You need to be logged in to your Sky Poker account above to post discussions and comments.

You might need to refresh your page afterwards.

Options

How to check if you have paid enough National Insurance to claim the full State Pension

HAYSIEHAYSIE Member Posts: 33,616
edited May 13 in The Rail
DWP increases State Pension age by two years for men and women due to 'growing population'




State Pension age is now 66 and two further increases are currently set out in legislation. These are a gradual rise to 67 for those born on or after April 5, 1960 and a gradual rise to 68 between 2044 and 2046 for those born on or after April 5, 1977.

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/dwp-increases-state-pension-age-by-two-years-for-men-and-women-due-to-growing-population/ar-AAYwTVB?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=88511e13e5fe4937a8560259632d0160
«13

Comments

  • Options
    HAYSIEHAYSIE Member Posts: 33,616
  • Options
    EssexphilEssexphil Member Posts: 8,406
    edited August 2023
    HAYSIE said:
    No-one is quite so entitled as current pensioners.

    This woman and her husband between them receive £25,000 per annum and pay no tax whatsoever on that. And pay a tax rate of 20% on the amount over that.

    Suppose they receive between them £27,000 a year. They are paying a grand total of £400 a year in income tax. A tax rate equating to 1.5%.

    And increases are not "wiped out"-the lowest amount they will receive is 80% of the increase. While under triple lock that increase is higher than workers receive.

    Meanwhile, in order to pay for these entitled people's triple lock, everyone else has to wait until they are 67 or 68 to receive a pension. That is 2 or 3 years more paying in, and 2 or 3 years less receiving the old age pension. Which is a massive reduction.

    People currently in their 70s and 80s paid in less than any other generation. And, thanks to increasing life expectancy and Final Salary Pensions, receive more than any other generation will.

    And yet still they moan...
  • Options
    HAYSIEHAYSIE Member Posts: 33,616
    Essexphil said:

    HAYSIE said:
    No-one is quite so entitled as current pensioners.

    This woman and her husband between them receive £25,000 per annum and pay no tax whatsoever on that. And pay a tax rate of 20% on the amount over that.

    Suppose they receive between them £27,000 a year. They are paying a grand total of £400 a year in income tax. A tax rate equating to 1.5%.

    And increases are not "wiped out"-the lowest amount they will receive is 80% of the increase. While under triple lock that increase is higher than workers receive.

    Meanwhile, in order to pay for these entitled people's triple lock, everyone else has to wait until they are 67 or 68 to receive a pension. That is 2 or 3 years more paying in, and 2 or 3 years less receiving the old age pension. Which is a massive reduction.

    People currently in their 70s and 80s paid in less than any other generation. And, thanks to increasing life expectancy and Final Salary Pensions, receive more than any other generation will.

    And yet still they moan...
    We would all like the penny and the bun.
    Receiving the benefit of the triple lock, as well as an increasing tax threshold.

    I do find the story a little confusing.
    One minute she is able to transfer £1257 of her allowance to her husband.
    She could only do this if her earnings were at least that much below the tax threshold.
    The next minute she is liable for a bit of tax.
    So she will no longer be able to transfer the marriage allowance to her husband.
    This means that he is obviously going to be liable for a bit more tax.
    It would also suggest that her income has increased a bit.

    Maybe she would have benefitted from paying a full stamp.
  • Options
    EssexphilEssexphil Member Posts: 8,406
    True. Although then she might be paying almost 5% of her income in tax ;)

    Today's 70-85 year-olds are better off than generations either side of them.

    The 2 generations above both fought in World Wars. Life expectancy in 1960 was 70, in 1980 it was 73.5, in 2000 it was 77.5. Now it is 81.5. So-today's 65 year olds receive, on average, a pension for 16.5 years. As opposed to 5 years in 1960, 8.5 years in 1980, etc.

    Various non-means tested benefits-free dental care, Winter fuel Allowance etc. Not according to need-just for reaching a certain age.

    Those that went to University received free tuition and a Grant-as opposed to £30k tuition fees and a loan. Final Salary Pensions for many. The first generation that could buy their first home-or their Council House at a Discount. Whereas now the average first-time buyer is pushing 40, and Council Houses are as rare as rocking horse poo.

    No-one could possibly object to looking after our elderly in need. But not to gift money to those who do not need it.

    Some people just do not appreciate how lucky they are.
  • Options
    EssexphilEssexphil Member Posts: 8,406
    Last rant on this subject-promise. I am 60-I am not as well-treated as a 70-yr-old, but I am not complaining for me. It's people in their 20s and 30s.

    Suppose a young married man lives in Clacton. And his Wife stays at home to look after the young family. And suppose he earns £60k a year, working in London. More than double the 27k-ish the pensioners get in that article. Think they are better off?

    The £27k pensioners keep £26.6K.

    The young family man pays between 18-20k in Income Tax/NI. So down to c.£42k. Annual train ticket is £8k a year-except that that is from net salary, and there is no tax relief. As a 40% taxpayer, that equates to £13k of salary. Already down to £29k. And still got Rent/Mortgage to find, extra mouths to feed. He is worse off than a Pensioner-purely because the tax system is skewed in favour of Pensioners, at the cost to Workers.

    And that is before factoring in the Student Debt.
  • Options
    HAYSIEHAYSIE Member Posts: 33,616
    Essexphil said:

    True. Although then she might be paying almost 5% of her income in tax ;)

    Today's 70-85 year-olds are better off than generations either side of them.

    The 2 generations above both fought in World Wars. Life expectancy in 1960 was 70, in 1980 it was 73.5, in 2000 it was 77.5. Now it is 81.5. So-today's 65 year olds receive, on average, a pension for 16.5 years. As opposed to 5 years in 1960, 8.5 years in 1980, etc.

    Various non-means tested benefits-free dental care, Winter fuel Allowance etc. Not according to need-just for reaching a certain age.

    Those that went to University received free tuition and a Grant-as opposed to £30k tuition fees and a loan. Final Salary Pensions for many. The first generation that could buy their first home-or their Council House at a Discount. Whereas now the average first-time buyer is pushing 40, and Council Houses are as rare as rocking horse poo.

    No-one could possibly object to looking after our elderly in need. But not to gift money to those who do not need it.

    Some people just do not appreciate how lucky they are.

    I do.
    Future generations will be in their 70s before they get a pension, and may never be able to retire.
    The only thing I would say in sympathy with the ungrateful pensioners is that they were probably much better off two years ago, than they are today.
    The same as everybody else.
  • Options
    madprofmadprof Member Posts: 3,362
    I've just hit 66 in April....lovely jubbly watching over 770 hit my bank account 13 times a year and let's hope the triple lock carries on......woooohooo
  • Options
    Bean81Bean81 Member Posts: 565
    A lot of people revert to the "I've paid tax all my life" argument when it comes to state pension and care costs. The reality is a big chunk of the population don't come close to paying for their own, state-funded retirement.

    Let's look at an over-simplified example. If the average salary is £30k, income tax = £3.5k per year. Employees NI = £2.1k. Employers NI = £2.9k. Total = £8.5k per year. Let's assume the average person works 35 years full time, then part-time the rest and beneath the tax threshold. That person pays about £300k in tax and NI lifetime. 20 years pension and two years in a care home on average is about £300k.

    Clearly this is over-simplified, but you get the idea. People also pay VAT and inheritance tax, then the companies where they spend their money pay tax on profit, employ high earners, etc. With that said, we haven't factored in the average person's NHS costs and contribution to other state-funded activity not covered by council tax.

    I don't begrudge anybody receiving state pension or contribution towards their care costs. I just wish people stopped to think about the numbers sometimes.
  • Options
    HAYSIEHAYSIE Member Posts: 33,616
    madprof said:

    I've just hit 66 in April....lovely jubbly watching over 770 hit my bank account 13 times a year and let's hope the triple lock carries on......woooohooo

    I get 870.
  • Options
    madprofmadprof Member Posts: 3,362
    HAYSIE said:

    madprof said:

    I've just hit 66 in April....lovely jubbly watching over 770 hit my bank account 13 times a year and let's hope the triple lock carries on......woooohooo

    I get 870.
    I'm guessing over 90's get more, based on being in the 2nd WW and that?💩
  • Options
    madprofmadprof Member Posts: 3,362
    Bean81 said:

    A lot of people revert to the "I've paid tax all my life" argument when it comes to state pension and care costs. The reality is a big chunk of the population don't come close to paying for their own, state-funded retirement.

    Let's look at an over-simplified example. If the average salary is £30k, income tax = £3.5k per year. Employees NI = £2.1k. Employers NI = £2.9k. Total = £8.5k per year. Let's assume the average person works 35 years full time, then part-time the rest and beneath the tax threshold. That person pays about £300k in tax and NI lifetime. 20 years pension and two years in a care home on average is about £300k.

    Clearly this is over-simplified, but you get the idea. People also pay VAT and inheritance tax, then the companies where they spend their money pay tax on profit, employ high earners, etc. With that said, we haven't factored in the average person's NHS costs and contribution to other state-funded activity not covered by council tax.

    I don't begrudge anybody receiving state pension or contribution towards their care costs. I just wish people stopped to think about the numbers sometimes.

    Just to say in an over simplified way , I earned an awful lot more than 30k Pa, especially in the last 20 years - eventually worked for 50 years paying taxes and my pension contributions-employer and own meant my pension pot was reasonably good...so

    I've been looking forward to receiving mine, thanks....it's the system we have and yes my son will probably work till 70.....
  • Options
    HAYSIEHAYSIE Member Posts: 33,616
    madprof said:

    HAYSIE said:

    madprof said:

    I've just hit 66 in April....lovely jubbly watching over 770 hit my bank account 13 times a year and let's hope the triple lock carries on......woooohooo

    I get 870.
    I'm guessing over 90's get more, based on being in the 2nd WW and that?💩
    I was in the 1st.
  • Options
    HAYSIEHAYSIE Member Posts: 33,616
    madprof said:

    HAYSIE said:

    madprof said:

    I've just hit 66 in April....lovely jubbly watching over 770 hit my bank account 13 times a year and let's hope the triple lock carries on......woooohooo

    I get 870.
    I'm guessing over 90's get more, based on being in the 2nd WW and that?💩
    I was 66 last year.
  • Options
    EssexphilEssexphil Member Posts: 8,406
    HAYSIE said:

    madprof said:

    HAYSIE said:

    madprof said:

    I've just hit 66 in April....lovely jubbly watching over 770 hit my bank account 13 times a year and let's hope the triple lock carries on......woooohooo

    I get 870.
    I'm guessing over 90's get more, based on being in the 2nd WW and that?💩
    I was 66 last year.
    So was @Tikay10

    And the year before. And the year before that :)
  • Options
    HAYSIEHAYSIE Member Posts: 33,616
    Essexphil said:

    HAYSIE said:

    madprof said:

    HAYSIE said:

    madprof said:

    I've just hit 66 in April....lovely jubbly watching over 770 hit my bank account 13 times a year and let's hope the triple lock carries on......woooohooo

    I get 870.
    I'm guessing over 90's get more, based on being in the 2nd WW and that?💩
    I was 66 last year.
    So was @Tikay10

    And the year before. And the year before that :)
    I cant believe you would risk getting sued over that.
  • Options
    HAYSIEHAYSIE Member Posts: 33,616
    madprof said:

    I've just hit 66 in April....lovely jubbly watching over 770 hit my bank account 13 times a year and let's hope the triple lock carries on......woooohooo

    I think my wife gets around £480 every 4 weeks.
    I believe the maximum is £624.
    If I had been cleverer, I would have enquired about how much I would have had to spend on stamps for her to get the maximum.
    I have no idea how much this would have cost, and therefore have no idea if it would have been worth it.
  • Options
    Bean81Bean81 Member Posts: 565
    HAYSIE said:

    madprof said:

    I've just hit 66 in April....lovely jubbly watching over 770 hit my bank account 13 times a year and let's hope the triple lock carries on......woooohooo

    I think my wife gets around £480 every 4 weeks.
    I believe the maximum is £624.
    If I had been cleverer, I would have enquired about how much I would have had to spend on stamps for her to get the maximum.
    I have no idea how much this would have cost, and therefore have no idea if it would have been worth it.
    I think you missed the boat. I rate James Shack highly - here he is explaining things:

    https://youtu.be/fG_D-JFdwBM?si=blj2a4-7NikIWCAM
  • Options
    HAYSIEHAYSIE Member Posts: 33,616
    edited September 2023
    Bean81 said:

    HAYSIE said:

    madprof said:

    I've just hit 66 in April....lovely jubbly watching over 770 hit my bank account 13 times a year and let's hope the triple lock carries on......woooohooo

    I think my wife gets around £480 every 4 weeks.
    I believe the maximum is £624.
    If I had been cleverer, I would have enquired about how much I would have had to spend on stamps for her to get the maximum.
    I have no idea how much this would have cost, and therefore have no idea if it would have been worth it.
    I think you missed the boat. I rate James Shack highly - here he is explaining things:

    https://youtu.be/fG_D-JFdwBM?si=blj2a4-7NikIWCAM

    How Much Is the UK State Pension For a Couple? | 2023/24 - Lottie
    https://lottie.org/fees-funding/how-much-is-state-pension-for-a-couple/

    The full rate for the New State Pension for the 2023/24 tax year is £203.851. If you and your partner have built up the full 35 qualifying years, you’ll get double this amount as a married couple, which comes to £407.70 between you1. If you're married, and both you and your partner have built up state pension, you'll get double the basic state pension amount, which is £156.20 a week in 2023-24 (£8,122.40 a year)2. According to the gov.uk website, the full weekly basic State Pension is worth £141.85, so the most a married couple could get according to this scheme is double that number3.


    This seems a confusing explanation.
  • Options
    Tikay10Tikay10 Member, Administrator, Moderator Posts: 163,899
    Essexphil said:

    HAYSIE said:

    madprof said:

    HAYSIE said:

    madprof said:

    I've just hit 66 in April....lovely jubbly watching over 770 hit my bank account 13 times a year and let's hope the triple lock carries on......woooohooo

    I get 870.
    I'm guessing over 90's get more, based on being in the 2nd WW and that?💩
    I was 66 last year.
    So was @Tikay10

    And the year before. And the year before that :)
    @Essexphil


    Keep going...
Sign In or Register to comment.