Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Uk Debate Mk 2, the UK's liveliest political and social debate site.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Only 45% to get full pension in 2016; (Freedom Of Information request answer)
Topic Started: Jan 12 2015, 11:56 AM (392 Views)
papasmurf
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
It appears just for once the media are on the case about this. I cannot copy and and paste charts from pdf files, it is only two pages:-

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/392505/foi-5035-amount-of-state-pension.pdf


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-30777166

12 January 2015 Last updated at 10:53
'Only 45%' to get full new payout


Only 45% of new pensioners will be entitled to the full, new, flat-rate state pension in the first five years of the system, the government has said.

The new state pension, aimed at simplifying the system, will see a single payment of about £150 made to new pensioners from April 2016.

New figures suggest that two million people will not get the full amount.


Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
That's a very disingenuous thread title

As the detail shows, most will have the same entitlement as now, a few will get extra. The potential issue is with some that paid into the state second pension who may now find that their pension will not be proportional to what they paid in.

Quote:
 
The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) said that it was misleading to suggest that some people were missing out on the state pension as nobody would be worse off than they would be under the current system.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
papasmurf
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Jan 12 2015, 12:06 PM
That's a very disingenuous thread title

I am using the FOI request answer chart, and the BBC.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
papasmurf
Jan 12 2015, 12:09 PM
Steve K
Jan 12 2015, 12:06 PM
That's a very disingenuous thread title

I am using the FOI request answer chart, and the BBC.
But that's not true is it. You missed out a key word

The BBC title is: Only 45%' to get full new payout
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
papasmurf
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Jan 12 2015, 12:18 PM
You missed out a key word


So what, do you wish to debate or nit-pick?
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
papasmurf
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
papasmurf
Jan 12 2015, 12:19 PM
Steve K
Jan 12 2015, 12:18 PM
You missed out a key word


So what, do you wish to debate or nit-pick?

http://home.bt.com/lifestyle/money/investing-pensions/millions-to-miss-out-on-receiving-new-state-pension-in-full-11363954248464

Millions to miss out on receiving new state pension in full

Less than half of people eligible in first five years expected to receive full amount
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
papasmurf
Jan 12 2015, 12:19 PM
Steve K
Jan 12 2015, 12:18 PM
You missed out a key word


So what, do you wish to debate or nit-pick?
Not pit picking at all. Your thread title is deliberately deceptive in order to alarm people with the false thought that they might get less than they were going to before these changes

You could of course correct it if you did not want to create a false impression
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
papasmurf
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Jan 12 2015, 12:22 PM
Your thread title is deliberately deceptive in order to alarm people with the false thought that they might get less than they were going to before these changes

My thread title is factually accurate.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
papasmurf
Jan 12 2015, 12:35 PM
Steve K
Jan 12 2015, 12:22 PM
Your thread title is deliberately deceptive in order to alarm people with the false thought that they might get less than they were going to before these changes

My thread title is factually accurate.
it's also factually accurate to say that "PS sometimes posts the truth". Both that and the thread title would of course be equally disingenuous.

That you stick so to the misleading title and want to argue that to the exclusion of the serious points rather indicates that the misleading nature of the thread title was no accident.

So do you deny that very very few if any will get less in real terms than they would do under the current system?







Edited by Steve K, Jan 12 2015, 12:41 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
papasmurf
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Jan 12 2015, 12:40 PM
That you stick so to the misleading title



It is not misleading it is factually accurate.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
 ::)

PS sometimes posts the truth

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
papasmurf
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Jan 12 2015, 12:50 PM
 ::)

PS sometimes posts the truth

The thread header is factually accurate as anyone who looks at the chart in the referenced Freedom Of Information request reply can see.
If you do not wish to debate the issue that 2 million people will not be getting what they expected in 2016 can you please shut the (expletive deleted) up.
I have enough of that sort of excrement from Highway.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ACH1967
Member Avatar
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Well done Steve, your posts and the responses to them illustrate nicely to all and sundry the type of poster PS is. Good effort.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
papasmurf
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
ACH1967
Jan 12 2015, 01:15 PM
Well done Steve, your posts and the responses to them illustrate nicely to all and sundry the type of poster PS is. Good effort.
Rule three infraction.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
somersetli
Member Avatar
somersetli
[ *  *  * ]
It seems fairly straightforward to me.
Existing pensioners are not affected at all, and future pensioners will receive a pension commensurate with their contributions.
Not much different to present arrangements. My wife has never received the full OAP because she hadn't made sufficient contributions. She receives approx. 2/3rds of the full pension.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
papasmurf
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
somersetli
Jan 12 2015, 01:31 PM
It seems fairly straightforward to me.
Existing pensioners are not affected at all, and future pensioners will receive a pension commensurate with their contributions.
Not much different to present arrangements. My wife has never received the full OAP because she hadn't made sufficient contributions. She receives approx. 2/3rds of the full pension.
The DWP has changed the number of qualifying years from 30 to 35. That is sneaky those who have planned around the change in qualifying years earlier in this parliament from 40 down to 30.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
papasmurf
Jan 12 2015, 01:25 PM
ACH1967
Jan 12 2015, 01:15 PM
Well done Steve, your posts and the responses to them illustrate nicely to all and sundry the type of poster PS is. Good effort.
Rule three infraction.
is it? Posted Image

Certainly not even remotely as much as the last "excrement" line on your post 12


An interesting angle on it :

I am due to reach state pension age in that 5 year window, under the current system I will get £113.10 (plus any indexing) a week. Under the new system I will get the very same £113.10 (plus any indexing) a week.

The thread title strongly suggests I won't, that's because it is deliberately disingenuous.
Edited by Steve K, Jan 12 2015, 02:01 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
papasmurf
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Jan 12 2015, 01:49 PM


The thread title strongly suggests I won't, that's because it is deliberately disingenuous.
No it doesn't.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
papasmurf
Jan 12 2015, 02:08 PM
Steve K
Jan 12 2015, 01:49 PM


The thread title strongly suggests I won't, that's because it is deliberately disingenuous.
No it doesn't.
The conclusive proof that it is deliberate intended to deceive is in your continued refusal to correct the thread to the BBC line that you falsely claimed it quoted

The EDIT button is there for you, why else won't you use it?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
papasmurf
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Jan 12 2015, 02:53 PM


The EDIT button is there for you, why else won't you use it?
Because there is not need to, I suggest you actually bother to watch the news, I have made no different a comment on the Freedom Of Information request answer than they have.
Just discuss the issue that needed an FOI request to get an answer.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ACH1967
Member Avatar
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Jan 12 2015, 01:49 PM
papasmurf
Jan 12 2015, 01:25 PM
ACH1967
Jan 12 2015, 01:15 PM
Well done Steve, your posts and the responses to them illustrate nicely to all and sundry the type of poster PS is. Good effort.
Rule three infraction.
is it? Posted Image

Certainly not even remotely as much as the last "excrement" line on your post 12


An interesting angle on it :

I am due to reach state pension age in that 5 year window, under the current system I will get £113.10 (plus any indexing) a week. Under the new system I will get the very same £113.10 (plus any indexing) a week.

The thread title strongly suggests I won't, that's because it is deliberately disingenuous.
I didn't want to waste my time arguing with him but i understand why you take him to task.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
ACH1967
Jan 12 2015, 03:05 PM
Steve K
Jan 12 2015, 01:49 PM
papasmurf
Jan 12 2015, 01:25 PM
ACH1967
Jan 12 2015, 01:15 PM
Well done Steve, your posts and the responses to them illustrate nicely to all and sundry the type of poster PS is. Good effort.
Rule three infraction.
is it? Posted Image

Certainly not even remotely as much as the last "excrement" line on your post 12


An interesting angle on it :

I am due to reach state pension age in that 5 year window, under the current system I will get £113.10 (plus any indexing) a week. Under the new system I will get the very same £113.10 (plus any indexing) a week.

The thread title strongly suggests I won't, that's because it is deliberately disingenuous.
I didn't want to waste my time arguing with him but i understand why you take him to task.
Indeed, some do like digging ever deeper holes for their vestigial reputations.


But to the serious matter at hand

Surely some people who would have got a full £113.10 + indexing based on 30 years of service will now lose out if the threshold (rightly imho) is increased to 35

And can we really say that no one will get less on that new flat rate pension than they would have done from their state second pension entitlements

Methinks the DWP line that no one will get less may be worse than disingenuous and actually plain untrue
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Affa
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]

I do not for one second believe that pension reforms are designed, or intend, to make pensioners (overall) better off. Linking them to inflation, RPI or CPI, as has been toyed with in the past usually leaves the basic pension lower than past years in real terms ..... and we should be talking real terms here.


Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ACH1967
Member Avatar
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Affa
Jan 12 2015, 04:03 PM
I do not for one second believe that pension reforms are designed, or intend, to make pensioners (overall) better off. Linking them to inflation, RPI or CPI, as has been toyed with in the past usually leaves the basic pension lower than past years in real terms ..... and we should be talking real terms here.


This government, like most governments, needs to do something about unfunded pension commitments and not bury their head in the sand.

Article in the economist where I think it was the state of illonois has such high unfunded pension commitments it has been given a credit rating caomparable to Botswana. An illinois news paper asked what had Botswana done to deserve such a comparison?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
ACH1967
Jan 12 2015, 04:21 PM
Affa
Jan 12 2015, 04:03 PM
I do not for one second believe that pension reforms are designed, or intend, to make pensioners (overall) better off. Linking them to inflation, RPI or CPI, as has been toyed with in the past usually leaves the basic pension lower than past years in real terms ..... and we should be talking real terms here.


This government, like most governments, needs to do something about unfunded pension commitments and not bury their head in the sand.

Article in the economist where I think it was the state of illonois has such high unfunded pension commitments it has been given a credit rating caomparable to Botswana. An illinois news paper asked what had Botswana done to deserve such a comparison?
;D

But to emphasize the serious point we are as you say talking about "unfunded pension commitments"

50 or more years of financial short termism is unravelling and unravelling fast
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Affa
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Too many in pensions provider service sucking on the tit!

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
papasmurf
Jan 12 2015, 12:19 PM
Steve K
Jan 12 2015, 12:18 PM
You missed out a key word


So what, do you wish to debate or nit-pick?
What was your motivation for missing out that word? Was your intent to mislead or was your copying just sloppy? Ignoring the question leads one to assume, based on past experience, that ----

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
papasmurf
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
RJD
Jan 13 2015, 09:39 AM
What was your motivation for missing out that word?
I posted the link to the FOI answer from the DWP, my thread header is accurate based on that.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Jan 12 2015, 05:02 PM
ACH1967
Jan 12 2015, 04:21 PM
Affa
Jan 12 2015, 04:03 PM
I do not for one second believe that pension reforms are designed, or intend, to make pensioners (overall) better off. Linking them to inflation, RPI or CPI, as has been toyed with in the past usually leaves the basic pension lower than past years in real terms ..... and we should be talking real terms here.


This government, like most governments, needs to do something about unfunded pension commitments and not bury their head in the sand.

Article in the economist where I think it was the state of illonois has such high unfunded pension commitments it has been given a credit rating caomparable to Botswana. An illinois news paper asked what had Botswana done to deserve such a comparison?
;D

But to emphasize the serious point we are as you say talking about "unfunded pension commitments"

50 or more years of financial short termism is unravelling and unravelling fast
Funny how the Swiss employed must save for their Pensions by Law and they now, after decades of saving, have the highest amount in Pension pots on the Planet per capita. I do not recall a referenda being called to overturn this Law and adopt the UK unfunded system. There is no better time than the present to introduce such a Law, however, the Usuals would argue that such will never ever be affordable.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Affa
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
More tits for the pigs in the City to suck on ....... the State should secure citizens retirement prospects, it is its function, part of.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
Affa
Jan 13 2015, 09:47 AM
More tits for the pigs in the City to suck on ....... the State should secure citizens retirement prospects, it is its function, part of.

So you do not believe an individual should take responsibility for his/her old age and that it is right and proper to put the full burden of supporting such on future generations? Considering the current demographics is it really sensible to continually increase the burdens we place on future generations? The Tories intend to increase the interest burden on borrowings, currently with lowish Coupons, to ~£60b PA by 2020 if elected, Labour intend to increase this further. Based on statements made the Tories think they will reduce the mountain of debt ("Brown's Burden") to ~40% of GDP (considered the maximum safe level) by around 2030 if they are very lucky boys, however, Labour appear to think that if we do this by 2070 then that's OK. I find the situation highly immoral, however, many these days appear totally unconcerned and really are not interested in legacy only what can be extracted and consumed now, today. Even taking the selfish view why are we piling up yet further obligations when we know that one day, some day, maybe even soon there will be more economic chilled winds for us to cope with. We should be strengthening the buttresses not weakening them further.



Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
papasmurf
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
RJD
Jan 13 2015, 10:01 AM
So you do not believe an individual should take responsibility for his/her old age


I do, RJD, but what I don't believe in doing is giving crooks and shysters carte blanche to rip off people to the potential tune of £200 billion due to the change in the pension pot regulations coming in, in April.
I assume you did not watch this last night:-

http://www.channel4.com/programmes/dispatches/on-demand/59588-002

How to blow your pension.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
papasmurf
Jan 13 2015, 10:10 AM
RJD
Jan 13 2015, 10:01 AM
So you do not believe an individual should take responsibility for his/her old age


I do, RJD, but what I don't believe in doing is giving crooks and shysters carte blanche to rip off people to the potential tune of £200 billion due to the change in the pension pot regulations coming in, in April.
I assume you did not watch this last night:-

http://www.channel4.com/programmes/dispatches/on-demand/59588-002

How to blow your pension.
Separate matter, so please open a new thread and articulate your claims.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Affa
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
I believe that pensions providers are rip-off merchants, and have been deregulated to permit their greed.
It's about who to trust with your retirement contributions, and the lessons learned are trust no-one.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
papasmurf
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
RJD
Jan 13 2015, 10:22 AM
Separate matter, so please open a new thread and articulate your claims.

No it isn't which if you had bothered to watch the programme you would know.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
papasmurf
Jan 13 2015, 10:28 AM
RJD
Jan 13 2015, 10:22 AM
Separate matter, so please open a new thread and articulate your claims.

No it isn't which if you had bothered to watch the programme you would know.
I would ask please that you do. That private pension change is a big danger imho and the new state pension issues will cloud out clarity in the discussion.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
papasmurf
Jan 13 2015, 10:28 AM
RJD
Jan 13 2015, 10:22 AM
Separate matter, so please open a new thread and articulate your claims.

No it isn't which if you had bothered to watch the programme you would know.
I have better things to do with my time than watch TV from dawn to dusk.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
papasmurf
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
RJD
Jan 13 2015, 11:14 AM
I have better things to do with my time than watch TV from dawn to dusk.
You are scared of anything that challenges your Worldview RJD, you prefer to remain in ignorance.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
papasmurf
Jan 13 2015, 11:22 AM
RJD
Jan 13 2015, 11:14 AM
I have better things to do with my time than watch TV from dawn to dusk.
You are scared of anything that challenges your Worldview RJD, you prefer to remain in ignorance.
What arrogant twaddle which is based on an assumption that you are informed because yo spend so much time in front of the TV. Mr Smurf some people can sit in front of a TV 24 hours per day, only watch News and Politics related programs and remain pig ignorant. I think you are a living example of this. Time you learned that if a statement or image chimes well with you that does not mean it is based on facts. Your Grammar School education has left you with serious shortcomings when it comes to the basis of logical thought.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
HIGHWAY
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
papasmurf
Jan 12 2015, 12:55 PM
Steve K
Jan 12 2015, 12:50 PM
 ::)

PS sometimes posts the truth

The thread header is factually accurate as anyone who looks at the chart in the referenced Freedom Of Information request reply can see.
If you do not wish to debate the issue that 2 million people will not be getting what they expected in 2016 can you please shut the (expletive deleted) up.
I have enough of that sort of excrement from Highway.
Looks like it isn't just me that brings you to task,over your anti government bile.
Only thing I am surprised about is your not mentioning gun,kneecap,IDS in this thread
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Politics · Next Topic »
Add Reply