TUC uncovers £67,000 pensions postcode lottery

A woman in her late 40s from East Dorset can expect to receive £67,000 more in state pension when she retires, compared to a women of the same age living in Corby, due to a widening gap in life expectancies and a rising state pension age, according to a new report published today by the TUC.

The report looks at life expectancy projections by gender, occupation and geographical area, and their effect on the amount of state pension people are set to receive. The state pension age is due to rise to 66 between 2018 and 2020 and to 67 between 2026 and 2028.

The research shows that by 2028 a woman living in East Dorset – the area of the UK with the longest post-65 life expectancy for both men and women – can expect to live nine years longer than a woman in Corby (the area with the shortest life expectancy) when they retire. This state pension divide works out at £67,000 over their lifetime. The state pension divide for men living in East Dorset and Manchester (the area with the shortest male post-65 life expectancy) will be £53,000.

This state pension divide will also grow for different types of workers. A female managerial or professional worker retiring in 2028 can expect to live 3.8 years longer than a female manual worker, compared to 2.4 years today. This state pension divide works out at £29,000. The equivalent gap for male manual and professional workers is £23,000, or 3.1 years.

The TUC report also shows that millions of people will receive less state pension, despite having to work for a further two years, because their life expectancy is not keeping pace with the increasing state pension age. People living in poor areas such as Corby, Manchester, Salford and Hull will receive substantially less state pension over their lifetime. A woman in her late 40s in Corby will have to work for two more years before retiring but will receive £12,000 less state pension during her retirement than those retiring in 2016.  A man of a similar age living in Manchester will receive £7,500 less during his retirement.

The lifetime state pension for men, based on a full ‘single-tier’ state pension award, will fall from £147,000 in 2016 (when the single-tier is introduced) to £146,000 in 2028. Women retiring in 2028 will have to work longer in order to receive the same state pension (£164,000) as those retiring in 2016.

The government’s failure to consider persistent inequalities in life expectancy when accelerating the rise in the state pension age, will leave millions far worse off in retirement, says the TUC.

The TUC believes that the government should reverse its decision to raise the state pension age in light of new evidence on life expectancy projections, and instead set up an independent commission to examine inequalities in life expectancy and their effect on people’s retirement incomes.

TUC general secretary Frances O’Grady said: “The government’s decision to accelerate the rise in the state pension age will mean millions of people having to work for longer in order to receive less in retirement.

“There is already a shocking divide in life expectancies across England, and if current trends continue that inequality will get worse in the coming decades. The government’s pension reforms will add to the problem, with people in richer areas receiving more from the state, while those in poorer areas receive less.

“It cannot be right that people living in a wealthy area can receive tens of thousands of pounds more in state pension than someone living in a less well off part of the country, particularly as richer people are likely to have earned more during the career and have a bigger private pension too.

“The government should abandon its plan to raise the state pension age in light of the new evidence on projected life expectancies. It should instead set up an independent commission to examine health inequalities and the impact on people’s expected retirement incomes.”

Source

Related articles:

1. TUC’s pension warning over growing north-south life expectancy divide
2. Tory MP says he won’t change “unfair” pleural plaque postcode lottery
3. UCU condemns elite university postcode lottery

Top judges use 'human rights' to protect their pensions

The wealthiest judges in the country are using human rights laws to challenge the Government over cuts to their gold-plated pensions worth hundreds of millions of pounds.

Judges have instructed top barristers to advise them on using human rights laws to sue Ministers who have reduced pensions in line with those paid to senior civil servants.

In the past, judges have not contributed to a pension that pays them half their former salary plus a lump sum pay-off. The changes will result in them contributing for the first time and paying tax on the income the pensions provide.

The government wants public sector workers to pay more into their pensions, work longer and retire with less.

PCS members have rejected the government's proposals and are supporting a programme of action with other unions.

Perhaps the judiciary should join us in taking action.

Read more...

Workfare & Sanctions: Using Benefits to Blackmail

Gillian Wilkes, from the West Midlands, was recently made redundant after working all her life. She describes her shock at the Job Centre’s treatment of claimants, and explains the reasons for her refusal to participate in one of the government’s workfare programmes.


Following redundancy I had to claim Jobseeker’s Allowance. I read the rules and regulations to ensure I didn't fall foul of any stipulations and dutifully carried out my job search.


However, at my fourth signing on appointment I was told by the advisor that because I had not applied for two jobs within the last fortnight, my search was not adequate and that my benefit would be stopped. I pointed out that I had completed the required six 'tasks' on the agreement, which included contacting two companies to see if there were any job vacancies available. The regulations did not stipulate that applying for 2 jobs was a condition of receiving benefit. The advisor didn't agree with me and informed me that my job search would be sent to the 'Decision Makers' to see if the doubt was justified. In the meantime, my benefits would be stopped immediately for two weeks.


I was horrified as my disabled husband and I had no other income (his claim is linked to mine). Those two weeks without money were the most humiliating of my life. We had to ask for food hand-outs from friends and family, couldn't pay any bills and had to scrounge tins of food for our dogs and cat. After both of us working for 45 years (I'm 60 and my husband is 63) and paying a lifetime of tax and contributions, we were being punished because I hadn't applied for two jobs.


That was in May and, to date, I have still not been notified of a decision by the Decision Makers. I appealed against the sanction and heard nothing. When I contacted the appeals department, I was told that my case would not be heard until around September.



‘Granny Groundworker’


Then, after signing on for just ten weeks, my advisor said she was referring me to the Mandatory Work Activity (MWA) programme. She handed me a letter without any explanation of what it was about. I asked her for some details and she mumbled something about skills.


A week later I received a text message from a company called Groundwork West Midlands telling me I had been referred to them. I checked them out on the internet and discovered they were an environmental company that trains young people in ‘groundwork’. I then started to worry what this was all about. Am I to be trained as ‘Granny Groundworker’, I wondered.


I then received a letter from this company, thanking me for attending an engagement meeting or telephone interview (I had been offered neither), and informing me that I was to start my MWA programme on the Monday coming. It said I must participate for 30 hours a week for four weeks at ‘Acorns’. The letter stated if I did not have good reason for turning up then, for my first offence, I would lose my benefit for 13 weeks, and for my second offence I would lose it for 26 weeks.


What am I now? A criminal it seems! I was simply told that I must dress smartly in black trousers and white shirt. There were no details about the work or the company so I contacted them to request some information.


Acorns turned out to be a charity shop. Now, I don't wish to sound like I am above charity shop work, as I know charity shop workers do a wonderful job, but what skills am I going to learn that will help me find the sort of job I am seeking? I do not need discipline or time-keeping lessons. I have worked as an Administrator, Secretary and Finance Officer for the past 45 years but now I am just being used for free labour.


Adding ten hours a week travelling time amounts to a 40 hour week but I would still have had to sign on, attend interviews and complete a job search every day. That means I would have had to complete my job searches in the evening. I would have thought it was illegal to expect people to work day and evening.

The Department for Work and Pensions contradicts itself as this programme stops people from doing the very thing they need to be doing: looking for paid and fulfilling work.


I have paid enough tax and contributions in my lifetime to cover the cost of my benefit so I find it insulting that after just a few weeks of claiming, I am expected to work for every penny. The programme is a total waste of taxpayer's money, which would be better spent on skills courses for the young unemployed, not placing the older, experienced generation on these money wasting programmes.



Money owed


I have now read other people's accounts and experiences on the internet regarding this MWA and believe advisors pick on claimants that have been sanctioned before or have challenged them over other issues. I personally believe it is very wrong they can use a claimant's benefit to blackmail them. Why should someone's welfare be in the hands of some judgemental advisor who is anxious to show her superiors that she is fulfilling her quota? There doesn't seem to be any way of complaining about this or challenging the referral without going to the very people who have placed you on the programme in the first place.


The DWP claim the sanctioning of benefits has stopped on ‘workfare’ programmes but it is clearly continuing. The greedy employers who exploit the unemployed should try living themselves without income for 26 weeks. They would soon back out of this scheme.


I have refused to attend this program and have now received a letter warning me that my benefit may be sanctioned. Fortunately, my husband is now entitled to receive Pension Credit so I can sign off JSA.

I will fight for a refund of my sanctioned benefit from May. After all, I feel it is money I am owed and will sue for it in court if necessary. I hope others will do the same.


And I will continue to campaign against the injustices of this MWA program, both for the benefit of those who do not have the means to fight back and for taxpayers in general, who are not aware of how their contributions are being used.


Thank you for taking the time and trouble to read this.

Corporate Watch