Finances and extra costs
If this is your first visit, check out the community guide. You will have to Join us or Sign in before you can post.

Pensions and savings

SystemSystem Posts: 544

Scope community team

edited November 2020 in Finances and extra costs
This discussion was created from comments split from: over the £16k threshold.

Replies

  • newbornnewborn Member Posts: 713 Pioneering
    edited November 2020

    Moderator note: Pensions can be difficult to understand and amounts vary based upon when you were born and how many ‘qualifying’ years of National Insurance payments you have. If you’re concerned about your pension forecast or worried you are receiving the incorrect amount it’s important to seek advice from a specialist such as the Pension Advisory Service or the Money Advice Service or check eligibility for pension credit with a full benefits check-up. The full new State Pension amount for those claiming after 6th April 2016 is £175.20 but the actual amount depends on your National Insurance record.
    -----------------------------------------------------

    There are a lot of injustices and anomalies in the systems. One big problem is that people thinking up rules are themselves senior civil servants, with secure comfortable circumstances and inflation proof high pension incomes.   They can imagine a poor person, probably a street beggar is in their minds.   They might assume he is probably poor because he drinks all his benefits and won't work.   Self employed people, disabled people, people with no private pension but instead a little bit of savings, just don't cross their minds.   A state pension in U.K. is the worlds' worst.  £80.  Savings means no pension credit, no council house, no housing benefit, no anything.

    There is no allowance for any savings which are instead of, not as well as, a private pension.   The same thing happens for a lot of impoverished people.   A complicated system and a lot of faulty assumptions mean that one person hits something of a benefits jackpot, and the next hits a benefits bear trap.  Sunak flinging money around has made the injustices much worse.   Money up to £2,500 as a strange 'elite aristocracy of unemployed, called furloughed' goes to unemployed casino staff and airport bar staff, but not a single penny to social care.   Twenty pounds extra is given to some, but not all, including those pensioners with no inco't,me except £80 a week, and others falling through all those traps.   

    Disabled people, and their unpaid carers, never feature in the lavish handouts.  We know that living full time in care homes is for a tiny minority, and the majority live at home, but government and journalists don't.
  • woodbinewoodbine Community Co-Production Group Posts: 4,413 Disability Gamechanger
    edited November 2020
    newborn said:
    There are a lot of injustices and anomalies in the systems. One big problem is that people thinking up rules are themselves senior civil servants, with secure comfortable circumstances and inflation proof high pension incomes.   They can imagine a poor person, probably a street beggar is in their minds.   They might assume he is probably poor because he drinks all his benefits and won't work.   Self employed people, disabled people, people with no private pension but instead a little bit of savings, just don't cross their minds.   A state pension in U.K. is the worlds' worst.  £80.  Savings means no pension credit, no council house, no housing benefit, no anything.

    There is no allowance for any savings which are instead of, not as well as, a private pension.   The same thing happens for a lot of impoverished people.   A complicated system and a lot of faulty assumptions mean that one person hits something of a benefits jackpot, and the next hits a benefits bear trap.  Sunak flinging money around has made the injustices much worse.   Money up to £2,500 as a strange 'elite aristocracy of unemployed, called furloughed' goes to unemployed casino staff and airport bar staff, but not a single penny to social care.   Twenty pounds extra is given to some, but not all, including those pensioners with no inco't,me except £80 a week, and others falling through all those traps.   

    Disabled people, and their unpaid carers, never feature in the lavish handouts.  We know that living full time in care homes is for a tiny minority, and the majority live at home, but government and journalists don't.
    I have never before read on scope so much inaccurate rubbish, the state pension isnt £80 per week, the new uniform state pension is £175* (please see moderator note below)

     per week, the old pre 2016 pension is around £120 week, which can even with savings be topped up with pension credit, it has to be said that during the current crisis millions of jobs have been protected by a reasonable furlough scheme which continues until March 2021.
    It is true that the rules can be complicated and that there is for some a benefits trap, but to project that as how it is for all is wrong, many people come here for help with benefits and it wont help them to see opinion written as fact.

    *Moderator note: The amount of State Pension you’ll receive depends on how many ‘qualifying’ years of National Insurance payments you have. £175.20 stated in this post is the maximum you can receive if you are either a man born on or after 6 April 1951 or a woman born on or after 6 April 1953 and have made the required national insurance contributions. See here: New State Pension

    "Putting a child into care, isn't caring for a child" (T.Rhattigan)
  • poppy123456poppy123456 Member Posts: 22,218 Disability Gamechanger
    @woodbine love it! and couldn't have put it better myself.... thank you for that!
    Proud winner of the 2019 empowering others award. This award was given for supporting disabled people and their families for the benefit advice I have given to members here on the community.
  • newbornnewborn Member Posts: 713 Pioneering
    Woodbine all the information is on the current government benefits site.   Can you look it up for yourself?  Can you understand that the words 'recently retired' mean recently?  Can you understand that people in their 80,s and 90s have not 'recently' retired?  You are falling into an error of looking at maximum and not minimum.

     You are looking at new benefits, not applicable to old, existing or non-transferred people.  State pension is not updated to 'recently retired' rates  for the poorest and oldest, including those with no houses or assets or private pensions or anything left to sell, just depending on eking out their life savings, put aside pennies at a time from a working life starting at possibly 14, with a six day week. These are not the despised and hated reviled 'rich'  and 'selfish' old people often mentioned by journalists and complaining younger people.    P.I.P. and U.C. are new introductions, not retrospectively applied.

    Woodbine it is false to suggest people can get pension credit or any means tested benefit, regardless of savings.  I do hope you don't inform people they may legally claim various benefits, without disclosing life savings which at various rather low limits will debar them from claiming.  If you do that, you may be leading them to be charged and convicted of fraud.

    It is inaccurate to say that savings don't disbar people from benefits.  Every benefit, and the ability to request help when homeless on the street, aged 90 and a wheelchair user, (nationally highlighted by the Bournemouth Bus Shelter couple) is affected by savings, though the exact amounts vary wildly from one to the next.  However comparatively modest sums, in today's terms, are the bar.  One cannot buy a house for the amount of cash an elderly person with no private pension and no home is allowed to have  in life savings.  One cannot obtain a mortgage at or even near retirement age.   One will have extraordinary problems obtaining a private rental home with no private pension, an income of £80, and no entitlement to Housing Benefit, relying instead on drawing down life savings to stay alive.   (A landlord would never agree to take such people as the Bournemouth Bus Shelter 90 year olds, and their council would correctly reject them too, as they did, as punishment for life savings)

    To be exact, state pension £80.45p. The extra costs expected for those over 80, presumably mainly things like not withstanding the cold weather, needing extra heating and  warm clothes and needing to pay people to do tasks they can no longer do themselves, is all compensated with an additional allowance of 25 pence (sic)  Other benefits are updated, but the governments over the years have been afraid to spoil those greedy grasping over 80 year olds with all those extra pennies, (in case they waste it on luxuries?) so they have put a halt to the updating of the 'extra costs allowance' It will never be raised above that current rate of twenty five pence.

     Recently retired get £175.20.  Those who have no, or sufficiently little,  declared savings get pension credit £173.75. 

    Universal credit £409.89. Plus the £20 for some, as a corona bonus.   £281.25 for a child, £1,108.04 for two.  Sick pay £95.85.  

    Standard unemployment benefit is £74.35. £1,284.17 p.m for a single adult with no children in London.  High rate D.L.A. £89.15. DLA mobility component £62.25. Income disregard for a sub tenant £20, for two children's childcare £300.  Maternity allowance £151.20 Maternity and Paternity pay £151.20

    All means tested benefits 'passport' their claimants to Housing Benefit.  The £80 lowest level state pension for those with no other income,  simply living on the savings of a lifetime,  does not.  Those  poorest, oldest pensioners could not get any other means tested provision, such as legal advice.   They must pay full costs if they need carers.   They must pay full costs from their remaining savings if they go into a care home, but they must pay far more than other residents, because they must subsidise the ones paying nothing themselves.  This is because local councils refuse to pay a reasonable, viable fee for people they send into care homes, and the only way to keep the business afloat is to force the thriftly life long savers to hand over their savings in huge fees to pay for the others .   

    A claimant may obtain an allowance of £265.20 for self and first spouse, if polygamous, plus £91.45 for additional spouse. (If those £80,  80 and 90 year old pensioners  had the foresight to become spare spouses, they would have significantly boosted their income )
  • poppy123456poppy123456 Member Posts: 22,218 Disability Gamechanger
    edited November 2020
    I'm really not sure why we have come to this on this thread, with the talk of state pension and such. The thread isn't about state pension, it's about another person claiming ESA and housing benefit with savings of more than £16,000.

    @princessofdarkness i'm sorry your thread has been derailed in this way. I hope i've been able to answer your questions and you'll be able to help the person that you're currently supporting. If you have anymore questions please do just ask.

    @newborn your comments are somewhat confusing and some of your comments are very misleading. Just to put the record straight, those of state pension age do not have a maximum savings threashold when claiming any means tested benefits. Saving of up to £10,000 will not affect any means tested benefit a state pension age person maybe claiming. Savings of £10,000 and over will reduce the amount of means tested benefits they are entitled to by £1 for every £500 (or part there of) over that amount.
    Proud winner of the 2019 empowering others award. This award was given for supporting disabled people and their families for the benefit advice I have given to members here on the community.
  • Tori_ScopeTori_Scope Posts: 4,959

    Scope community team

    edited November 2020
    Hi all!

    We've moved these comments over from the over the 16k threshold thread, as we did not feel as though they contributed directly to answering the original poster's question.

    This is a gentle reminder to bear the following rules from our community guidelines in mind when posting on the online community:
    Please be careful about sharing information:
    • Always check that information you get is correct and appropriate.
    • Do not present opinions as facts.
    • Share only trusted resources.

    Please also remember to keep comments relevant to the original post where possible. If you have another topic you'd like to explore further, please be mindful of the original poster and create a new discussion so as to avoid clogging up the original thread.
    Online Community Coordinator, she/her

    Want to give us feedback? Complete our feedback form now.
  • woodbinewoodbine Community Co-Production Group Posts: 4,413 Disability Gamechanger
    @Tori_Scope appreciate what you are saying but poor information helps no one and tbh it should not be encouraged.
    Just my opinion.
    "Putting a child into care, isn't caring for a child" (T.Rhattigan)
  • Ross_ScopeRoss_Scope Posts: 4,097

    Scope community team

    Thanks for your feedback @woodbine

    We certainly don't encourage poor or inaccurate information and would never do so, as the community guidelines suggest.
    Online Community Coordinator

    Talk to our chatbot and give us feedback on the community.
  • poppy123456poppy123456 Member Posts: 22,218 Disability Gamechanger
    @Ross_Scope yet the comment from the member here has given inaccurate information and has been split from another thread and still remains on the community forum.
    Proud winner of the 2019 empowering others award. This award was given for supporting disabled people and their families for the benefit advice I have given to members here on the community.
  • woodbinewoodbine Community Co-Production Group Posts: 4,413 Disability Gamechanger
    @poppy123456 totally agree when inaccurate information is given by a member scope should have one and only one course of action and that is to remove the post as soon as its pointed out to them, otherwise all the good work that others do by making sure they give accurate information is almost a waste of time.
    Let me put it another way if 5 or 6 people stopped giving benefits advice then all you would be left with is people making it up as they go along.
    I must admit a couple of times I have got it wrong its been pointed out to me and I have corrected myself.
    Just saying like.
    "Putting a child into care, isn't caring for a child" (T.Rhattigan)
  • chiariedschiarieds Community Co-Production Group Posts: 9,087 Disability Gamechanger
    I'm also in agreement with @woodbine & @poppy123456 - as mentioned by Tori, Scope's online community guidelines stress, 'do not present opinions as facts, etc.' Surely that should result in Scope ending such a post, as happened, but why was this misinformation then made into a new post?
  • Adrian_ScopeAdrian_Scope Testing team Posts: 7,997

    Scope community team

    edited November 2020

    The decision was made to split these posts from the original thread as while savings were topical and the original poster expressed concern over pension contributions, it was felt that the subject would be better suited as a separate discussion and a few posts have been edited to reflect accuracy. If you have further concerns regarding our moderation these would be better handled by email or PM so as not to derail a thread.

    Pensions are a very important topic, especially when there are still 1.6 million pensioners living in poverty

    I’m not a pensions advisor but a few notes on the subject:

    While the new State Pension amount is £175.20 for those claiming after 6th April 2016, as @newborn mentioned this is the ‘maximum’ someone can receive (unless you defer or have Additional State Pension), but by far not the minimum. For example, if I were to stop making contributions now my state pension is forecast to only be around £60 per week. While there is pension credit which can top up a person’s income, not everyone is eligible for this and it is impacted by savings which is what I believe @newborn was trying to explain.

    The £80.45 mentioned is thread is regarding the over 80 pension which sadly is just £80.45 per week.

    As a few of the different comments mention, there is of course pension credit, which is massively underclaimed and perhaps something this thread should aim to drive awareness of. I was absolutely stunned when I found out that in a recent year £2.5 BILLION of available pension credit went unclaimed.

    Senior Community Partner
    Scope
  • newbornnewborn Member Posts: 713 Pioneering
    Thank you for that, Richard. After campaigning so long for Disability Equality,  I am ashamed that I, too, had not really been aware of Age Equality.    Sir Trevor Phillips, when chair of Equalities, remarked that Disablism is invisible, institutionalised, universally practiced and socially accepted, and in many ways, in it's effect of people's lives, is worse than Racism.   
     We know that he was right, but even he didn't mention Ageism, which is the same.  Age discrimination is openly practiced in every government decision.   I was slightly aware of it, but in the whole flood of things to be shocked about, and fight about, I confess I had not absorbed the full implications.

    Probably a lot of people reading Scope will know how parents must fight for their disabled children's quality of life and their rights.
    Adult disabled people never had the 'help a cute kiddie' appeal of the understandably furious lobby who finally got Parliament to agree their S.E.N. assessments were not to be ignored for years, never carried out, carried out by the purse holders who would have to fund any assessed need.  The conflict of interest was blazingly obvious. The local authority didn't want to do assessments, and would delay. If parents battled hard enough, the authority would say there was no need for extra provision, or very little.

    At the time, I was hoping that adults with extra needs could, as it were, ride on the coat tails of all that effort parents had made, and have their own needs assessments carried out  by independent people, not in the pay of the local authority.   Disability organisations will know that didn't work out too well.  Even disabled children still don't necessarily have a smooth path to their reasonable needs.   But the funding simply drops off a cliff, when those same children, same disability, reach an age which puts them in the 'young adult' category.

    What I did discover was there is another cliff edge. Openly official Ageism.  Hardly anyone even knows about it.  Everyone should. The funding available for disabled 'adults' is in many cases inadequate, for instance they may have a fight to get help to go out and take part in normal life.     But at least in theory, they are N O T  to be treated as trapped animals in solitary cages, with a silent, hurried, overworked  keeper coming once or twice a day just to leave food and water and clean the 'leavings'.    That different, worse, sub-human treatment  is embedded in the social services having what they call 'older adult' budgets.    These are drastically below what is allowed for 'still-almost-human-disabled'.

    There has been a little publicity recently about N.H.S. age limits.  Vaguely, l (like most people I suppose?) had assume that people would be screened for this or that because they were likely to be at risk, and that if there was an age when the screening stopped, it must be because after that age, there was no more risk.  Wrong. Just at the ages when the chance of detecting various cancers including cervical and breast cancers begin to climb rapidly, the testing stops. Recently I read of some kind of prostate treatment, with an age bar to over 50's.  People of 50 may have another 50 years ahead of them.   That matters.  .Disabled lives matter.  Older lives matter.
  • newbornnewborn Member Posts: 713 Pioneering
    I have not, repeat not, posted inaccurate information. 

    Savings, to varying levels do, repeat do, count to disbar from any means tested benefits and with great anomaly built in.  Using savings in what might seem reasonable ways is not necessarily viewed as reasonable.

    Those who refuse to read the government website, which I carefully  and correctly, repeat correctly, summarised, may refer to Adrian_Scope's helpful summary above.   

    Those who can do that might accept his word that if he stopped paying today he would get £60, and that state pension for over 80's is, just as I stated, £80.45 (25p is an over 80's supplement) 


  • leeCalleeCal Member Posts: 3,609 Disability Gamechanger

    https://www.gov.uk/pension-credit

    Read the eligibility section carefully.

  • poppy123456poppy123456 Member Posts: 22,218 Disability Gamechanger
    edited November 2020
    newborn said:
    I have not, repeat not, posted inaccurate information. 

    Savings, to varying levels do, repeat do, count to disbar from any means tested benefits and with great anomaly built in.  Using savings in what might seem reasonable ways is not necessarily viewed as reasonable.

    Those who refuse to read the government website, which I carefully  and correctly, repeat correctly, summarised, may refer to Adrian_Scope's helpful summary above.   

    Those who can do that might accept his word that if he stopped paying today he would get £60, and that state pension for over 80's is, just as I stated, £80.45 (25p is an over 80's supplement) 


    Yes and for those of state pension age it's £10,000 for the lower limit, there's not actually a higher limit. Anyway, i've said all i want to say here and will make no further comments on this thread.

    Proud winner of the 2019 empowering others award. This award was given for supporting disabled people and their families for the benefit advice I have given to members here on the community.
Sign in or join us to comment.