tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8764541874043694159.post6232110068681200916..comments2024-03-29T10:48:38.142+00:00Comments on Coppola Comment: State pensions: property right or benefit?Frances Coppolahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09399390283774592713noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8764541874043694159.post-85175451742913473592016-11-03T19:38:54.731+00:002016-11-03T19:38:54.731+00:00No, it couldn't. My analysis in this piece is ...No, it couldn't. My analysis in this piece is superseded by a test case heard by the High Court, the Court of Appeal, the House of Lords and the ECHR. The woman concerned claimed that raising her SPA violated her property rights, since she would not now receive the total amount of pension that she believed her NI contributions had bought. She also claimed that it was discrimination. The High Court judge said that there is no direct relationship between the contributions made and the right to a pension, and concluded that she had no right to a pension at 60. The Court of Appeal, HoL and ECHR all concurred. <br /><br />Your statement that "legislation pre 1995 did confer a female SP at age 60 of 1/39th of BSP for each year's NIC" is therefore incorrect. There is no direct relationship between NICs paid and the pension received. Qualifying years buy the right to a pension, but they do not confer any right to a guaranteed amount or a specific age of receipt. Frances Coppolahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09399390283774592713noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8764541874043694159.post-90688185477653866452016-11-01T20:38:21.354+00:002016-11-01T20:38:21.354+00:00It was deemed relevant in the cited case that UK l...It was deemed relevant in the cited case that UK legislation had never conferred a particular right. Is it then relevant that legislation pre 1995 did confer a female SP at age 60 of 1/39th of BSP for each years NIC. Could a case then be made that women should still have the right to receive a partial SP at 60 on that basis, depending on number of years NICs accrued to April 1995? This would then act as a partial or bridging pension until achieving her full SP at actual SPage under the current legislation.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8764541874043694159.post-44778897474677517272016-10-30T23:56:21.977+00:002016-10-30T23:56:21.977+00:00The point is it's already not ended well for t...The point is it's already not ended well for these women, so what have they got left to lose? <br /><br />In the sense of the daily finacial realities now experienced by these women, of having lost up to £48,000 of their state pension in their later life, (inclusive of related *pensioner benefits), means the government really shouldn't risk pushing and further angering women who have NOTHING LEFT TO LOSEAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8764541874043694159.post-18960296385652746152016-10-22T15:01:35.081+01:002016-10-22T15:01:35.081+01:00Back even as far as the 1980's the few of us t...Back even as far as the 1980's the few of us that knew a bit about demographics, statistics and public finance knew that potential serious pension problems were ahead unless major adjustments or changes were made. Politically difficult and something that could be put off nothing was done. Sow the wind and reap the whirlwind.Demetriushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17198549581667363991noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8764541874043694159.post-83387349248317000052016-10-21T03:27:47.798+01:002016-10-21T03:27:47.798+01:00After Brexit all those living in Europe may no lon...After Brexit all those living in Europe may no longer be entitled to the State Pension inflation rises.<br /><br />However, there is now talk of giving all expats voting rights, irrespective of how long they have lived outside the UK. This might allow a bit of political pressure to be brought against this unfairness.RPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17695303458973909485noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8764541874043694159.post-71416112537502072352016-10-20T21:49:49.750+01:002016-10-20T21:49:49.750+01:00Yes, it would be interesting to see how a court wo...Yes, it would be interesting to see how a court would find in the event that the government withdrew its pension promise to those who had contributed towards the pensions of the current retired generation over the current qualifying period of 35 years.<br /><br />And yes, the NI fund does fund other other social secuirty benefits such as unemployment and sickness benefits but the largest part of NICs ae paid out on pensions. And yes, a percentage of annual NICs are sequestered to fund the NHS, but funding the NHS from NICs was not the original purpose of NICs. If I recall correctly, Gordon Brown raised NICs to fund increased NHS spending and in doing this further muddied the distinction between general taxation and contributory social insurance.<br /><br />Despite everything, the NIC system still retains properties that distinguish it from general taxation. And long may it doe so!PaintingWithNumbershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04626024525506054863noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8764541874043694159.post-58104177357042172402016-10-20T21:27:04.750+01:002016-10-20T21:27:04.750+01:00In answer to the lead question, state pensions in ...In answer to the lead question, state pensions in the UK are both a benefit and a property right. The relevant Acts have always defined state pensions as a benefit, but if a state puts in place legislation that provides for the payment of a pension, under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 of the European convention this does create a propriety interest.<br /><br />However, the state is able to change the conditions of eligibility or quantum of the pension benefit, and has a wide margin of appreciation before it becomes a legal issue. Essentially they can't take it away, but they can change it if it serves a legitimate purpose and is in the general interest. The ECHR generally acknowledges that the state itself is in the best position to identify what is in the public interest.<br /><br />I think it would be difficult to argue that either equalisation, general increases due to longevity improvements, or even management of finances are not in the public interest and essential to the sustainability of the UK pension system. On this basis, the Waspi legal argument (or at least what we know of it) seems very weak.<br /><br />Just my opinion, and others may well take a different view.Micknoreply@blogger.com