Jump to content

What is the NI Fund for?


Bandits
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Boo Gay'n said:

Thanks Chris

On the basis of my arms-length knowledge, I agree with what you say.

You sort of accept one of my key points (1) and ignore the other (2).  1. Tynwald may make law to vary what NI Contributions can be used for.  2. The size of the Manx NI Fund is a political decision.


Is the size of the Manx state pension paid a political decision too?

If it is & there is surplus in the fund, then why isn't a living pension paid?

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/4/2022 at 12:32 PM, Boo Gay'n said:

 

If annual benefits are 100 and GAD says that the contingency fund should be maintained at 200, what is the point of carry a balance of 400 (numbers just for the sake of the discussion)?

Well, obviously, the point is that the cost of annual benefits is not going to remain at 100 for ever. It is going to be far in excess of 200 if past projections are to be believed, and then the contingency balance comes into play.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, SleepyJoe said:


Is the size of the Manx state pension paid a political decision too?

If it is & there is surplus in the fund, then why isn't a living pension paid?

Moreover, why did they follow the UK and deprive the 1950's women of their promised pension ?

The UK did it to bail out the banks, why did we follow suit ?

Edited by asitis
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, asitis said:

Moreover, why did they follow the UK and deprive the 1950's women of their promised pension ?

The UK did it to bail out the banks, why did we follow suit ?

Except

1. the legislation to equalise in UK was brought in in 1995. The banks didn’t need bailing out until 2008

2. In 1995 the UK and IoM pension schemes had full reciprocity, interchangeability and transferability. We had to follow suit.

The change was about 2 things, equality ( speaks for itself ) and affordability. The projected cost of providing women with a pension at 60 wasn’t sustainable with increased life expectancy.

Even in 1995 it was a very different work to when pensions were introduced with a differential age entitlement. Most women worked, didn’t depend on husbands contributions for a ( reduced ) pension, no longer had husbands on average 5 years older, and had a substantially increased life expectancy.

@asitis in your scenario, as the UK NI fund has no actual value or reserves, money received being equal to money paid out every year,  how would increasing pension age allow bank bail outs? Asking for a friend.

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, SleepyJoe said:


Is the size of the Manx state pension paid a political decision too?

If it is & there is surplus in the fund, then why isn't a living pension paid?

Yes.

The surplus gave rise to the Manx Supplement.

The surplus arose ( for the most part ) through an actuarial quirk. In the days of transferability between UK and IoM when someone moved here there was a capital transfer of the capitalised value of their pension from the UK to the Manx NI fund. That no longer happens.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, John Wright said:

Except

1. the legislation to equalise in UK was brought in in 1995. The banks didn’t need bailing out until 2008

2. In 1995 the UK and IoM pension schemes had full reciprocity, interchangeability and transferability. We had to follow suit.

The change was about 2 things, equality ( speaks for itself ) and affordability. The projected cost of providing women with a pension at 60 wasn’t sustainable with increased life expectancy.

Even in 1995 it was a very different work to when pensions were introduced with a differential age entitlement. Most women worked, didn’t depend on husbands contributions for a ( reduced ) pension, no longer had husbands on average 5 years older, and had a substantially increased life expectancy.

@asitis in your scenario, as the UK NI fund has no actual value or reserves, money received being equal to money paid out every year,  how would increasing pension age allow bank bail outs? Asking for a friend.

Sarcasm not required !      Inescapable fact 271 billion has gone somewhere out of the fund.

Peter Baker I think it was, admitted the Government did their best to hide the facts from women at enquiry, and would not fund a proper notification process. The six year time limit was brought about by further legislation in 2011 !

I have no problem with equalisation of pensions, but women from this period did not have the opportunity to earn the same, nor to keep working when having children etc etc ! It was therefore impossible to earn the same pension rights as men. The burden of losing six years of pension shouldered by a very few was draconian and unfair in the extreme. Then again Governments and their ilk have always been populated by misogynists !

The Government has been found guilty of maladministration in respect of its decision not to properly inform women of their loss of pension. Your observations have merit, but not to those affected and struggling !

https://davidhencke.com/2018/07/19/revealed-the-271-billion-rape-of-the-national-insurance-fund-that-deprived-50s-women-of-their-state-pension/

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, asitis said:

Sarcasm not required !      Inescapable fact 271 billion has gone somewhere out of the fund.

Peter Baker I think it was, admitted the Government did their best to hide the facts from women at enquiry, and would not fund a proper notification process. The six year time limit was brought about by further legislation in 2011 !

I have no problem with equalisation of pensions, but women from this period did not have the opportunity to earn the same, nor to keep working when having children etc etc ! It was therefore impossible to earn the same pension rights as men. The burden of losing six years of pension shouldered by a very few was draconian and unfair in the extreme. Then again Governments and their ilk have always been populated by misogynists !

The Government has been found guilty of maladministration in respect of its decision not to properly inform women of their loss of pension. Your observations have merit, but not to those affected and struggling !

https://davidhencke.com/2018/07/19/revealed-the-271-billion-rape-of-the-national-insurance-fund-that-deprived-50s-women-of-their-state-pension/

Women should never have got pension at 60 in first place, they live longer & were therefore getting pension for c8 years longer than men. Plenty of notice was given 

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Banker said:

Plenty of notice was given 

The parliamentary ombudsman has found the Government guilty of trying to conceal the situation from women, and found that maladministration has taken place. You are clearly blind to the disadvantages of being a woman in the 50's ! The point is the goalposts were moved for one small demographic, and it is this which is wrong, whether or not equalisation is right !

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Banker said:

Women should never have got pension at 60 in first place, they live longer & were therefore getting pension for c8 years longer than men. Plenty of notice was given 

Women lived longer because they retired earlier / pension at 60. That is also equalising, lowering the state pension burden. 

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, asitis said:

Sarcasm not required !      Inescapable fact 271 billion has gone somewhere out of the fund.

Peter Baker I think it was, admitted the Government did their best to hide the facts from women at enquiry, and would not fund a proper notification process. The six year time limit was brought about by further legislation in 2011 !

I have no problem with equalisation of pensions, but women from this period did not have the opportunity to earn the same, nor to keep working when having children etc etc ! It was therefore impossible to earn the same pension rights as men. The burden of losing six years of pension shouldered by a very few was draconian and unfair in the extreme. Then again Governments and their ilk have always been populated by misogynists !

The Government has been found guilty of maladministration in respect of its decision not to properly inform women of their loss of pension. Your observations have merit, but not to those affected and struggling !

https://davidhencke.com/2018/07/19/revealed-the-271-billion-rape-of-the-national-insurance-fund-that-deprived-50s-women-of-their-state-pension/

I'm aware of the ombudsman finding and the cases.

The 1995 legislation didn't come out of the blue. There was extensive publicity and consultation. More, the affected women were able to work for 5 years ( or 6 or 7 years ) longer. And wages were and are always more than state pension.

There wasn't a £270 billion rape of the NI fund. There was never any money there. That's maybe how much putting up retirement age saved from having to increase contributions or general taxation

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...