the unfreezing of pensions of those living in former Commonwealth countries is not a question of law. It is a question of political will. Yes, it was an 11 to 6 decision in the ECHR. That does not mean the matter should now be swept away. It is so obviously inequitable to allow uprating in Alderney, Austria,Barbados, Belgium, Bermuda, Bosnia-Hertzegovinia, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Gibralter, Greece, Guernsey, Hungary, Iceland,Ireland,Isle of Man, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Jersey, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Macedonia, Malta, Mauritius, Netherlands, Norway, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Serbia & Montenegro, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, UK, USA. The list is long isn't it? Do you see a single former Commonwealth country there? No you do not, it is simply not fair. If this Government said there would be no uprating for anyone, unless, you lived physically on the Island of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, then there could be no complaints. The fact is we all paid our dues in the UK, and where we choose to live in retirement should not be a factor in deciding who gets uprated and who does not. My idea is simple. Uprate pensioners OAP wherever they have retired to. No one is asking to be paid the full UK pension, unless they paid sufficient contributions to earn the full pension, if someone only paid in for 10 years, then they get the uprating based on that 10 years. The proportioning of pensions cannot be that difficult. The savings to the UK Governement in many benefits that would be paid to expat pensioners had they stayed in or returned to the UK is obvious.
Why is this idea important?
the unfreezing of pensions of those living in former Commonwealth countries is not a question of law. It is a question of political will. Yes, it was an 11 to 6 decision in the ECHR. That does not mean the matter should now be swept away. It is so obviously inequitable to allow uprating in Alderney, Austria,Barbados, Belgium, Bermuda, Bosnia-Hertzegovinia, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Gibralter, Greece, Guernsey, Hungary, Iceland,Ireland,Isle of Man, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Jersey, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Macedonia, Malta, Mauritius, Netherlands, Norway, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Serbia & Montenegro, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, UK, USA. The list is long isn't it? Do you see a single former Commonwealth country there? No you do not, it is simply not fair. If this Government said there would be no uprating for anyone, unless, you lived physically on the Island of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, then there could be no complaints. The fact is we all paid our dues in the UK, and where we choose to live in retirement should not be a factor in deciding who gets uprated and who does not. My idea is simple. Uprate pensioners OAP wherever they have retired to. No one is asking to be paid the full UK pension, unless they paid sufficient contributions to earn the full pension, if someone only paid in for 10 years, then they get the uprating based on that 10 years. The proportioning of pensions cannot be that difficult. The savings to the UK Governement in many benefits that would be paid to expat pensioners had they stayed in or returned to the UK is obvious.
Its a disgrace how we don't take care of our pensioners, we should increase state pensions, stop council tax and be given free fuel.
How would we pay for it ?
Who would not be willing to pay and increase in income tax for this?
Why is this idea important?
Its a disgrace how we don't take care of our pensioners, we should increase state pensions, stop council tax and be given free fuel.
How would we pay for it ?
Who would not be willing to pay and increase in income tax for this?
Brits who have paid the mandatory NI pension contributions are being cheated if they move to certain countries…specifically some Commonwealth countries. Their pensions are FROZEN at the amount they first receive. This is outright robbery. These people have paid the exact same amount as all other Brits and yet are being robbed of what is rightfully theirs. For instance, those who emigrate to Canada or Australia have their pensions frozen. While those who move to the USA do not. This is outrageous and goes against all Human Rights.
It's time the new Government did the RIGHT and MORAL thing and righted this wrong.
Why is this idea important?
Brits who have paid the mandatory NI pension contributions are being cheated if they move to certain countries…specifically some Commonwealth countries. Their pensions are FROZEN at the amount they first receive. This is outright robbery. These people have paid the exact same amount as all other Brits and yet are being robbed of what is rightfully theirs. For instance, those who emigrate to Canada or Australia have their pensions frozen. While those who move to the USA do not. This is outrageous and goes against all Human Rights.
It's time the new Government did the RIGHT and MORAL thing and righted this wrong.
That all veterans of the Armed Forced be treated equality in regard to the provision of pension rights, and that the 1975 pension act relating to service pensions be amended to ensure that those who served this country in the 50s, 60s , and early 70s be awarded the same pension rights as those who served after April 1975.
Why is this idea important?
That all veterans of the Armed Forced be treated equality in regard to the provision of pension rights, and that the 1975 pension act relating to service pensions be amended to ensure that those who served this country in the 50s, 60s , and early 70s be awarded the same pension rights as those who served after April 1975.
Currently UK old age pensions are frozen for British citizens who reside in certain countries overseas, for example, Canada, Australia, South Africa, but not if they reside in the USA or EC. This is not a comprehensive list but it serves to illustrate the clear disparity in the way in which the Britain Government has chosen to treat large numbers of its citizens who are fully entitled to receive a UK pension but may choose to live overseas and receive their pension where they live.
To illustrate, once you retire and receive your UK pension, you will receive the annually awarded increase if you reside in the UK, anywhere in the EC, the USA and many other countries around the world. However, if you choose to go and live in Canada, Australia and certain other Commonwealth countries in order to be near family, your pension will be frozen at the amount first granted if you live overseas or at the figure when you left the UK.
There can be no legitimate reason why this standard entitlement is refused to people simply based upon the place where they live. It is palpably unfair and urgently needs to be rescinded.
Why is this idea important?
Currently UK old age pensions are frozen for British citizens who reside in certain countries overseas, for example, Canada, Australia, South Africa, but not if they reside in the USA or EC. This is not a comprehensive list but it serves to illustrate the clear disparity in the way in which the Britain Government has chosen to treat large numbers of its citizens who are fully entitled to receive a UK pension but may choose to live overseas and receive their pension where they live.
To illustrate, once you retire and receive your UK pension, you will receive the annually awarded increase if you reside in the UK, anywhere in the EC, the USA and many other countries around the world. However, if you choose to go and live in Canada, Australia and certain other Commonwealth countries in order to be near family, your pension will be frozen at the amount first granted if you live overseas or at the figure when you left the UK.
There can be no legitimate reason why this standard entitlement is refused to people simply based upon the place where they live. It is palpably unfair and urgently needs to be rescinded.
In many parts of the world, including Canada where I live, our pensions are frozen at the rate when we first claim. ie. no inflation increases or any kind until the day we die. Many of us who have paid in, including buying additional years for when we were out of the country, will face poverty in the future. Many are already living in poverty, and some are having to return to the Uk just to get the full pension. There they cost UK taxpayers in increased health costs, housing etc. Just ask Age Concern what the issues are. Why is the British Government hiding behind a loophole to avoid paying us the pensions we have fully paid into???
Kathryn Withers
Why is this idea important?
In many parts of the world, including Canada where I live, our pensions are frozen at the rate when we first claim. ie. no inflation increases or any kind until the day we die. Many of us who have paid in, including buying additional years for when we were out of the country, will face poverty in the future. Many are already living in poverty, and some are having to return to the Uk just to get the full pension. There they cost UK taxpayers in increased health costs, housing etc. Just ask Age Concern what the issues are. Why is the British Government hiding behind a loophole to avoid paying us the pensions we have fully paid into???
Kathryn Withers
For people who are short on the 40 year contributions for a full pension (due to very recent rule changes now only 30 years are needed) should be given the chance to buy back partly paid pension years to help them gain a full pension..
Why is this idea important?
For people who are short on the 40 year contributions for a full pension (due to very recent rule changes now only 30 years are needed) should be given the chance to buy back partly paid pension years to help them gain a full pension..
Originally conceived as a method of collecting money for pensions, this is not a hypothecated tax and now serves no distinct purpose. By scrapping it and increasing income tax we could pay less and the govt would collect the same by removing a tier of civil servants responsible for administering it and losing the associated cost.
Benefits could be linked to payment of income tax (instead of NI) if desired.
Why is this idea important?
Originally conceived as a method of collecting money for pensions, this is not a hypothecated tax and now serves no distinct purpose. By scrapping it and increasing income tax we could pay less and the govt would collect the same by removing a tier of civil servants responsible for administering it and losing the associated cost.
Benefits could be linked to payment of income tax (instead of NI) if desired.
Abolish the time limit on paying retrospective National Insurance Contributions
If you have a hole in your NI record, either because you did not have a job yet did not claim benefits,or because your employer did not pass on the deductions he took from your pay, then you can make voluntary contributions to fill in the gap – but only up to a certain time. After that time it is too late. People who wish to pay into the state coffers should not have to do it within a time limit. It may be that you only find out about the gap when it is too late, as in the case of the employer defaulting.
Why is this idea important?
Abolish the time limit on paying retrospective National Insurance Contributions
If you have a hole in your NI record, either because you did not have a job yet did not claim benefits,or because your employer did not pass on the deductions he took from your pay, then you can make voluntary contributions to fill in the gap – but only up to a certain time. After that time it is too late. People who wish to pay into the state coffers should not have to do it within a time limit. It may be that you only find out about the gap when it is too late, as in the case of the employer defaulting.
It was decided recently by the government that Child Benefit is a 'Universal benefit' and that any proposal to means-test it, is more costly than the cost of continuing to pay it to the wealthy.
I do not believe this is fair comment, but have none-the-less written a proposal to get round costly means testing……..
Jilly Cooper once famously remarked that Child Benefit paid for the extra bottle of champagne from Sainsbury' each month. Along with many wealthy recipients of the 'Universal' benefit she seemed free from any moral conscience in accepting the state sponsored bottle of champagne. Other wealthy people have had a conscience and have declined the payment or donated the monthly amount to charitable causes without drawing attention to their actions.
I can only presume that the same reasoning is applied to state pensions payments to Millionaires – that to means-test it is more costly than continuing payment to the wealthy .
For Child Benefit, my proposal is to avoid costly time consuming means testing. Every year in April when the P60 is produced, the Inland Revenue passes this information by email to the relevant Child benefit office. Anyone who is seen to earn over say £150,000 pa ( the small percentage of the population who actually earn over £150,000 – it really is a small percentage) has the benefit stopped. Likewise, if the person takes a huge cut in income in a following year and falls below the £150,000 threshold the benefit is reinstated for the next year….and so on. For couples both p60s are taken into account
For the people who for some reason do not have a p60 the Inland Revenue has the information of a persons tax return relating to income from investments and savings and this can be used by the child benefit department.
You then have people like the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister who apparently earn below the threshhold of £150,000 who are, on that basis, eligible for Child Benefit payments but who also have enormous wealth in savings and investments. Therefore, there is an obligation on the Inland Revenue to pass on the annual declaration of interest earned on savings and investments as well as the income from paid employment. (I suspect under my proposal they would not get the Child Benefit due to the wife's income being taken into account)
On the pension issue, anyone wanting to receive the state pension must also agree to the Inland Revenue submitting their annual Tax return information to the Pensions Agency and like the Child Benefit system, can only gain the state pension if they are below the £150,000 income from all sources threshhold.
My threshold for both examples is an arbitary figure for purposes of the debate. The detail is for others to determine!
Everyone has a statement of earnings. If people are on benefits they get a statement of income and tax paid each year from the relevant benefits office. All employees on PAYE get a P60 and everyone else, including the self-employed and the retired has to make an annual declaration of income to the Inland Revenue with resulting Inland Revenue statement of tax to be paid.
These are all things that currnetly happen so they are not new paper generating costly ideas. i merely suggest the information is passed from one dept to another.
Why is this idea important?
It was decided recently by the government that Child Benefit is a 'Universal benefit' and that any proposal to means-test it, is more costly than the cost of continuing to pay it to the wealthy.
I do not believe this is fair comment, but have none-the-less written a proposal to get round costly means testing……..
Jilly Cooper once famously remarked that Child Benefit paid for the extra bottle of champagne from Sainsbury' each month. Along with many wealthy recipients of the 'Universal' benefit she seemed free from any moral conscience in accepting the state sponsored bottle of champagne. Other wealthy people have had a conscience and have declined the payment or donated the monthly amount to charitable causes without drawing attention to their actions.
I can only presume that the same reasoning is applied to state pensions payments to Millionaires – that to means-test it is more costly than continuing payment to the wealthy .
For Child Benefit, my proposal is to avoid costly time consuming means testing. Every year in April when the P60 is produced, the Inland Revenue passes this information by email to the relevant Child benefit office. Anyone who is seen to earn over say £150,000 pa ( the small percentage of the population who actually earn over £150,000 – it really is a small percentage) has the benefit stopped. Likewise, if the person takes a huge cut in income in a following year and falls below the £150,000 threshold the benefit is reinstated for the next year….and so on. For couples both p60s are taken into account
For the people who for some reason do not have a p60 the Inland Revenue has the information of a persons tax return relating to income from investments and savings and this can be used by the child benefit department.
You then have people like the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister who apparently earn below the threshhold of £150,000 who are, on that basis, eligible for Child Benefit payments but who also have enormous wealth in savings and investments. Therefore, there is an obligation on the Inland Revenue to pass on the annual declaration of interest earned on savings and investments as well as the income from paid employment. (I suspect under my proposal they would not get the Child Benefit due to the wife's income being taken into account)
On the pension issue, anyone wanting to receive the state pension must also agree to the Inland Revenue submitting their annual Tax return information to the Pensions Agency and like the Child Benefit system, can only gain the state pension if they are below the £150,000 income from all sources threshhold.
My threshold for both examples is an arbitary figure for purposes of the debate. The detail is for others to determine!
Everyone has a statement of earnings. If people are on benefits they get a statement of income and tax paid each year from the relevant benefits office. All employees on PAYE get a P60 and everyone else, including the self-employed and the retired has to make an annual declaration of income to the Inland Revenue with resulting Inland Revenue statement of tax to be paid.
These are all things that currnetly happen so they are not new paper generating costly ideas. i merely suggest the information is passed from one dept to another.
The National Minimum Wage as it is at the moment is detrimental to businesses, employees and the economy. Anyone who wishes to employ is currently is forced to pay at least the minimum wage even if they deem the employee to be worth less than this amount. This leads to the predicament of employees being unable to afford or be willing to employ which, when the economy is suffering as it is at present, increases unemployment and subsequently Government expenditure through benefits such as job seekers allowance.
Instead employees should be free to pay whatever wage they deem appropriate and if this is lower than the current minimum wage the employee can apply for top up benefits from the government to take their pay up to the minimum wage value. This would decrease the amount of benefits paid out, lower unemployment and increase the number of economically active people.
Why is this idea important?
The National Minimum Wage as it is at the moment is detrimental to businesses, employees and the economy. Anyone who wishes to employ is currently is forced to pay at least the minimum wage even if they deem the employee to be worth less than this amount. This leads to the predicament of employees being unable to afford or be willing to employ which, when the economy is suffering as it is at present, increases unemployment and subsequently Government expenditure through benefits such as job seekers allowance.
Instead employees should be free to pay whatever wage they deem appropriate and if this is lower than the current minimum wage the employee can apply for top up benefits from the government to take their pay up to the minimum wage value. This would decrease the amount of benefits paid out, lower unemployment and increase the number of economically active people.
If a pensioner lives in the European Union their pension rises with inflation, exactly the same as if they live in the UK. But if they live in almost anywhere else their pension is frozen.
Why? It's exactly the same person and they have built up the same contributions and paid the same tax over heir working life.
The real reason is because pensions are not part of an insurance scheme at all, but a way of keeping the elderly off Government's back. Better a pension than a means tested benefit they think. Not so, pensioners have paid National Insurance and Tax all their lives and a pension is an earned entitlement, not Charity.
If someone wants to retire to Martinique or Florida or Egypt why shouldn't they? Of course no-one should be complled to do so, but for many people it is their dream. Don't cut their pension in real terms by 2-3% each year.
And there are financial benefits – in many countries they can get Care for less than in the UK, and certainly without the carer and family having to emigrate to the UK, so it is Win-Win for pensioners and taxpayers.
Why is this idea important?
If a pensioner lives in the European Union their pension rises with inflation, exactly the same as if they live in the UK. But if they live in almost anywhere else their pension is frozen.
Why? It's exactly the same person and they have built up the same contributions and paid the same tax over heir working life.
The real reason is because pensions are not part of an insurance scheme at all, but a way of keeping the elderly off Government's back. Better a pension than a means tested benefit they think. Not so, pensioners have paid National Insurance and Tax all their lives and a pension is an earned entitlement, not Charity.
If someone wants to retire to Martinique or Florida or Egypt why shouldn't they? Of course no-one should be complled to do so, but for many people it is their dream. Don't cut their pension in real terms by 2-3% each year.
And there are financial benefits – in many countries they can get Care for less than in the UK, and certainly without the carer and family having to emigrate to the UK, so it is Win-Win for pensioners and taxpayers.
Instead of buying an annuity with a pension fund, there should be an option to invest the fund in generating green energy, e.g. buying shares in a wind farm. The income for the pensioner would then be a share of the value of the electricity sold.
Monthly fluctuations in income would be ironed out if several wind and wave (or other) farms were invested in throughout the UK, as when it is calm in Cornwall it may well be windy in Orkney. The income could also be smoothed by holding some back in the windier months and paying more in calmer months (or buy the company buying insurance against particularly calm weather).
This could be extended to allow pension contributions to go straight into a green generation investment during a person's working life. Any income from these investments would be re-invested up to the moment the investor reached retirement age and decided to retire and draw an income.
Why is this idea important?
Instead of buying an annuity with a pension fund, there should be an option to invest the fund in generating green energy, e.g. buying shares in a wind farm. The income for the pensioner would then be a share of the value of the electricity sold.
Monthly fluctuations in income would be ironed out if several wind and wave (or other) farms were invested in throughout the UK, as when it is calm in Cornwall it may well be windy in Orkney. The income could also be smoothed by holding some back in the windier months and paying more in calmer months (or buy the company buying insurance against particularly calm weather).
This could be extended to allow pension contributions to go straight into a green generation investment during a person's working life. Any income from these investments would be re-invested up to the moment the investor reached retirement age and decided to retire and draw an income.
Restore the indexing of pensions to people who migrated to the above countries.We are not asking for 'hand-outs', only for our 'rights' and contributed (paid our stamps) through our working lifes. Why are pensions index-linked in all other countries, except the above three?
Why is this idea important?
Restore the indexing of pensions to people who migrated to the above countries.We are not asking for 'hand-outs', only for our 'rights' and contributed (paid our stamps) through our working lifes. Why are pensions index-linked in all other countries, except the above three?
The Labour government was a major factor in the decline of Final Salary pensions over the past q0 years. The Coalition can change laws to make them more attractive.
Factors Making Final Salary Pensions Less Attractive
-
Demographics – Aging Population
-
Allowing Risky Investments
-
Banning Over-Funding
-
Showing Pensions As A Liability
-
Share Collapses
Point 1 – pensioners living longer and a lower birth rate – is not the Government's fault
Point 2 is directly the fault of Westminster. The law was changed to allow pension funds to invested in riskier shares and other investments. Pension fund managers are competitive and went for maximim growth. This exposed pension funds to the 2001 Tech Share Collapse and the 2008 Banking Crisis, both wiping out 50% of the value of some funds. If pensions had stayed invested in Bonds most funds would still be in surplus.
In the run up to the 2001 Tech Share collapse some companies actually wanted to put more into their pension funds, but were banned by Government rules preventing what the Government saw as "over-funding". A few years later and those companies have sadly been proved correct – the funds are now in serious defecit and closed to new entrants.
Also if a pension fund is technically over-funded the company becomes attractive to predators. It can be taken over and run with zero employers pension contribution until the surplus has evaporated. Close the company and the so-called surplus can be "returned" to the new owners.
Company pension funding is formally assessed every 3 years, but under accounting changes introduced in the 1990s, a pension fund defecit has to be shown as a liability on the companies books every time they are published. For companies that have 1/4ly reporting this can have a massive impact on the apparent value of a company every 3 months as the stock market fluctuates. This is despite the reality that pensions are investments accumulated over 40 years and paid out over 15-20 years, enabling them to smooth out short term fluctuations and rely on "underlying value".
The chilling effect of showing short-term shared-price based pension liabilities on company books is that even if a company is well run, stable, profitable, and has a well funded pension fund, the company's official book value can fluctuate wildly. Regardless of how much money the employer has to put in, just this fluctuation makes a Final Salary Scheme threatening.
Most of these points can be addressed by Government making changes to UK law.
As for demographics, the real figures are not as bad as the scare stories quoted in the papers. One factor is the number of people who could work but do not, and what figure is used for "working population". Secondly the pension age will inevitably rise,even if only to equal Male and Female retirement, improving the Worker:Pensioner ratio. Taking millions of teens out of employment and encouraging them undertake 5 years of Further & Higher Education is a deliberate political decision that has an obvious impact on the size of the workforce. However it makes sense if it increases productivity over a person's lifetime – that increased productivity should be taken into account.
Why is this idea important?
The Labour government was a major factor in the decline of Final Salary pensions over the past q0 years. The Coalition can change laws to make them more attractive.
Factors Making Final Salary Pensions Less Attractive
-
Demographics – Aging Population
-
Allowing Risky Investments
-
Banning Over-Funding
-
Showing Pensions As A Liability
-
Share Collapses
Point 1 – pensioners living longer and a lower birth rate – is not the Government's fault
Point 2 is directly the fault of Westminster. The law was changed to allow pension funds to invested in riskier shares and other investments. Pension fund managers are competitive and went for maximim growth. This exposed pension funds to the 2001 Tech Share Collapse and the 2008 Banking Crisis, both wiping out 50% of the value of some funds. If pensions had stayed invested in Bonds most funds would still be in surplus.
In the run up to the 2001 Tech Share collapse some companies actually wanted to put more into their pension funds, but were banned by Government rules preventing what the Government saw as "over-funding". A few years later and those companies have sadly been proved correct – the funds are now in serious defecit and closed to new entrants.
Also if a pension fund is technically over-funded the company becomes attractive to predators. It can be taken over and run with zero employers pension contribution until the surplus has evaporated. Close the company and the so-called surplus can be "returned" to the new owners.
Company pension funding is formally assessed every 3 years, but under accounting changes introduced in the 1990s, a pension fund defecit has to be shown as a liability on the companies books every time they are published. For companies that have 1/4ly reporting this can have a massive impact on the apparent value of a company every 3 months as the stock market fluctuates. This is despite the reality that pensions are investments accumulated over 40 years and paid out over 15-20 years, enabling them to smooth out short term fluctuations and rely on "underlying value".
The chilling effect of showing short-term shared-price based pension liabilities on company books is that even if a company is well run, stable, profitable, and has a well funded pension fund, the company's official book value can fluctuate wildly. Regardless of how much money the employer has to put in, just this fluctuation makes a Final Salary Scheme threatening.
Most of these points can be addressed by Government making changes to UK law.
As for demographics, the real figures are not as bad as the scare stories quoted in the papers. One factor is the number of people who could work but do not, and what figure is used for "working population". Secondly the pension age will inevitably rise,even if only to equal Male and Female retirement, improving the Worker:Pensioner ratio. Taking millions of teens out of employment and encouraging them undertake 5 years of Further & Higher Education is a deliberate political decision that has an obvious impact on the size of the workforce. However it makes sense if it increases productivity over a person's lifetime – that increased productivity should be taken into account.
All U.K. pensioners should be treated equaly. When I first started paying National Insurance back in the 50s the Government did not warn me that if I retired to some countries I would not get the annual pension increase. This is rank unequal discrimination!
Why is this idea important?
All U.K. pensioners should be treated equaly. When I first started paying National Insurance back in the 50s the Government did not warn me that if I retired to some countries I would not get the annual pension increase. This is rank unequal discrimination!
A widow or widower with children should not lose their state pension, should they wish to move in with a new partner until the children reach 18.
Why is this idea important?
A widow or widower with children should not lose their state pension, should they wish to move in with a new partner until the children reach 18.
UK pensioners should all be entitled automatically to the statutory increases in state pensions but this is not the case at present.
Pensioners who have children living abroad, eg in Australia, often consider migrating to spend their latter years with their families. Something that can put them off doing this is that increases in the UK state pension are not allowed for those going to certain countries [such as Australia]. This is desperately unfair to UK nationals who have earned their pensions and have a right to them. It is a deterrent to the natural inclination to be with children and families in people's declining years. It is a denial of their human rights.
The cost to the UK of allowing the increases would be offset by the fact that the burden of care in those last years of life would be removed from UK services such as the NHS and Social Services. Full state pension rights including increases should be restored to these hard-working and deserving older people.
A start could be made by granting the state pension increases to those migrating to join their children or families in Australia and New Zealand – but preferably to all areas right away.
Why is this idea important?
UK pensioners should all be entitled automatically to the statutory increases in state pensions but this is not the case at present.
Pensioners who have children living abroad, eg in Australia, often consider migrating to spend their latter years with their families. Something that can put them off doing this is that increases in the UK state pension are not allowed for those going to certain countries [such as Australia]. This is desperately unfair to UK nationals who have earned their pensions and have a right to them. It is a deterrent to the natural inclination to be with children and families in people's declining years. It is a denial of their human rights.
The cost to the UK of allowing the increases would be offset by the fact that the burden of care in those last years of life would be removed from UK services such as the NHS and Social Services. Full state pension rights including increases should be restored to these hard-working and deserving older people.
A start could be made by granting the state pension increases to those migrating to join their children or families in Australia and New Zealand – but preferably to all areas right away.
Instead of benefits, government pensions, tax credits etc make a subsistence payment to everyone from cradle to grave. We could work as much (or as little) as we needed for anything else. A fund would need to be set up for the few with many extra needs.
Why is this idea important?
Instead of benefits, government pensions, tax credits etc make a subsistence payment to everyone from cradle to grave. We could work as much (or as little) as we needed for anything else. A fund would need to be set up for the few with many extra needs.
National Insurance should be merged with income tax. (And ideally local taxation should also be included in this merger)
The personal tax allowance abolished and should be replaced by an equivalent cash payment to all UK resident citizens. (This could be referred to as a basic income). All benefits would then be reduced by this amount.
Benefits would be phased out for those able to work, they would be replaced by guaranteed casual work being available. This work would initially be community work, whether it be helping charities or environmental schemes. It could be helping with local festivals for example.
This would be 5 days a month, there would be as much flexibility as possible in the timing. The entitlement would be transferrable between family members. It would approximately minimum wage. (Those with reduced basic income would be able to claim up to 10 days a month.)
Basic income would be based on the number of years spent contributing to the tax system. (Children on becoming 18 would be regarded as having up to 5 years of contributions, 1/2 a year for each year they have attended school in the UK.)
The minimum payment would begin after 5 years of contributions. This would be aimed to be approximately the difference between 1 day a week at minimum wage and current jobseekers allowance for a young person.
After 10 years of contributions this would raise to be equivalent to the difference between one day a week on minimum wage and the current adults’ JSA.
The state pension could also be merged with this system and could child benefit.
Once this scheme is running, a similar scheme would be introduced to replace rent and mortgage benefits.
Why is this idea important?
National Insurance should be merged with income tax. (And ideally local taxation should also be included in this merger)
The personal tax allowance abolished and should be replaced by an equivalent cash payment to all UK resident citizens. (This could be referred to as a basic income). All benefits would then be reduced by this amount.
Benefits would be phased out for those able to work, they would be replaced by guaranteed casual work being available. This work would initially be community work, whether it be helping charities or environmental schemes. It could be helping with local festivals for example.
This would be 5 days a month, there would be as much flexibility as possible in the timing. The entitlement would be transferrable between family members. It would approximately minimum wage. (Those with reduced basic income would be able to claim up to 10 days a month.)
Basic income would be based on the number of years spent contributing to the tax system. (Children on becoming 18 would be regarded as having up to 5 years of contributions, 1/2 a year for each year they have attended school in the UK.)
The minimum payment would begin after 5 years of contributions. This would be aimed to be approximately the difference between 1 day a week at minimum wage and current jobseekers allowance for a young person.
After 10 years of contributions this would raise to be equivalent to the difference between one day a week on minimum wage and the current adults’ JSA.
The state pension could also be merged with this system and could child benefit.
Once this scheme is running, a similar scheme would be introduced to replace rent and mortgage benefits.
The Coalition government has decided to link Final Salary Pensions to the CPI instead of the RPI from January 2011. See the link below:.
http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/186095
"On current levels of RPI at 5.1 per cent and CPI at 3.4 per cent, the average occupational pension of £1,600 a year would be worth £4,043 after 20 years if uprated in line with RPI, but only £3,020 if uprated in line with CPI.
It means that pensioners would have lost out on £8,120 over 20 years."
Why is this idea important?
The Coalition government has decided to link Final Salary Pensions to the CPI instead of the RPI from January 2011. See the link below:.
http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/186095
"On current levels of RPI at 5.1 per cent and CPI at 3.4 per cent, the average occupational pension of £1,600 a year would be worth £4,043 after 20 years if uprated in line with RPI, but only £3,020 if uprated in line with CPI.
It means that pensioners would have lost out on £8,120 over 20 years."
With all the talk about male female equality. If females expect equal pay with men, THEN THEY SHOULD HAVE TO WORK UNTIL THEY ARE 65 JUST AS THE MEN HAVE TO, after all stastics show they are in general fitter than men and LIVE LONGER too.
Why is this idea important?
With all the talk about male female equality. If females expect equal pay with men, THEN THEY SHOULD HAVE TO WORK UNTIL THEY ARE 65 JUST AS THE MEN HAVE TO, after all stastics show they are in general fitter than men and LIVE LONGER too.
Many in private enterprise raided pension funds and had 'payment holidays' when times were good.
Now times are bad they whinge about the public sector. They also use arguments of greed and envy for their own purposes.
Why not come up with a proper plan to finance pensions for the whole nation that includes both government guarantee and proper investment in valuable assests?
Also: why not take steps to stop the asset stripping of pension investments by foreign 'equity investment' organisations, who buy badly managed businesses from pension funds, asset strip them, and the sell them back to the pension funds on the basis that they are 'more efficient'? How much of our pension money ends up in other countries instead of being properly managed at home? Government could do more to protect against this.
Why is this idea important?
Many in private enterprise raided pension funds and had 'payment holidays' when times were good.
Now times are bad they whinge about the public sector. They also use arguments of greed and envy for their own purposes.
Why not come up with a proper plan to finance pensions for the whole nation that includes both government guarantee and proper investment in valuable assests?
Also: why not take steps to stop the asset stripping of pension investments by foreign 'equity investment' organisations, who buy badly managed businesses from pension funds, asset strip them, and the sell them back to the pension funds on the basis that they are 'more efficient'? How much of our pension money ends up in other countries instead of being properly managed at home? Government could do more to protect against this.
The decision of the European Court on frozen pensions should be reversed. The idea of pensions based on residence is immoral and unworthy of the UK people,
Why is this idea important?
The decision of the European Court on frozen pensions should be reversed. The idea of pensions based on residence is immoral and unworthy of the UK people,
As it looks like the retirement age will increase – I think that with immediate effect or before legislation takes place that it is placed on the statute that employers no longer have the right to insist that people and in this instance men do not have to retire at 65 but have the right to retire when they want to after the age that the old pension commences.
I see a situation that men will be forced to retire at 65 but will not receive a pension until the normal pension age
Why is this idea important?
As it looks like the retirement age will increase – I think that with immediate effect or before legislation takes place that it is placed on the statute that employers no longer have the right to insist that people and in this instance men do not have to retire at 65 but have the right to retire when they want to after the age that the old pension commences.
I see a situation that men will be forced to retire at 65 but will not receive a pension until the normal pension age