The Uk State Pension Rebranded as a Benefit,

whoops sorry just read the date again ! Can I still sign it despite being stupid ? 

Yes please, and share it too if you can.

I expect the odious Ian Douglas Smith is behind it - remember what he did with the winter fuel payment?

Exactly. I've lived long enough to suspect ulterior motives behind everything and Pensioners are sitting ducks. There's a nice big pension pot just waiting to be grabbed.
Please share the link wherever you can.

It is my sincere belief that the laws on work related pensions will gradually  kill off the state pension for working people.  If your private pension is either equal to or more than the state pension which is regarded  as the minimum you require to live on then, in time  you will not get any state pension.  I stress that it is my belief.

I  have just had a forcast which shows my contribution as 49 years and my entitlement is £220 approx per week.  BUT as I was employed in Local government for 30 year  I was compulsorily contracted out and the entitlement is reduced by £68  per week which the Government inform me is included in my private pension.  My wife who was in the army and has 33 years contributions gets the same treatment and her entitlement is reduced by nearly £30 per week  unless she tops up by nearly £5000.

 If you work and   you pay for a private pension, which you now have to by law, your entitlement is reduced In effect you are penalised.  It is my belief that eventually it will be reduced to zero For working people.

OK, we have just signed the petition. I do think that fitter's description of IDS is very apt. I was for some time locked in combat with his department & his PPS, as well as the MP for our constuency

in UK. when we were exchanging rather stronger opinions of character than odious. needless to say it did no good whatsoever except for my spleen.

now I see they are spending millions on the in or out vote which is really aimed at uniting the conserative party, meanwhile dear boris has thrown his hat in the ring soley to further his PM prospects. Whatever ones policital leanings it all shows how important a strong opposition is

better now

I agree with mini man we are moving inexorably toward the situation where, if you have made any provision for a private or work related pension you can forget getting any state pension. Was it Bevin or Bevan who said the secret of the National Insurance Fund is that "there aint no Fund". 

Ian Duncan Smith is probably pushing for the UK to leave the EU so that pensioners living in the EU will be treated as non-EU Brits and our pensions will be frozen.  Imagine the savings that will make for the Govt!  Then if they take our health cover away, even more savings!! IDS must be rubbing his hands together in glee as we speak.

I am of pensionable age in 2018. I applied for a pension forecast.

I have 30 years contributions contacted out of SERPS I have 10 years full contributions not contracted out.

Under the new state pension scheme I am entitled to 48 pounds a week.I appealed but apparently that is the correct figure although they refuse to show me the workings used to obtain this figure.

I understand that fewer than 30% of pensioners well ever get the full new state pension, the one where the Prime Minister guaranteed a minimum of 155 a week, where all pensioners were to be better off.

My days of trusting any politician are over. They're all in it for their own ends and as another poster has said, people like IDS will try everything to screw whoever they can. While I know that there are conventions which should protect the interests of ex-pats (state pensions etc), that didn't stop the WFA disgrace. My cynicism surrounding politicians has reached the point where i would recommend to anyone, "Imagine the worst-case scenario then you won't be shocked if that happens". Nevertheless, we must protect the rights of MPs to have outrageous pay increases, of Lords to sleep for a few minutes to collect their allowances, to be prepared to support the Foreign Aid budget in order to line the pockets of dubious overseas dictators and so on - the list is long.

Ah yes

but we musn't condemm them outright after all they only lie when they move their lips

Apart from the ones who talk out of their arxe's.

From what I can see it looks like the eventual plan is a guaranteed minimum state pension, regardless of contributions, the plan being that people who have contributed more and expect more out get less, and those who have contributed less get more, it will also be means tested, so if you have a large private pot which takes you above the guaranteed minimum then you will receive nothing from the state. It seems the overall plan is allocate a certain amount of cash for pensioners and when you have received it, its no food no heating no housing no old folks home no health care but death is guaranteed. It's all part of the  conservatives gradual move towards if you can't pay yo can't have it.

I may have missed something, but I’m very confused as to why “benefit” is such a dirty word when applied to the state pension. Both state pensions and vocational pensions have often been referred to as benefits and successive governments have topped up pensions with benefits to provide a living income for old people.
I’m also confused by those posters who demonise the actions of the conservative government, and specifically Ian Duncan Smith, over pension policy. My understanding, correct me if I’m wrong, is that the last 3 governments have been gradually implementing the recommendations of the Turner Report which was published in 2002 by a politically independent committee headed by Lord Turner. The sort of things that the Report recommends are:
• The age at which people are eligible for state pension would increase in line with increases in life expectancy
• A mandatory vocational pension would be introduced (with contributions from the employee and employer) to ensure that all workers had a vocational pension and would therefore have less reliance on things like “pension credits” and other benefits to boost their income in old age.
• Pension/ universal credits would not need to be means tested to the same extent as they are now.
• Pensions would increase in line with wages rather than the cost of living.
• Etc.
Both labour and conservative/ lib dem governments have been striving to implement these recommendations, all of which are designed to combat the problem faced by all governments in all Western European countries – ie. that, as people live longer and longer, a shrinking workforce will need to support an expanding old age population and, financially, it won’t be possible to get a quart out of a pint pot.
Currently, half the UK population works and the other half (children, students OAPs etc.) doesn’t. By 2050, it’s projected that 25% of the population will be working and 75% will not. Something had to be done to address this problem and, fair play to the governments we’ve had since 2002, they’ve been trying to prepare for what would have been a disastrous situation if they’d just sat back and done nothing.

The word benefit is considered as inappropriate for pensions because if IDS using the word "scroungers " in relation to benefit claimants. State pensions are a benefit to all who recieve them but should not be linked to "scroungers" as implied by many politicians. State Pensions paid for over your working life should be regarded as an entitlement and not lumped in with "benefits" as often done by the Government. The use of the word benefit should only be linked to State Pensions paid to non contributors. The word benefit offends many who are entitled to correctly recieve the State Pension because it has been used and linked with the word "scroungers".

Gov.UK , state that part of the NI. contributions are for a State Pension, additional State Pension , & New State Pension, not a word about ' Benefit'. But the word ' Benefit 'appears when receiving any notification from Gov. UK So why should it be' Pension' when paying in NI contributions then on retirement be called' Benefit' === devious,