Moving the goal posts

[reallymadwoman]

In the dim and distant past when I first left school and started earning my own living, I also started contributing to an insurance plan which promised me a wide range of benefits in return for a proportion of my salary. According to the rules then, once I had been in the plan for at least two years I would receive at least enough money to live on, for as long as I needed it, should I become unemployed or unable to work due to illness or disability and, once I had contributed for 20 years, I would receive a pension when I reached the age of 60.

 

I dutifully contributed to this plan for 24 years without making a single claim, but then a sequence of events left me permanently unfit for work and so I claimed. At first there was no problem - I was so clearly severely ill and disabled that there was no question of not paying the promised benefits until such time as I was entitled to be paid my pension instead. At some point during those 23 years the age at which I would be entitled to my pension had increased to 65, but that didn’t really matter as I still had my ill health benefits to rely on.

 

Unfortunately the company paying my benefits came under new management and decided to change the rules so that I now had to meet very stringent criteria to continue receiving any benefit, and unless I met the most stringent of these, I would only be paid for one year. Also, they increased the pension age by another 3 years, meaning that if I didn’t qualify for the ill health benefits, I would have no income for 17 years.

 

I am one of the lucky ones who did continue to receive benefits beyond that single year, but there’s no certainty in it because not only can this company apparently change the rules whenever they like, I have to rely on those rules being fairly applied not just once, but every time the whim takes them to reassess my claim, regardless of any and all medical evidence suggesting that not only will I not get better, but that my condition will only deteriorate.

 

I am now at the stage where I need more and more care, but we can’t afford for my husband to take early retirement to look after me as we can’t reliably predict if our income will permit it should the rules be changed again. Even if he doesn’t retire early, he’s in a profession in which he cannot continue beyond age 60 but his pension, from the same company, won’t be paid for 8 years after that despite him having already contributed for 42 years, making it even more vital that my ill health benefits continue to be paid.

 

Had we not contributed to this insurance plan, indeed had we not worked at all and relied on handouts, we’d be no worse off so a combined 66 years of contributions has earned us precisely nothing and there is unfortunately nothing we can do about it. The company is of course the government and so they can apparently do whatever they like, whenever they like. Can you imagine the furore if a private company had continually moved the goalposts like this?

[unclebulgaria67]

This does not surprise me and i don't think you are alone. I don't think the government should be allowed to change the goalposts on the plan you took out. If this was challenged through the courts, i wonder what the outcome might be. The problem is that it would take years and cost a huge amount of money. Where are the Trade Unions in fighting this ?

 

My view is that the state pension age will increase again to probably 70 +, with the 'everybody is living longer' excuse for it. The problem is that the government is unlikely to have the money to pay for the number of pensioners. By 2025 it is predicted that one third of retail jobs will go. By 2050 80% of the current professions will not exist, as technology takes over. Robots and computers don't pay tax. The companies who make them are eliminating the tax paying consumer markets they need to exist to continue their businesses. Businesses always look to become more efficient to outcompete rivals, so they will all invest in the technology to replace humans.

 

What government should be doing now is to make decisions which are fair to all generations. As IDS said in his departure, he was Work and Pensions Secretary, but for political reasons he was only able to look at disability benefits to save money. Cameron/Osborne prevented him from looking at all spending including current pensions. The government needs to start saving money for future pensions, rather than pay them out of tax receipts. For the reasons given, future governments might not have the money to pay future pensions.

 

It is quite possible that those people currently under 50 will not get a state pension or the amount will be vastly reduced, so it is nowhere near equivalent to what is paid now. People should be saving now, otherwise they will find that a future government will for financial reasons not pay what they thought was a right they earned through paying taxes.

[Tawnyowl]

A interesting thread.

Perfect post from unclebulgaria 67,so many truths there.

I will follow this

Which raises many thoughts.Maybe time for governments to consider Universal Basic Income.Things like that.

 

reallymadwoman,

How angry you must feel,let down and so hard to make people see your point of view.And powerless to change things.Broken promises.

Well it is out there now for all to see as time goes on.

Not much of a politician but thought i would pop in,offer some support.

I will try to give your thread a little publicity which it deserves.

Best wishes.

Tawnyowl

[reallymadwoman]

It totally kills me that because I claim a benefit I'm lumped in with the 'scroungers and cheats club' that the government and press have created with their propaganda. I've even had to point out to family, who are perfectly well aware that I am not a scrounger, that it's pure serendipity that it's me and not them - no one is immune from a life-changing illness or accident and few of us can afford anything but the 'National Insurance' we were promised would support us. I bet I'm not the only one who has been told 'I don't mean you, I know you're genuinely disabled and anyway you worked all your life ...'

 

I have said many times that back in 2008 when everything seemed to go wrong, if the likes of Cameron and IDS had held their hands up and said 'we're sorry but we simply cannot afford to keep paying all these benefits, everyone (including pensioners!) has to take a £5 a week cut' we'd have grumbled of course, but accepted it as reasonably fair and carried on. Had they done that, I suspect the bill would be considerably lower than it is now and we wouldn't have handed over a fortune to the likes of ATOS.

 

The bottom line is of course that we're rapidly approaching the day when hubby has no choice but to retire, and yes he could take his company pension, but it will be severely reduced as he's technically retiring early so we'd be much better off leaving it until he's at least 65. He may well be able to get consultancy work but he's not likely to be considered for anything else so any income won't be reliable or predictable, so we'll be desperately keeping our fingers crossed that I keep my support group ESA and that they don't time limit that, and I keep my PIP at a high enough level for him to claim Carer's, and with that as well we should be OK.

[citizenB]

I think it is disingenuous of Government to say that we must wait / work longer for our pensions because we are living longer ! It would appear that whilst people might be living longer, they are also coping with poor health - so many will have to take early retirement or ill health retirement long before the due date !

[reallymadwoman]

To a certain extent it's also possibly costing as much as they save.

 

E.g. Hubby is at work so can't provide care for me, so social services have to provide it instead. Yes, we have to pay toward it, but what we pay doesn't cover the whole cost including employing the social worker etc.

If he could continue working in his current job until he's 68, that would mean that for 8 years no one else could have that job so a younger person is unable to have a promotion and thus pay more tax, going down the line to eventually someone who is unable to get a job at all and has to claim benefits. Whilst jobseeker's on it's own costs less than a pension, there are additional costs even if the person is single for running job centres etc, plus whatever they might claim for housing or council tax, and if the person isn't single there will also be costs for their partner and possibly children. On top of that are the things that can't have a price put on them - it's well established that children from workless families on average do less well at school so will be less well paid (if they have a job!) when they start working, leading to less tax etc, and someone who is unemployed is also more likely to have a mental illness (or vice versa) and be costing the state money for healthcare.

 

It's a bit like the bedroom tax, which has been applied to a friend of mine. Following a fairly disastrous marriage, she was left with 3 children and one of those fathers who is adept at avoiding paying anthing toward their upkeep. The council provided her with a 3 bed house, and everything was fine until 18 months ago when the second of her children left home, meaning they then had a spare bedroom. They managed to cover that and, planning ahead, she put in for a transfer to a smaller property thinking it wouldn't take long as 3 beds must be in huge demand.

 

12 months later child number 3 leaves, but she's sill in the 3 bed house that no one else seems to want and the benefit reduction is now unsustainable so she has to move. She finds a nice one bed flat for herself, the council give her a grant toward moving costs and pay the whole of her new rent, which is £60 a week more than the full rent for her previous property. Result - council are worse off by the cost of the grant and £60 a week. The council have since probably spent a fortune 'modernising' the house (there was nothing wrong with it, all beautifully decorated etc) which was empty for 6 months.

[Tawnyowl]

Hi reallymadwomen.

Just putting a couple of articles on about pensions.

 

 

Parliament takes hard line on women’s state pension age increases

Women who were born in the 1950s have faced repeated increases to their state pension age.

 

These increases were

poorly communicated by government

, leaving the affected women with insufficient time to prepare for retirement. These issues have been brought to light by the Waspi (Women Against State Pension Inequality) campaign.

http://www.moneywise.co.uk/news/2016-02-02/parliament-takes-hard-line-women-s-state-pension-age-increases

 

Tawnyowl would like someone,some powerful organisation or group to take things further.

Someone with a megaphone pointing in a certain direction.

Need the A team on this.Not that i would dare to suggest such a thing..

Just floated down from the sky,a snippet of info from the Dutch.

 

Women's state pension campaigners could take fight to courts

The women battling state pension age rises are looking at taking legal action against the government after a Dutch court ruled in favour of a woman who fought to take her pension early.

 

In a House of Commons debate last week, Labour MP Barbara Keeley said it was a

breach of the convention on human rights

to raise the state pension age for women twice in quick succession.

The women battling state pension age rises are looking at taking

legal action against the government

after a Dutch court ruled in favour of a woman who fought to take her pension early.

 

http://citywire.co.uk/new-model-adviser/news/womens-state-pension-campaigners-could-take-fight-to-courts/a872806?section=new-model-adviser

 

But what does Cameron and crew think about things.

Cameron hits back at state pension protest

http://citywire.co.uk/new-model-adviser/news/cameron-hits-back-at-state-pension-protest/a873464

 

MANY of us have had SIX YEARS added to our pension age, not 12/18 months at all. We had ONE jump of 5 years in one go, then another added on for extra torture.

 

I will check out the latest news on this tomorrow.

Just popped in now i am popping out again good evening all.

[citizenB]

 

Women's state pension campaigners could take fight to courts

The women battling state pension age rises are looking at taking legal action against the government after a Dutch court ruled in favour of a woman who fought to take her pension early.

 

I think women were there own worst enemies here. They wanted equality and now they have it ?

[unclebulgaria67]

You may see future British pensioners following the Japanese ( see article)

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3512644/Japan-suffers-geriatric-crime-wave-Elderly-turn-shoplifting-locked-cared-for.html

[Tawnyowl]

I just read that story.Shocking but understandable.

What this govt should be very careful of is Pensioners.

There are plenty of them and growing all the time.

That carries a lot of weight and power.At voting time.

 

Read somewhere that the 60s teens who are obviously knocking on a bit now are sick of things and are thinking of showing the youngsters out there

how to demonstrate.How it should be done.Not that i am suggeting anything,always neutral Tawnyowl.

 

One thing is for sure,massive changes may arrive sooner than many think.

Worldwide.

 

Tory minister 'wanted UK pensioners to be low-wage fruit pickers'

Owen Paterson denies he sought to replace east European workers with older Britons on less than minimum wage

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/mar/14/tory-minister-wanted-uk-pensioners-to-be-low-wage-fruit-pickers

[Consumer dude]

Governments will alter the rules if it suits them, and what you going to do when they come for you..