting them out to pasture.   Pensioners can work and draw a pension.   My point is, working full time isn't something you want to have to do at 70.    I'm not talking about the sick and disabled.   I'm talking about those who don't have the energy of a 30 year old and who perhaps have rickety joints or can't stand all day.   People like that are not considered sick or disabled.   The aches and pains and lack of energy are just age related.  

I've seen pleanty of 70-year olds with more energy than a 30-year old.  And If the joints ache, get a stool.

You still have all the presumptions that these people are on the back-slide of life.  Leave them alone.  Don't make presumptions.  That's the cover under which the kids put mom and pop in conservatorships, and rip off their assets.

You still haven't said how these "kids" are managing to do that.

Joints don't necessarily ache or hurt just because someone gets old, but if they do have joint problems, sitting on a stool won't really help, and they wouldn't be able to do their job if they need to be on their feet.

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Another piece of pure bullshit, origionally created by corporatist lobbyists with one goal in mind...

Halving the corporate tax rate from 30% to 15%..

If Amerika were to only close a few tax loopholes and dodges, collect all of the business and millionaire taxes currently owing, and cut down on wasteful milotary spending,  you could have both universal healthcare  and a healthier welfare system.

Just shows how far the financiers, business "leaders" and lobbyists have manipulated people over the past 70 or so years..

Cool rant. Irrelevant, but cool. The truth of the matter is that due to declining birth rates and more people riding in the wagon, the number of people pulling it is declining.

State pensions don't generally come under the heading of "welfare". They're supposedly earned, although one can get a State pension without ever working of course.

Raggamuffin wrote:State pensions don't generally come under the heading of "welfare". They're supposedly earned, although one can get a State pension without ever working of course.

You wouldn't think, but at least here in the US, they are not funded by the person while they work. That money is long gone. It's not like a private pension where the money is in an account somewhere. People receiving social security in the US are being funded by current workers. The number of workers supporting a social security recipient continues to decrease. It will collapse at some point if it's not means tested or the enrollment age changes. It's not liberal, conservative or anything else. It's demographics and math.

Maddog wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:State pensions don't generally come under the heading of "welfare". They're supposedly earned, although one can get a State pension without ever working of course.

You wouldn't think, but at least here in the US, they are not funded by the person while they work.  That money is long gone.  It's not like a private pension where the money is in an account somewhere.  People receiving social security in the US are being funded by current workers.  The number of workers supporting a social security recipient continues to decrease.  It will collapse at some point if it's not means tested or the enrollment age changes.  It's not liberal, conservative or anything else.  It's demographics and math.  

It's the same here really. However, there is an element of "saving" for one's retirement by paying National Insurance. The final State pension isn't determined by how much you've paid in though, it's determined by how many years you paid full NI, or were credited with full NI.

There's confusion here because if you were "contracted out" at any point, you did not pay full NI and therefore might not have enough qualifying years. The confusion has partly arisen because the Inland Revenue don't tell people how many years they were contracted out, and then people get less State pension than they expect.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Maddog wrote:

You wouldn't think, but at least here in the US, they are not funded by the person while they work.  That money is long gone.  It's not like a private pension where the money is in an account somewhere.  People receiving social security in the US are being funded by current workers.  The number of workers supporting a social security recipient continues to decrease.  It will collapse at some point if it's not means tested or the enrollment age changes.  It's not liberal, conservative or anything else.  It's demographics and math.  

It's the same here really. However, there is an element of "saving" for one's retirement by paying National Insurance. The final State pension isn't determined by how much you've paid in though, it's determined by how many years you paid full NI, or were credited with full NI.

There's confusion here because if you were "contracted out" at any point, you did not pay full NI and therefore might not have enough qualifying years. The confusion has partly arisen because the Inland Revenue don't tell people how many years they were contracted out, and then people get less State pension than they expect.  

You can find out how much you'll lose by visiting the HM Revenue and Customs website.

The amount of additional State Pension you would have been paid if you had not been contracted out is known as the Contracted Out Pension Equivalent (COPE).

Contracted Out Pension Equivalent (COPE)


My COPE - for example - estimate is £17.00 a week.

So, I'll only lose that amount each week, but if I decide to carry on paying NI contributions for a few more years I can up my state pension to the final max. Which is £159 per week.

Everyone's COPE will be different.

I'd always advise people to request a NI statement which tells you exactly how much you've paid in over the years, and if there's any holes in it that you can pay into to fill the gaps. If you don't pay for the gaps in time you lose the money

Original Quill wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:

But you're not putting them out to pasture.   Pensioners can work and draw a pension.   My point is, working full time isn't something you want to have to do at 70.    I'm not talking about the sick and disabled.   I'm talking about those who don't have the energy of a 30 year old and who perhaps have rickety joints or can't stand all day.   People like that are not considered sick or disabled.   The aches and pains and lack of energy are just age related.  

I've seen pleanty of 70-year olds with more energy than a 30-year old.  And If the joints ache, get a stool.

You still have all the presumptions that these people are on the back-slide of life.  Leave them alone.  Don't make presumptions.  That's the cover under which the kids put mom and pop in conservatorships, and rip off their assets.

Get a stool? How very Marie Antoinette of you!

Why are you getting all defensive of 70 year olds? Are you 70?

HoratioTarr wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

It's the same here really. However, there is an element of "saving" for one's retirement by paying National Insurance. The final State pension isn't determined by how much you've paid in though, it's determined by how many years you paid full NI, or were credited with full NI.

There's confusion here because if you were "contracted out" at any point, you did not pay full NI and therefore might not have enough qualifying years. The confusion has partly arisen because the Inland Revenue don't tell people how many years they were contracted out, and then people get less State pension than they expect.  

You can find out how much you'll lose by visiting the HM Revenue and Customs website.    

The amount of additional State Pension you would have been paid if you had not been contracted out is known as the Contracted Out Pension Equivalent (COPE).

Contracted Out Pension Equivalent (COPE)


My COPE - for example - estimate is £17.00 a week.

So, I'll only lose that amount each week, but if I decide to carry on paying NI contributions for a few more years I can up my state pension to the final max. Which is £159 per week.

Everyone's COPE will be different.

I'd always advise people to request a NI statement which tells you exactly how much you've paid in over the years, and if there's any holes in it that you can pay into to fill the gaps.     If you don't pay for the gaps in time you lose the money  

Yes, but they don't tell you which years you were contracted out. I can find out on the Tax website what I've paid in each year, and it even tells you if it's a "full" year, but it's misleading because they don't seem to exclude years where you were contracted out.

Can you still get a state pension forecast?
I think you have to be within a few years of retirement but they will give you a figure of what you should receive when you reach retirement age.
You could also pay in a lump sum to boost your final pension if it falls short of what you may need.

That's what I did....not sure if its changed in the last few years.

Syl wrote:Can you still  get a state pension forecast?
I think you have to be within a few years of retirement but they will give you a figure of what you should receive when you reach retirement age.
You could also pay in a lump sum to boost your final pension if it falls short of what you may need.

That's what I did....not sure if its changed in the last few years.

Yes. You can ask for one, or if you have an account on the HM Revenue and Customs site you can get a record of all your NI payments plus a forecast. This is where it gets confusing though because they tell you if you were contracted out, but they don't seem to tell you which years. I don't think they distinguish between a "full" year and a "qualifying" year. You need 35 qualifying years for a full State pension, and I have more than that according to them, and yet they say I need more.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Syl wrote:Can you still  get a state pension forecast?
I think you have to be within a few years of retirement but they will give you a figure of what you should receive when you reach retirement age.
You could also pay in a lump sum to boost your final pension if it falls short of what you may need.

That's what I did....not sure if its changed in the last few years.

Yes. You can ask for one, or if you have an account on the HM Revenue and Customs site you can get a record of all your NI payments plus a forecast. This is where it gets confusing though because they tell you if you were contracted out, but they don't seem to tell you which years. I don't think they distinguish between a "full" year and a "qualifying" year. You need 35 qualifying years for a full State pension, and I have more than that according to them, and yet they say I need more.

It is confusing....
If you do fall short (and I don't know how if you have worked longer than the 35 years required) but you can always top up if you think its worth it.

Syl wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Yes. You can ask for one, or if you have an account on the HM Revenue and Customs site you can get a record of all your NI payments plus a forecast. This is where it gets confusing though because they tell you if you were contracted out, but they don't seem to tell you which years. I don't think they distinguish between a "full" year and a "qualifying" year. You need 35 qualifying years for a full State pension, and I have more than that according to them, and yet they say I need more.

It is confusing....
If you do fall short (and I don't know how if you have worked longer than the 35 years required) but you can always top up if you think its worth it.

I'm not worried about that. I still have eight years before I can get the State pension anyway, so I'll have enough years by then.

I'm wondering if a "full" year is the same thing as a "qualifying" year.

Syl wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Yes. You can ask for one, or if you have an account on the HM Revenue and Customs site you can get a record of all your NI payments plus a forecast. This is where it gets confusing though because they tell you if you were contracted out, but they don't seem to tell you which years. I don't think they distinguish between a "full" year and a "qualifying" year. You need 35 qualifying years for a full State pension, and I have more than that according to them, and yet they say I need more.

It is confusing....
If you do fall short (and I don't know how if you have worked longer than the 35 years required) but you can always top up if you think its worth it.

If,, as many did,, you opted out of SERPS, then you lose contributions for the years you paid into that private pension. But only those years. So if you say, left the company that you paid the private pension with and that was frozen, then it's only for those years it was active.

Syl wrote:Can you still  get a state pension forecast?
I think you have to be within a few years of retirement but they will give you a figure of what you should receive when you reach retirement age.
You could also pay in a lump sum to boost your final pension if it falls short of what you may need.

That's what I did....not sure if its changed in the last few years.

You can get a NI contributions statement which tells you how much you've paid in and how up to date that is.

Also, you have to claim your pension. You don't get it automatically.

HoratioTarr wrote:

Syl wrote:
It is confusing....
If you do fall short (and I don't know how if you have worked longer than the 35 years required) but you can always top up if you think its worth it.

If,, as many did,, you opted out of SERPS, then you  lose contributions for the years you paid into that private pension.  But only those years.  So if you say, left the company that you paid the private pension with and that was frozen, then it's only for those years it was active.

Is anyone going to remember when they were contracted out though? I doubt it - they probably didn't take much notice.

Under the new state pension rules that came in on April 6 2016, you need a minimum of 10 years before you'll get any payout at all. Reach this and you'll be paid 10/35ths of the total – currently £159.55, or about £46. These qualifying years can be from before or after 6 April 2016 and don't have to be 10 years in a row – they can be dotted about over a much longer period.

However, if you don't manage to meet this minimum, you won't get a penny (although pension credit should be available). Under the old system, there was no minimum threshold – you could still get a small payout even if you had just four or five years.

To get the full £159.55
You'll need 35 years to get this full headline rate (which itself will rise each year by 2.5%, inflation or average wage growth – whichever is highest.) Crucially, you don't have to start from scratch from 6 April 2016 – any years earned before this date will count as well as the ones after it.

And some people can get more. Under the old state pension rules, workers were able to build up what's known as the additional state pension – a top up to the former basic state pension. Although the new rules have now scrapped this top-up, the Government has allowed many workers in their 40s, 50s and early 60s to keep any of this extra cash already amassed.

It's part of the Government's pledge that people who worked to build up a healthy state pension under the old rules shouldn't lose out under the new one.

To make it work – and it is fiendishly complicated – what you'll get depends on a so-called 'starting sum' calculation. This compares what you'd have been entitled to under the old and new regimes – and, in a nutshell, you'll get the higher of the two.

Say you earned an extra £65 a week in additional state pension over your working life under the old system which would have given you £184.30 a week. This is well over the new £159.55 limit but the rules allow you to keep this extra £24.75 a week.

This extra money is known as your 'protected payment' and will be highlighted on your state pension statement.

Raggamuffin wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:

If,, as many did,, you opted out of SERPS, then you  lose contributions for the years you paid into that private pension.  But only those years.  So if you say, left the company that you paid the private pension with and that was frozen, then it's only for those years it was active.

Is anyone going to remember when they were contracted out though? I doubt it - they probably didn't take much notice.

I contracted out in the late 80s. I had no clue of the real implications and I remember feeling very pressured to sign. But...I only stayed with that company for a relatively short time. I'm lucky because I have a private pension that pays well and is not connected to SERPS. But God help those who don't have that back up. The pension that I opted out of SERPS for all those years ago pays fuck all. So I can only imagine what it must be like for those with no proper pension safety net and/or pensions that haven't performed well.

Future Pension Centre on 0845 3000 168 and it'll send you a statement of NI contributions.