www.theguardian.com/society/2017/may/17/theresa-may-conservative-tory-policy-older-people-pay-for-social-care
A different take...
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/05/17/middle-class-pensioners-lose-benefits-tory-plan-fund-social/
Typical. You pay tax and more importantly NI for when you retire and they want to change you to use care services.
What is worse, you pay by getting an equity loan so no doubt you will pay compound interest on the amount borrowed!
Crooks!
|
"The money saved from means-testing the annual heating handout, worth up to £300, will be used to help close the £2.8 billion social care funding gap.
The Conservatives will also pass legislation to ensure nobody has to sell their home to pay for their care during their lifetime, and new rules will allow pensioners needing nursing home treatment to keep more of their assets."
Makes good sense to me.
|
>>Typical. You pay tax and more importantly NI for when you retire
No. When you retire, those paying tax and NI are supporting you. The tax and NI you pay doesn't go into a savings account for your future use.
|
>>No. When you retire, those paying tax and NI are supporting you. The tax and NI you pay >>doesn't go into a savings account for your future use.
That is bad planning by the Govt. for not saving it and treating it like tax. I have made the not insignificant payments. They should provide the service.
If it was an insurance company we would be able to sue!
|
|
What's the next step, means testing the state pension - oh so you have a private pension as well? We will stop paying you the state pension that you have paid in to all of your life!
|
>> What's the next step, means testing the state pension - oh so you have a
>> private pension as well? We will stop paying you the state pension that you have
>> paid in to all of your life!
>>
It is already part of your taxable income, I reckon that is the equivalent of "means testing"
We need to see a change of attitude in those of us who are a bit better off that paying less and less tax and seeing cuts of all kinds is not always desirable.
Personally I will be interested to see what kind of Tory government we get, it may be less right wing than some people think.
At least any increase in taxation I get is more likely to be spent "properly" rather than paying to try state ownership for a second time when it was disastrous last time around and would be again.
|
>> Personally I will be interested to see what kind of Tory government we get, it
>> may be less right wing than some people think.
>>
Seems to me that the Tories are occupying the centre ground, pushing Labour ever lefter and giving no room for the LDs and remains of UKIP.
>>At least any increase in taxation I get is more likely to be spent "properly"
>> rather than paying to try state ownership for a second time when it was disastrous
>> last time around and would be again.>>
Agree totally!
|
>> Seems to me that the Tories are occupying the centre ground, pushing Labour ever lefter
>> and giving no room for the LDs and remains of UKIP.
>>
"Today, Theresa may signalled a break with Thatcherite ideology of the past, saying she considered that “true Conservatism†rejected untrammelled free markets and selfish individualism in favour of “community and countryâ€.
Pressed about whether her manifesto was rejection of Thatcherism in favour of Mayism, the prime minister said: “There is no Mayism. There is only good solid Conservatism.†"
Last edited by: BrianByPass on Thu 18 May 17 at 15:17
|
>> What's the next step, means testing the state pension - oh so you have a
>> private pension as well? We will stop paying you the state pension that you have
>> paid in to all of your life!
Indeed, it was called "contracting out"
|
If I hop on to the state pension prediction webpage, it tells me I will get something like £140 a week in 12 years time. It also says something underneath that figure about a COPE (Contracted Out Pension Equivalent) of £80 a week.
My googling as to what this actually means APPEARS at first sight to be what zippy describes - they have decided my private pension should be covering £80 of my £140. What is unclear to me is whether that means I'm getting £140 a week or £140-£80 a week.
I'm sure someone here will tell me in two seconds, but it MIGHT be that yes, your state pension is reduced as you have a private one. Or it might not.
Of course, I'll be glad to be told that is wrong. As I'm retiring in a month anyway it might be just wait and see for me - if I get anything at all from a state pension, assuming I get that far, lovely.
Last edited by: Crankcase on Thu 18 May 17 at 10:42
|
If you were a member of a pension scheme and paid contracted out rates of NIC then you will get less under so called New State Pension:
www.gov.uk/new-state-pension/youve-been-in-a-workplace-personal-or-stakeholder-pension
This isn't greatly different to situation previously where those with no other income get Pension Credit which tapers off if you have work pension etc.
|
I don't quite get the COPE bit either, I understand the principle but not the application on the Govt gateway.
Page 1 says "Your forecast is £165.92 a week" which is nice as I thought the max was £155.
Somewhere else it says "Your COPE estimate is £83.31 a week.
"This will not affect your State Pension forecast. The COPE amount is paid as part of your other pension schemes, not by the government."
So I called them for clarity and asked if I will receive £165 or £165 - £83. I assumed it would be the latter.
They said it looks like £165 but write in for a more accurate figure.
So I did, and the answer was the same as the above.
I guess I'm misinterpreting something...
Last edited by: smokie on Thu 18 May 17 at 12:02
|
Yes, that's what tripping me up too. Google about and some pages seem (but only seem, not definitely) to say
"you lose the COPE amount from the headline figure",
but others start going on about
"ah yes, but it's calculated twice, once under the old rules and once under the new, and we take the higher of the two before we reduce the extra SERPS amount that the extra second basic non-contracted out add-on state pension before pension credits was once worth before pre-inflation was adjusted unilaterally and both systems were multiplexed. Simple, see".
So who knows.
|
think of it like your car insurance, you pay for this years cover for the NHS, educating your children while they are at that age, for the army, navy & RAF to defend you and so on. You are also paying for those who get a pension when they are entitled to it.
When you get a state pension, or any other form of benefit, it is paid for by working people, not because you have somehow earned it, but because that is how our society works.
The problem is calling it national INSURANCE when it is really tax on earned income.
BTW am I right in thinking, if I do some paid employment once I have passed retirement age and am in receipt of a state pension, that I will still pay NI on earnings from that employment?
|
No that's not the case commerdriver.
Pat
|
>> No that's not the case commerdriver.
>>
>> Pat
>>
Thanks Pat, just wondered.
Not intending to do anything paid after I retire but there are often contract opportunities in the IT world
|
>> Not intending to do anything paid after I retire but there are often contract opportunities
>> in the IT world
Details are here:
www.gov.uk/tax-national-insurance-after-state-pension-age/stopping-paying-national-insurance
State Pension age is a shifting target as it's gradually moving to 67 for both sexes.
The oddity with NICs is that they're not payable on occupational pension even of taken long before State Pension age. I 57 and am liable for them on my modest pay for 2 days a week at CA but not on my significantly larger Civil Service Pension.
There's a loophole that's ripe for closure......
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Thu 18 May 17 at 12:04
|
>> There's a loophole that's ripe for closure......
>>
Don 't see why it should ever be an issue.
National insurance is purely a tax paid on earned income. Your total pension, work and state is liable for tax, fair enough, if NI is charged on pension, any differential disappears and so does NI to be replaced by 10% or whatever on the basic rate of tax.
You might as well say that income from savings, ISAs etc should be charged NI as well.
|
>> significantly larger Civil
>> Service Pension.
>>
>> There's a loophole that's ripe for closure......
>>
Yes, those state sector pensions are too generous. All final salary pensions should be closed forthwith. ;-)
|
>> If it was an insurance company we would be able to sue!
if it was it would have limitations, exclusions, an excess, and millions of ways to invoke non payment
And you would have paid more for it, and you would have paid taxes on your payments.,
|
When my time comes that I cannot look after myself I will be looking to invest the £12K Dignitas or equivalent if they have not changes the rules in the UK by that time.
One off cost rather than sitting around in a home, for possibly many years, with dozens of others who are waiting for their time!!
|
>> When my time comes that I cannot look after myself I will be looking to
>> invest the £12K Dignitas or equivalent if they have not changes the rules in the
>> UK by that time.
>>
>> One off cost rather than sitting around in a home, for possibly many years, with
>> dozens of others who are waiting for their time!!
>>
I wouldn't worry. By that time all the equity in your home will have been sequestrated to cover the deferred interest on your care bill and euthanasia will become compulsory!
|
>> I wouldn't worry. By that time all the equity in your home will have been
>> sequestrated to cover the deferred interest on your care bill and euthanasia will become compulsory!
Excellent, there is someone I want to nominate to head the queue.
|
An view on care costs:
www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/may/18/tory-social-care-plan-example-market-failure-andrew-dilnot
Not Guardian opinion, based on an interview with Andrew Dilnot (who headed inquiry on care costs) on radio earlier today.
|
Interesting, but it's still just an opinion.
Any elderly care option is unfair to someone, not least in that it is a lottery which of us will end up needing care, and nearly as big a lottery how long we will need that care.
There is no right, simple answer which will be right and fair to everybody.
|
>>
>> >
>>
>> And you would have paid more for it, and you would have paid taxes on
>> your payments.,
>>
And you would have accumulated a no claims discount if you had not claimed for unemployed or medical treatment.
The rate of NI would vary depending on your previous record, where you lived, your health, and your occupation.
You could pay a lower rate if you chose a higher excess, or higher to protect your NCD.
You could shop around online to get a better deal, and secure a discount if family members also took out NI policies.
In short, it's not insurance.
|
>> That is bad planning by the Govt. for not saving it and treating it like
>> tax. I have made the not insignificant payments. They should provide the service.
>>
NI contribution records are used simply to work out your entitlement to state pension. The amount of pension and the age at which you get it are determined by Parliament. There is no ringfenced "fund" built up.
Bad planning? No, that is how the Treasury works. Can you name any country where it is how you wish it to be?
>> If it was an insurance company we would be able to sue!
>>
Try suing Equitable Life.
|
>>Try suing Equitable Life.
We all paid for it though through the bail out.
>>NI contribution records are used simply to work out your entitlement to state pension. The amount of pension and the age at which you get it are determined by Parliament. There is no ringfenced "fund" built up.
I know that, but it is an unfair contract because you are required to make payment in to the scheme and the Govt of the future can turn around and screw you over by not paying you a pension should they so wish.
|
>> the Govt of the future can turn around and
>> screw you over
>>
Can you name a foreign Government that you would like ours to be modelled on?
|
>>Can you name a foreign Government that you would like ours to be modelled on?
That like saying, this person may rob you. Would you like to nominate an alternative thief?
Calling the tax "national insurance" and suggesting it will provide a pension is the issue. It is a tax and there is no guarantee of a pension for the individual.
As I was aware and as has been pointed out here, the contributions made today pay the current liability and don't go towards paying your entitlement so if the Govt change the rules, as they have already done with movements in the pension age, there is nothing you can do about it.
I would rather have put the equivalent money in a private scheme then at least I would know that there would be a payout based on savings, performance and actuary tables and not the political wind of the day.
|
>> As I was aware and as has been pointed out here, the contributions made today
>> pay the current liability and don't go towards paying your entitlement so if the Govt
>> change the rules, as they have already done with movements in the pension age, there
>> is nothing you can do about it.
They don't pay the current liability, they contribute towards it. Its topped up by general taxation
.
>> I would rather have put the equivalent money in a private scheme then at least
>> I would know that there would be a payout based on savings, performance and actuary
>> tables and not the political wind of the day.
And, based on current private schemes you would be considerably worse off, because there isn't that extra funding available.
What you are calling for is hypothecation of taxes. Thats fine as long as the state can cut off the bits you dont want pay for. They can't.
|
>> >> If it was an insurance company we would be able to sue!
>> >>
>> Try suing Equitable Life.
They were sued, they lost, government paid policyholders.
|
>> They were sued, they lost,
You can't get money out of a bankrupt, especially when the bankrupt is your own mutually owned company.
>> government paid policyholders.
>>
Because it failed in duty to regulate. All money is the Government's (and those abroad from whom it borrows), and in the end - one way or another - the taxpayer pays.
|
>>
>> >> They were sued, they lost,
>> You can't get money out of a bankrupt, especially when the bankrupt is your own
>> mutually owned company.
Except of course it never went bankrupt.
|
And at sign of revolt she's U turned and suggested an upper limit on care cost contributions!!!
So much for strong and stable
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Mon 22 May 17 at 12:10
|
|
It's worrying, Corbyn could end up sounding more credible! ;-)
|
|
By all accounts Corbin is narrowing the gap. Conservatives are still going to win but it might not ne the anticipated landslide.
|
|
The polls said Milliband would win, and that we would stay in the uk, and that clinton would win.
|
They did but a Corbyn win would be an even more astounding turn around,
I just don't see it but there again I did punt £100 on a remain win.
|
|
Must've been short odds at the time...?
|
|
Yes but it was a certainty wasn't it?
|
|
Yup, a shoo-in as they say. :-)
|
I don't think Corbyn will win, unfortunately.
Too many closet Conservatives, and probably quite a lot of Labour 'supporters' posting on Facebook and responding to opinion polls who either aren't registered or won't bother to actually vote.
The tuition fee promise initially struck me as pretty loopy, but I'd like to see the numbers. The point is that few pay out the tuition fees, they borrow it. Not all of it gets paid back, and there are lots of costs associated.
The effect will be on behaviour as well as whatever the net effect on public finances is - it will influence how many and who apply and what for. And most will still need to borrow, earn or have support to cover living costs.
|
A good starting point will be to get rid of the useless degrees awarded by colleges. Some are pointless to say the least but costly all the same.
Maybe we should have alternatives like... oh lets call them apprenticeships to get a good training in something useful. Rather than do a degree in Harry Potter or similar.
|
>> A good starting point will be to get rid of the useless degrees awarded by
>> colleges.
Such as?
|
>> >> A good starting point will be to get rid of the useless degrees awarded by colleges.
>> Such as?
You must know that there are some rubbish 'degree' courses awarded by what were once higher education colleges claiming to now be universities.
I think it was wrong to make polytechnics into universities. They offered different angles and courses with a vocational element. But then they too got called universities.
|
Oh I get all that. What I may or may not think is neither here nor there.
I was looking for some mention of specific subjects to back up your assertions .....
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Mon 22 May 17 at 19:38
|
It used to be said that it was the discipline of self-propelled learning and exploration of any subject was the point of a degree rather than the actual subject (excepting I suppose, strictly vocational ones). My nephew was at Cambridge for his law degree 10 years or so ago and that was virtually a solo effort, with hardly any lectures etc on offer to attend even if he wanted to, and that seemed to be really character building.
I'm going back many many years here but in the 780s when we were recruiting for computer programmers the best degree (as computer ones were few and far between then) were music graduates.
I suspect that the lesser uni's still have to spoon feed students like when they were at school so maybe those old values have largely gone.
|
>>I'm going back many many years here but in the 780s
b***** hell, that really *IS* a long time ago. Almost 1300 years.
|
Being Charged Twice... - Hard Cheese
