News

@John Oh what? Do me a favour. As if anyone is going to be able to set in motion anything like that in four years' time.

"a personalised state-pension payment calculated on an actuarially fair basis, using information about their age and health circumstances"

Well that's a lifetime's debate right there.

Another day another policy proposal from the Tony Blair Institute for Global Change. This one on replacing state pension with a lifespan fund. With pension age based on remaining life expectancy. And accessible during people's working life when they are for example caring for a sick or disabled relative. But looking at the details it does not look good to me.

"We propose replacing the state pension with a new model from 2030: the Lifespan Fund – a flexible lifetime income-support account that individuals build up through active contribution to society."

"those aged below 57 in 2030 (more than ten years from SPA at implementation). All individuals more than ten years from their SPA when the reform was introduced would have their accrued state-pension entitlements converted into Lifespan balances."

"Entitlements would be earned through work (via existing National Insurance contributions (NICs)); seeking work, caring for others or being unable to work due to ill health (via existing National Insurance credits); and through a new entitlement for time spent in full-time higher education.
people would have the equivalent of half a year’s state pension added to their Lifespan Fund for each year of economic activity"

"After 40 years of contributions, they would have built up a maximum entitlement worth around £250,000 in today’s prices, equivalent to 20 years of support at the current state pension level of around £12,500 per year."

"Pension Credit would be phased out and replaced with a means-tested Lifespan top-up. This top-up would apply once individuals reach the equivalent of the SPA and would bring Lifespan balances up to the ten-year floor, means-tested against private-pension wealth and other savings."

"The value of each person’s Lifespan Fund would rise based on a smoothed link with median earnings"

(no more triple lock, so future state pension would be far less generous than if triple lock was maintained)

"Conversion (to a life time pension) would take place on an actuarially fair basis, meaning that the expected lifetime value of pension payments would equal the balance of the Lifespan Fund at the point of retirement. This calculation would take into account both age and health status, just as private-pension annuities do at the moment."

"In practice, individuals could choose when to retire and would receive a personalised state-pension payment calculated on an actuarially fair basis, using information about their age and health circumstances."

"Those choosing to retire early or with smaller funds would need to demonstrate sufficient private-pension savings to ensure an income equivalent to today’s state pension (around £12,500) to minimise the risk of poverty; otherwise, they would be required to delay retirement."

(wealthier people could retire early, those without private pensions would be able to retire when they have a remaining life expectancy of 20 years, or if they have less than 40 years contributions, a remaining life expectancy as low as 10 years the safety net)

Access to the lifespan fund during working life

"Access during working life would also be restricted to those resident in the UK and with indefinite leave to remain"

"Withdrawals would be permitted only once a minimum balance had been accumulated and could not reduce the fund below that threshold. For those aged 35 and under, the minimum balance would be equivalent to five years of entitlement, to prevent early withdrawals being used to fund extended periods of youth unemployment, which can be particularly damaging early in working life. This minimum balance would then rise by one-quarter of a year’s entitlement for every year above age 35 to ten years of entitlement for those aged 55 and over"

"It would be possible for an individual to draw down an amount equivalent to the value of the state pension – around £12,500 a year in today’s terms"

"during unemployment spell of up to six months, conditional on participating in activation measures, just as is required of Jobseeker’s Allowance claimants
during the first six months of setting up a new business
while taking part in approved training or adult education
while looking after one or more children aged under 3
while caring for a sick or disabled relative for up to three consecutive years"

"individuals would not need to withdraw the full state-pension-equivalent amount each year. They could choose to draw smaller sums – such as half the annual amount – for longer"

"anyone who accessed their Lifespan Fund during working life would be automatically enrolled into higher NICs for the following ten years to rebuild their balance. This would be collected either through the PAYE system by altering an individual’s tax code or through the self-assessment tax system. Contributions would be capped at 5 per cent of earnings, with the option to repay more quickly or slowly, or to opt out and accept a smaller pension later. To opt out of repayments, individuals would need to show that they had saved enough in a private pension to offset the funds they had withdrawn from their Lifespan Fund, plus an additional 25 per cent to cover the risk that the private-pension fund did not generate as much income as the Lifespan Fund or subsequently fell in value."

https://institute.global/insights/economic-prosperity/the-lifespan-fund-reforming-the-state-pension-for-a-more-affordable-flexible-and-fair-future#executive-summary

The DWP are simple waving through most PIP reassessments without any checks. They are concentrating their man power on new claims as they have reached over 700,000 as of Jan 26 - a 4 year high.

Why no article on the disgusting words coming from the Tony Blair Institute and what could really  be being them?

The review stats might include the mass reviews done by the DWP to correct errors in how PIP was assessed. After the DWP has lost legal cases. That resulted in large numbers of claimants getting their awards increased. That would explain the higher award increased figures from previous years. 

Many of us would rather wait till our review than a change of circumstances sure.