New State Flat rate OAP to be brought forward a year to 2016.

[CliveH]

Chancellor George Osborne is to bring forward the introduction of the flat-rate state pension and the cap on social care by a year.

 

He told the BBC's Andrew Marr Show the planned £144 per week state pension will now begin in April 2016 rather than 2017.

 

The cap on social care, which will now be set at £72,000 instead of £75,000, will also come into force in 2016.

 

.......................

 

Full details in Wed's Budget statement

 

 

 

[Dave225]

OK, if I understand it right then the new payments will start 2016, but you will need 35 years NI to get it. At the moment you need 30 years NI and it is 2013, so even if you decide to pay the extra, unless you have some spare years to catch up, it will be 2018 before the first pensioner can claim it.

 

Another 'smoke and mirrors' trick???

 

Plus can I claim under Humans Rights laws as I paid 40 years before they changed it to 30.

[CliveH]

Basically correct Dave - but the new flat rate is designed to save the tax payer money as under the old system 30 years NIC got you the basic state pension then you had to be eligible for various means tested benefits to get it up to anything approaching the new higher "Flat Rate" OAP.

 

Under the old system many sectors of the population miss out. The Self Employed and part time workers as two examples. Now under the new system this imbalance will be redressed.

 

And all the complex calculations that go on to work out who gets what will no longer be required. So on the face of it - I think these proposals are one of the few sensible things Osborne has come up with.

 

Bringing it forward a year is a good thing as well.

 

Yes - you have to have 35 years NIC - but that is not an onerous task.

 

...........................

 

Just DON'T get me started on his complete and utter cock-up on on things like Drawdown with the Tax Hit increased to a 55% "Recovery Tax" and the unbelievable muck up where he (against ALL advice!!) reduced the GAD rate to 100% - and then realising his mistake put it back to 120%.

 

The chaos and upset this has caused for those whose actuarial review falls in the 100% period is considerable.

 

I have never had so many people who are "natural" Conservative voters tell me that because of Osborne and Cameron's incompetence that they are not going to vote Conservative again.

 

The will never vote LibDem or Labour - so have a guess who will get their votes!!

 

[Mel B]

Fortunately (or not!), I thought I only had only paid 30 years NI contributions so was expected to only be eligible for 30/35ths, however I asked for a NI contribution statement and found out that I have 34 years, so am only 'losing' 1 year now.

 

Therefore at current rates instead of £144 a week (35 years NI) I would be entitled to £139.88, about 2.9% less, or £214 a year so the questions I suppose are: is it worth me making up the extra year, and if so, how to do so seeing as I don't work now! *-)

[CliveH]

Start up a small business Mel - make sure you make a loss or profit of less than £5000 that year and then claim a low earnings certificate for that year.

 

Bingo! - you then have the full 35 years

[Dave225]

CliveH - 2013-03-19 8:54 AM

 

Basically correct Dave - but the new flat rate is designed to save the tax payer money as under the old system 30 years NIC got you the basic state pension then you had to be eligible for various means tested benefits to get it up to anything approaching the new higher "Flat Rate" OAP.

 

Under the old system many sectors of the population miss out. The Self Employed and part time workers as two examples. Now under the new system this imbalance will be redressed.

 

And all the complex calculations that go on to work out who gets what will no longer be required. So on the face of it - I think these proposals are one of the few sensible things Osborne has come up with.

 

Bringing it forward a year is a good thing as well.

 

Yes - you have to have 35 years NIC - but that is not an onerous task.

 

...........................

 

Just DON'T get me started on his complete and utter cock-up on on things like Drawdown with the Tax Hit increased to a 55% "Recovery Tax" and the unbelievable muck up where he (against ALL advice!!) reduced the GAD rate to 100% - and then realising his mistake put it back to 120%.

 

The chaos and upset this has caused for those whose actuarial review falls in the 100% period is considerable.

 

I have never had so many people who are "natural" Conservative voters tell me that because of Osborne and Cameron's incompetence that they are not going to vote Conservative again.

 

The will never vote LibDem or Labour - so have a guess who will get their votes!!

 

However Clive you are totally ignoring the fact that many current pensioners have made up to 44 years of contributions and if they have even small savings get no benefits, so will be penalised into a 2nd rate pension for the rest of their lives while those who have any form of wealth, but have the 35 years get a higher pension for life. That is definitely not going to work and as the grey voters are a big group, screw them at your peril. I for one will be totally p....d off watching someone collecting £30 a week more than me, after paying less years, especially as my retiral date falls just short of the changeover date.

 

As for not voting Conservative if you are a normal Conservative voter, I also doubt that in the final count they will do a change. What is the alternative?? Balls Up and total bankruptcy. Labour and LIB idiots prancing about like a Politburo. They are already emasculating the Press so what is next once they get back in??? As for UKIP although they appeal to popular sentiment, they will never get power in our lifetimes. You do not go from zero MP's to 300 in one election, so voting for them although again appealing is a waste. Now maybe they will do a deal before the election but if not then I fear for the country.

[Mel B]

CliveH - 2013-03-19 9:54 AM

 

Start up a small business Mel - make sure you make a loss or profit of less than £5000 that year and then claim a low earnings certificate for that year.

 

Bingo! - you then have the full 35 years

 

Hmmmm ... interesting idea, I'll have to investigate! :-D

[Guest pelmetman]

Mel B - 2013-03-19 7:25 PM

 

CliveH - 2013-03-19 9:54 AM

 

Start up a small business Mel - make sure you make a loss or profit of less than £5000 that year and then claim a low earnings certificate for that year.

 

Bingo! - you then have the full 35 years

 

Hmmmm ... interesting idea, I'll have to investigate! :-D

 

I employ Sue that way ;-)................but you have to make sure the paperwork is done *-)

[nowtelse2do]

Dave225 - 2013-03-19 2:57 PM

As for UKIP although they appeal to popular sentiment, they will never get power in our lifetimes. You do not go from zero MP's to 300 in one election, so voting for them although again appealing is a waste. Now maybe they will do a deal before the election but if not then I fear for the country.

 

Dave, look at it in a slightly different way. Labour had quite a few years in charge and ballsed it up (apart from keeping us out of the euro) If they got back then it would be back to their old ways or with Clegg even worse.

 

Conservatives are shackled with the Li/Dems but still manage to cock up big style.

 

Both these parties have relatively few experienced ministers. (not sure I should use the word experience, but it will have to do)

 

UKIP have none so the gap is narrow.

Can they do any worse? At least they will get us out of the EU.

 

Dave

[Dave225]

nowtelse2do - 2013-03-19 7:52 PM

 

Dave225 - 2013-03-19 2:57 PM

As for UKIP although they appeal to popular sentiment, they will never get power in our lifetimes. You do not go from zero MP's to 300 in one election, so voting for them although again appealing is a waste. Now maybe they will do a deal before the election but if not then I fear for the country.

 

Dave, look at it in a slightly different way. Labour had quite a few years in charge and ballsed it up (apart from keeping us out of the euro) If they got back then it would be back to their old ways or with Clegg even worse.

 

Conservatives are shackled with the Li/Dems but still manage to cock up big style.

 

Both these parties have relatively few experienced ministers. (not sure I should use the word experience, but it will have to do)

 

UKIP have none so the gap is narrow.

Can they do any worse? At least they will get us out of the EU.

 

Dave

 

Yes, Labour kept us out of the euro but it was never planned as anything to benefit the UK. It was done by Brown to screw his boss Blair, who desperately wanted us in it. I fully accept that the euro at the present time is anything but a success, but if the planning and implementation had been done better there was every chance it would have been far better than it is today. However as soon as they allowed France to dictate who was to join, then things were bound to go wrong.

 

There 2 things that go against UKIP.

 

Firstly they are basically a 1 policy Party and so have not made any significant proposals to improve many of the other parts of our society, so you are giving them a 'blank cheque' which is highly risky as even you have stated the current Parties have limited experience. UKIP have none and as we saw in Iraq when you get rid of all the legislators, chaos reigns. Yes, eventually it might work but the costs will be very high.

 

The 2nd point is that any new Party once it gains authority splits into factions within the Party. We have seen such an event up here with the SNP. As you say we all thought they can do no worse than the previous lot and initially things went well, however as they grew in power they grew in factions who are fighting each other to get the message they want, across. The SNP also have a basic single policy namely independence and you can see that it is dividing the country when it is the last thing we need at this time. In fact they worked best as a minority government.

 

I do agree the coalition with the Libs has been a disaster and i would have much preferred Cameron to have gone it alone as a minority Government. Again we had the SNP doing that up here for 4 years and it worked as the others were scared to cause it to collapse. We might then have had some policies we need rather than Libbie BS. Again we had the same situation up here with Labour cosying up to the Libbies for 8 years and we could not get rid of them fast enough as they screwed everything they touched.

 

So, what do i want? A Government that the majority of the people of the UK chooses and is prepared to do what is necessary and right for the UK. But maybe I am living in a dream world. What we will get by your proposal is a Lab/Lib cockup with the Unions sitting at the back pulling the strings and disaster rushing towards us. Sometimes you have to shut your eyes and do what you do not like, but know is the best answer

[nowtelse2do]

Dave225 - 2013-03-19 8:34 PM

 

So, what do i want? A Government that the majority of the people of the UK chooses and is prepared to do what is necessary and right for the UK. But maybe I am living in a dream world. What we will get by your proposal is a Lab/Lib cockup with the Unions sitting at the back pulling the strings and disaster rushing towards us. Sometimes you have to shut your eyes and do what you do not like, but know is the best answer

 

I could not think of a worse scenario of a Lab/Lib government. Been down that road twice with Labour, never again. The Cons are going to have to be very persuasive to get my vote again, so when the UKIP's come out with a fuller mandate for all to see, then I'll make my mind up.

 

Agree wholeheartedly with you about the SNP

 

Dave